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
Claims 5 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/18/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one or more of a sulfur reactant, a selenium reactant, and a tellurium reactant, or combinations thereof” should be changed to “one or more of a sulfur reactant, a selenium reactant, and a tellurium reactant”. Appropriate correction is required. The dependent claims does not correct the deficiency.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: since the listed items include commas, the items of the list should be separated using semicolons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma after “comprises” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required. The dependent claims does not correct the deficiency.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “herein” should be changed to “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of improper content and implied language. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tois (US2018/0233350).
Regarding Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7, Tois teaches a method for selectively forming a passivation layer, the method comprising: seating a substrate including a first dielectric surface and a second metallic surface within a reaction chamber ([0055], [0119]); contacting the second metallic surface with a chalcogen reactant thereby forming a metal chalcogenide layer including a metal chalcogenide surface ([0090], 1-dodecanethiol); selectively depositing an organic passivation layer on the first dielectric surface relative to the metal chalcogenide surface ([0106]); and selectively removing the metal chalcogenide layer ([0092]).
Tois teaches an embodiment of forming a passivation layer on a dielectric surface relative to a metallic surface on a substrate ([0057]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the dielectric surface for forming the passivation layer of Tois, because Tois teaches the dielectric surface as a suitable substrate for the passivation layer and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Tois with any of the taught substrate materials.
Regarding Claim 2, Tois teaches performing a surface clean step on a surface of the substrate prior to contacting the substrate with the chalcogen reactant ([0070]).
Tois is silent as to the surface clean step removing a native oxide from the second metallic surface; however, Tois teaches the same treatment methods as those of applicant applied to the same substrates. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to the removal of a native oxide limitation, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112. In this situation, the prior art exemplifies the applicant's claimed treatment , so the claimed removal relating to the treatment are present in the prior art. Absent an objective evidentiary showing to the contrary, the addition of the physical properties to the claim language fail to provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 8, Tois teaches energizing the chalcogen reactant by applying thermal energy ([0210]).
Regarding Claim 9, Tois teaches performing multiple deposition cycles of a cyclical deposition process in which the substrate is alternately and sequentially contacted with a first vapor phase organic precursor and a second vapor phase organic precursor ([0100-0105]).
Regarding Claim 10, Tois teaches the first vapor phase organic precursor comprises a diamine, the second vapor phase organic precursor comprises a dianhydride, and the organic passivation layer comprises a polyimide ([0114-0117]).
Regarding Claim 12, Tois teaches tungsten and molybdenum surfaces ([0064]) and a dodecanethiol CVD precursor ([0090]), i.e. the metal chalcogenide layer comprises one of MoS2 or WS2.
Regarding Claim 13, Tois teaches contacting the second metallic surface with the chalcogen reactant is performed at a first process temperature (75-150C [0212]), and selectively depositing the organic passivation layer is performed at a second process temperature (190C [0130]), wherein the first process temperature is higher than the second process temperature. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the process temperatures of Tois, including those within the claimed limitations, because Tois teaches they are all suitable temperatures for use with the invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving the product of Tois with any of the taught temperatures.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tois (US2018/0233350) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Raiber (Raiber, Removal of self-assembled monolayers of alkanetiolates on gold by plasma cleaning, Surface Science, Volume 595, Issues 1-3, 5 December 2005, pg. 56-63).
Regarding Claim 11, Tois teaches selectively removing the metal chalcogenide layer (Claim 21, [0092]). Tois does not explicitly teach removing with a plasma generated from a gas comprising hydrogen, argon, a halide containing gas, or mixtures and combinations thereof; however, hydrogen plasma is a known removal treatment for self-assembled monolayers of sulfur on metallic surfaces (Raiber abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the removal of Tois to include hydrogen plasma cleaning, as taught in Raiber, because it is a known removal method and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the removal of Tois with a hydrogen plasma as taught in Raiber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tois (US 2019/0341245) teaches a method for selectively forming a passivation layer ([0007]) on a substrate including a first dielectric surface and a second metallic surface within a reaction chamber ([0024-0025]). Illiberi (US 20210301392) teaches a method for selectively forming a passivation layer on a dielectric surface relative to a metallic surface on a substrate wherein an organic passivation layer is selectively deposited on the dielectric surface relative to the metal surface (silylation, [0051]), subsequently the metal surface is contacted with a chalcogen reactant (dodecanethiol, [0082]) and the chalcogenide layer is later removed ([0212]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights