DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on November 7, 2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement
The present office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this office action are claims 1-20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2023, 3/4/2024 and 7/10/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-4, 7-9, 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fryxell (US 7,553,547) in view of Huang (US 2018/0201496).
With respect to Claim 1, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) most aspects of the current invention including a method of deposition comprising:
depositing a first layer (self-assembled monolayer) on a workpiece (substrate), wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor (Step 102; Fig 1);
introducing a second organosilane precursor (Step 104; Fig 1) around the workpiece with the first layer, wherein the second organosilane precursor is different from the first organosilane precursor, and wherein the second organosilane precursor is configured to eliminate defect sites and unreacted sites on the first layer and on a surface of the workpiece that includes the first layer (see Fig 2d; column 4 lines 58-61, 66-67 and column 5 lines 1-5)
Furthermore, although Fryxell shows wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor, Fryxell fails to show wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches a method of deposition comprising depositing a first layer (self-assembled monolayer) on a MEMS structure (workpiece), wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor, wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer (see par 24-25; Fig 3-4). Huang teaches the first layer being an anti-stiction layer allows the first layer to be properly coated on the surfaces of the MEMS structure (workpiece), such that the stiction failure is avoided on the MEMS structure (workpiece) (par 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer, in device of Fryxell, as taught by Huang, because the first layer being an anti-stiction layer allows the first layer to be properly coated on the surfaces of the MEMS structure (workpiece), such that the stiction failure is avoided on the MEMS structure (workpiece).
With respect to Claim 2, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) wherein the first layer is deposited using vapor deposition. Furthermore, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches wherein the first layer is deposited using vapor deposition.
With respect to Claim 3, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) further comprising depositing the second organosilane precursor on the first layer using vapor deposition.
With respect to Claim 4, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches wherein the first organosilane precursor is dimethyldichlorosilane or dimethyldiethoxysilane.
With respect to Claim 7, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) wherein the first layer is a self-assembled monolayer.
With respect to Claim 8, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) wherein the workpiece is silicon or aluminum oxide.
With respect to Claim 9, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) wherein the defect sites are hydroxyl groups.
With respect to Claim 11, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) wherein the second organosilane precursor has at least the same chain length as the first organosilane precursor.
With respect to Claim 12, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) most aspects of the current invention including a device comprising:
a first layer (self-assembled monolayer) disposed on a workpiece (substrate), wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor (Step 102; Fig 1);
a second layer disposed on the first layer, wherein the second layer is formed from a second organosilane precursor (Step 104; Fig 1), wherein the second organosilane precursor is different from the first organosilane precursor, and wherein the second organosilane precursor is configured to eliminate defect sites and unreacted sites on the first layer and on a surface of the workpiece that includes the first layer (see Fig 2d; column 4 lines 58-61, 66-67 and column 5 lines 1-5)
Furthermore, although Fryxell shows wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor, Fryxell fails to show wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches a device comprising a first layer (self-assembled monolayer) disposed on a MEMS structure (workpiece), wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor, wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer (see par 24-25; Fig 3-4). Huang teaches the first layer being an anti-stiction layer allows the first layer to be properly coated on the surfaces of the MEMS structure (workpiece), such that the stiction failure is avoided on the MEMS structure (workpiece) (par 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer, in device of Fryxell, as taught by Huang, because the first layer being an anti-stiction layer allows the first layer to be properly coated on the surfaces of the MEMS structure (workpiece), such that the stiction failure is avoided on the MEMS structure (workpiece).
With respect to Claim 13, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) wherein the workpiece is silicon or aluminum oxide.
With respect to Claim 14, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches wherein the first organosilane precursor is dimethyldichlorosilane or dimethyldiethoxysilane.
With respect to Claim 17, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) wherein the first layer is a self-assembled monolayer.
With respect to Claim 18, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) wherein the second organosilane precursor has at least the same chain length as the first organosilane precursor.
With respect to Claim 19, Fryxell shows (Fig. 1-3) wherein the defect sites are hydroxyl groups.
With respect to Claim 20, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches wherein the workpiece is part of a MEMS device.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shero (US 2011/0198736) in view of Huang (US 2018/0201496).
With respect to Claim 1, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) most aspects of the current invention including a method of deposition comprising:
depositing a first layer (self-assembled monolayer 322) on a workpiece (layer 308), wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor (334);
introducing a second organosilane precursor (338) around the workpiece with the first layer, wherein the second organosilane precursor is different from the first organosilane precursor, and wherein the second organosilane precursor is configured to eliminate defect sites and unreacted sites on the first layer and on a surface of the workpiece that includes the first layer (see par 34-36, 50)
Furthermore, although Shero shows wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor, Shero fails to show wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches a method of deposition comprising depositing a first layer (self-assembled monolayer) on a MEMS structure (workpiece), wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor, wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer (see par 24-25; Fig 3-4). Huang teaches the first layer being an anti-stiction layer allows the first layer to be properly coated on the surfaces of the MEMS structure (workpiece), such that the stiction failure is avoided on the MEMS structure (workpiece) (par 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer, in method of Shero, as taught by Huang, because the first layer being an anti-stiction layer allows the first layer to be properly coated on the surfaces of the MEMS structure (workpiece), such that the stiction failure is avoided on the MEMS structure (workpiece).
With respect to Claim 2, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) wherein the first layer is deposited using vapor deposition. Furthermore, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches wherein the first layer is deposited using vapor deposition.
With respect to Claim 3, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) further comprising depositing the second organosilane precursor on the first layer using vapor deposition.
With respect to Claim 4, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches wherein the first organosilane precursor is dimethyldichlorosilane or dimethyldiethoxysilane.
With respect to Claim 6, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) wherein the second organosilane precursor is trimethylchlorosilane.
With respect to Claim 7, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) wherein the first layer is a self-assembled monolayer.
With respect to Claim 8, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) wherein the workpiece is silicon or aluminum oxide.
With respect to Claim 10, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) further comprising performing a purging process that uses an inert gas between depositing the first layer and introducing the second organosilane precursor (Par 53,86).
With respect to Claim 12, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) most aspects of the current invention including a device comprising:
a first layer (self-assembled monolayer 322) disposed on a workpiece (layer 308), wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor (334);
a second layer disposed on the first layer, wherein the second layer is formed from a second organosilane precursor (338), wherein the second organosilane precursor is different from the first organosilane precursor, and wherein the second organosilane precursor is configured to eliminate defect sites and unreacted sites on the first layer and on a surface of the workpiece that includes the first layer (see par 34-36, 50)
Furthermore, although Shero shows wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor, Shero fails to show wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches a device comprising a first layer (self-assembled monolayer) on a MEMS structure (workpiece), wherein the first layer is formed from a first organosilane precursor, wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer (see par 24-25; Fig 3-4). Huang teaches the first layer being an anti-stiction layer allows the first layer to be properly coated on the surfaces of the MEMS structure (workpiece), such that the stiction failure is avoided on the MEMS structure (workpiece) (par 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first layer is an anti-stiction layer, in device of Shero, as taught by Huang, because the first layer being an anti-stiction layer allows the first layer to be properly coated on the surfaces of the MEMS structure (workpiece), such that the stiction failure is avoided on the MEMS structure (workpiece).
With respect to Claim 13, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) wherein the workpiece is silicon or aluminum oxide.
With respect to Claim 14, Huang (Fig 3-6) teaches wherein the first organosilane precursor is dimethyldichlorosilane or dimethyldiethoxysilane.
With respect to Claim 16, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) wherein the second organosilane precursor is trimethylchlorosilane
With respect to Claim 17, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) wherein the first layer is a self-assembled monolayer
With respect to Claim 20, Shero shows (Fig. 3A-3B, 4A-4B) wherein the workpiece is part of a MEMS device.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fryxell (US 7,553,547) in view of Huang (US 2018/0201496) and in further view of Yu (US 2017/0342553).
With respect to Claim 5, Fryxell in view of Huang shows most aspects of the present invention. However, the combination of references fail to show wherein the second organosilane precursor is N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Yu (Fig 1a-1d) teaches a method of deposition comprising introducing an organosilane precursor on a workpiece (substrate/layer 102), wherein the organosilane precursor is N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine (TMSDMA) (par 26). Yu teaches the organosilane precursor (TMSDMA) reacts selectively with the —OH groups on the SiO2 layer by substituting the —OH groups with the hydrophobic functional group. The substitution improves subsequent selective deposition on the first surface relative to on the hydrophobic modified second surface which has a long incubation time, which contains few or no adsorption sites for metal-containing precursors (par 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the second organosilane precursor is N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine, in method of Shero and Huang, as taught by Yu because the organosilane precursor (TMSDMA) reacts selectively with the —OH groups on the SiO2 layer by substituting the —OH groups with the hydrophobic functional group. The substitution improves subsequent selective deposition on the first surface relative to on the hydrophobic modified second surface which has a long incubation time, which contains few or no adsorption sites for metal-containing precursors.
Additionally, Yu teaches N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine is a material suitable for providing a second organosilane precursor in a method of deposition. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine as the material of the second organosilane precursor , in the method of Shero and Huang, because N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine is a suitable material for a organosilane precursor, as suggested by Yu, and selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. See, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to Claim 15, Fryxell in view of Huang shows most aspects of the present invention. However, the combination of references fail to show wherein the second organosilane precursor is N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Yu (Fig 1a-1d) teaches a device comprising introducing an organosilane precursor on a workpiece (substrate/layer 102), wherein the organosilane precursor is N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine (TMSDMA) (par 26). Yu teaches the organosilane precursor (TMSDMA) reacts selectively with the —OH groups on the SiO2 layer by substituting the —OH groups with the hydrophobic functional group. The substitution improves subsequent selective deposition on the first surface relative to on the hydrophobic modified second surface which has a long incubation time, which contains few or no adsorption sites for metal-containing precursors (par 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the second organosilane precursor is N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine, in the device of Shero and Huang, as taught by Yu because the organosilane precursor (TMSDMA) reacts selectively with the —OH groups on the SiO2 layer by substituting the —OH groups with the hydrophobic functional group. The substitution improves subsequent selective deposition on the first surface relative to on the hydrophobic modified second surface which has a long incubation time, which contains few or no adsorption sites for metal-containing precursors.
Additionally, Yu teaches N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine is a material suitable for providing a second organosilane precursor in a method of deposition. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine as the material of the second organosilane precursor , in the device of Shero and Huang, because N,N- dimethyltrimethylsilylamine is a suitable material for a organosilane precursor, as suggested by Yu, and selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. See, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTON A BRASFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-0804. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/Q.A.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814