DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species 1 in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the indicated "species" significantly overlap with one another…."[c]urrently there is no generic claim." Applicant respectfully submits that this is not entirely the case. For example, independent claims 1 and 16 (and FIGS. 1 and 6) are believed to be generic to four of the indicated species – Species 1 -4… there would be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider the embodiments of at least species 1-4 together…the ER does not provide any support for the assertion that there is a "serious search and/or examination burden". This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons:
Firstly, the statement “[c]urrently there is no generic claim” in the Election requirement means currently there is no generic claim for all indicated species. Claims 1 and 16 may be generic for some but not all indicated species. In addition, Applicant is required to correctly “identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added.” Even if generic claim was incorrectly identified in the Election requirement, the election requirement is still proper because the species are independent or distinct and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner.
Secondly, even though “the indicated "species" significantly overlap with one another, the species are independent or distinct because each of these species requires mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. Specifically, among species 1-5, species 1-4 requires in the second operation (S220), applying a compound represented by XmSi(NR1R2)n or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n while species 5 requires in the second operation (S220), a compound represented by NR(SiX3)2 is applied. Among species 1-4, species 1 requires second material film 120 include a second surface 120S at which an amine group (-NH2) is exposed while species 2-4 require second material film 220 include a second surface 220S on or at which a hydrogen atom (-H) is exposed. Among species 2-4, species 2 requires a silicon-containing thin film formed on the third material film 230 while species 3 requires a silicon nitride film formed on the third material film 230 and species 4 requires a silicon carbonitride film formed on the third material film 230. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. (See pages 2-3 of Election requirement).
The election requirement clearly stated that “[t]here is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least one or more of the following reasons apply:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and/or
prior art applied to one species or grouping of patentably indistinct species that cannot be applied to the other species or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species.
Therefore, only one of the above reasons is needed to show a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species. In addition, “Examiners must provide reasons and/or examples to support conclusions, but need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases.” [See MPEP 803 II].
Thirdly, Applicant has not provided any evidence to support for Applicant’s assertion “there would be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider the embodiments of at least species 1-4 together.” Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species would not require a different field of search for example, would not require different search strategies or search queries. Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that prior art applied to one species or grouping of patentably indistinct species that can be applied to the other species or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species. Applicant has not explained how a prior art disclosed a compound represented by XmSi(NR1R2)n or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n can be used to teach a compound represented by NR(SiX3)2 or how a prior art disclosed a second surface at which an amine group (-NH2) is exposed can be used to teach a second surface on or at which a hydrogen atom (-H) is exposed, etc..
Finally, if Applicant is aware of a prior art that can be applied to more than one species, such as a prior art that can be applied to species 1-4, Applicant is remined that Applicant has duty to timely disclose such a prior art. “[n]o patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct.” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.56).
Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 21-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2022-0129790 filed on 10/11/2022 and KR10-2023-0117217. The foreign applications are not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority applications KR10-2022-0129790 and KR10-2023-0117217 have been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR10-2022-0129790 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2022-0129790 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0117217 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2023-0117217 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The foreign applications must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “a predetermined material film” and “a desired material film” of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 16 recites the limitations “a predetermined material film” and “a desired material film”. However, the specification fails to provide a clear definition of the claim term as well as clearly identify the part or parts of the drawings therein to which the term applies. “The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description.” See MPEP § 608.01 (o), and § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the exposed surface of the second material film". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claim 1 will be interpreted and examined as --an exposed surface of the second material film--.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the limitation "the exposed surface of the second material film". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In addition, claim 16 recites the limitation “removing the inhibitor liner from the surface of the first material film in order to selectively form a predetermined material film only on a desired material film on a semiconductor substrate”. As stated above, the specification fails to provide sufficient definition of the terms “a predetermined material film” and “a desired material film”. Thus, it is unclear which part or parts of the drawings the terms “a predetermined material film” and “a desired material film” refer to. Additionally, it is unclear if “a semiconductor substrate” recited in the above limitation is the same or different from “a semiconductor substrate” previously recited in the limitation “forming a structure on a semiconductor substrate.”
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (US Pub. 20230175116) in view of Borovik et al. (US Pub. 20020180028)
Regarding claim 1, Nakatani et al. discloses in Fig. 5A-5E, a selective thin film formation method, comprising:
forming a structure [first base and second base] on a substrate [200] in which a first material film [first base/silicon oxide film] including silicon atoms and oxygen atoms and a second material film [second base] different from the first material film [first base/silicon oxide film] are exposed [Fig. 5A, paragraph [0045], paragraph [0209]];
selectively forming an inhibitor liner [inhibitor layer] only on an exposed surface of the first material film [first base/silicon oxide film] among the first material film [first base/silicon oxide film] and the second material film [second base/silicon nitride film] by applying a compound [modifying agent] to the structure [Fig. 5C, paragraph [0047], [0086]-[0088], [0098], [0204], [0206]-[0207]]; and
selectively forming a third material film [Film] only on an exposed surface of the second material film [second base/silicon nitride film] among the first material film and the second material film.
Nakatani et al. fails to disclose
the compound represented by XmSi(NR1R2)n or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n,
wherein: X is a halogen atom, R2, and R3 are each independently an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, an allyl group, or a heterocyclic group, a, m, and n are each independently an integer of 1 to 3, and m+n=4.
However, Nakatani et al. discloses in paragraph [0098] and paragraph [0204]- [0206] that that an aminosilane compound containing a structure in which amino groups are directly bonded to silicon (Si), and/or an aminosilane compound containing a fluorosilyl group can be used.
Borovik et al. discloses in paragraph [0034], [0036]-[0038]
an aminosilane compound represented by XmSi(NR1R2)n [R3xSiAy(NR1R2)4-x-y; when x = 0 ] or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n [R3xSiAy(NR1R2)4-x-y; when x = 1, y=1]
wherein: X is a halogen atom, R2, and R3 are each independently an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, an allyl group, or a heterocyclic group, a, m, and n are each independently an integer of 1 to 3, and m+n=4
It would have been obvious to select aminosilane compound disclosed by Borovik et al. based on its suitability for use as the aminosilane compound in the method of Nakatani et al. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Borovik et al. into the method of Nakatani et al. to include the compound represented by XmSi(NR1R2)n or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n, wherein: X is a halogen atom, R2, and R3 are each independently an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, an allyl group, or a heterocyclic group, a, m, and n are each independently an integer of 1 to 3, and m+n=4. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakatani et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a novel aminosilane compound containing a fluorosilyl group to form an inhibitor layer containing fluorosilyl terminations [paragraph [0034], [0037] of Borovik et al., Paragraph [0206], [0207] of Nakatani et al.].
Regarding claim 2, Nakatani et al. discloses in Fig. 6A-6B, paragraph [0088]-[0090]
wherein: before the forming of the inhibitor liner [inhibitor layer], a hydroxyl group [OH group] is distributed on the exposed surface of the first material film [first base//silicon oxide film], and a hydroxyl group [OH group] is not distributed on an exposed surface of the second material film [“while the entire region of the first surface is OH-terminated, the most region of the second surface is not OH-terminated”].
Regarding claims 3-5, Nakatani et al. discloses applying an aminosilane compound to a hydroxyl group [OH group] distributed on the exposed surface of the first material film while the second surface is not OH-terminated. Borovik et al. discloses the aminosilane compound represented by XmSi(NR1R2)n or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n. Thus, the combination of Nakatani et al. and Borovik et al. discloses the claimed process using the claimed compound on the claimed hydroxyl group. Thus, similar to the claimed process, the combination of Nakatani et al. and Borovik et al. would result to the limitation of claims 3-5 in which “an unshared electron pair of the hydroxyl group reacts with the silicon atom of XmSi(NR1R2)n or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n to leave an amine group from XmSi(NR1R2)n or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n”; “wherein the inhibitor liner is formed by combining XmSi(NR1R2)n or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n from which the amine group is separated and the hydroxyl group from which the unshared electron pair is separated”; “wherein a functional group including an unshared electron pair is not present on the exposed surface of the second material film.”
Regarding claim 6, Nakatani et al. discloses in paragraph [0045], and paragraph [0209] wherein the second material film [second base] includes single crystal silicon, polysilicon, a silicon nitride, a metal, or a metal oxide.
Regarding claim 7, Nakatani et al. discloses in paragraph [0101], [0209]-[0210]
wherein the third material film [Film] includes a same type of material [SiN, Si, or W] including substantially same atoms as the second material film [second base/SiN, Si, or W].
Regarding claim 10, Nakatani et al. discloses in paragraph [0204]- [0206] that the aminosilane compound contains a fluorosilyl group (FSi group). Borovik et al. discloses in paragraph [0034], [0036]-[0038] an aminosilane compound containing halogen which includes fluorine, chlorine, iodine and bromine. Therefore, the combination of Nakatani et al. and Borovik et al. suggest wherein X is fluorine.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (US Pub. 20230175116) in view of Borovik et al. (US Pub. 20020180028) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nakatani (US Pub. 20240105443), hereafter Nakatani443
Regarding claim 8, Nakatani et al. fails to discloses
wherein the forming of the third material is performed at a process temperature in a range of about 400 °C to about 800 °C.
Nakatani443 discloses in Fig. 4C, paragraph [0117]-[0147]
wherein the forming of the third material [first film] is performed at a process temperature in a range of about 400 °C to about 800 °C [400 to 550 degrees C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakatani443 into the method of Nakatani et al. to include wherein the forming of the third material is performed at a process temperature in a range of about 400 °C to about 800 °C. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakatani et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable process condition of the forming of the third material.
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Nakatani et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 9, Nakatani443 disclosed the claimed process temperature. Thus, the process temperature disclosed by Nakatani443 would have a property of “thermal energy provided in the process temperature is less than a bonding energy between the silicon atom and the halogen atom in XmSi(NR1R2)n or (XaR3)mSi(NR1R2)n”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893