CTNF 18/439,305 CTNF 99311 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-22-03 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ 145 ” has been used to designate both an upper dielectric layer that contains the gap, with the bottom of the gap being filled with a blocking layer (150), as required in claim 1 , and a lower dielectric layer that is situated below the blocking layer . 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. 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. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will cite art that teaches the upper dielectric having a gap, with the bottom of the gap filled with a blocking layer. 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. Claims 3, 5, and 18 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. As explained below, these claims are very broad that they each “encompass[es] a massive number of distinct alternative members … [such that] one skilled in the art cannot determine its metes and bounds due to an inability to envision all of the compounds defined by the Markush group(s)” (MPEP 2173.05(h) § I). Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation of "having in a range of from 1 to 25 carbon atoms." It is unclear as whether this limitation applies only to "amide group" or also modifies all of "alkyl group, alkene group, alkyne group, ether group.” Second, the limitation of "having in a range of from 1 to 25 C atoms" might mean that the variable has only carbons, or it might mean that it also has a bunch of non-carbon atoms, as long as the total number of carbons is <= 25. Third, even if we presume that "having in a range of from 1–25 C atoms" applies to, say, the "ether group", it is unclear whether that ether group must be at the R position, or whether it can be anywhere within the substituent. For example: does it have to be this: [chemical structure 1]-C-O- C=C-R' or can it be this: [chemical structure 1]-C-O-C-[chemical structure 2]- C=C-R', where the bold bit is the drawn part of the formula. Regarding claims 5 and 18 , these claims the same problems as claim 3 with regards to the variable positions in the structural formula. Please see the details of these structural problems in the claim 3 rejection above. In summary, the scope of the structures as required in claims 5 and 18 that are encompassed by the variables is unclear, which results with the claims not distinctly requiring which compounds fall within the scope of “at least one additive.” For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will find art that teaches chemicals having the same functional group of the structures required by the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4, 6-8, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US 2020/0144107 A1) in view of Lee (US 2020/0020580 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Dutta teaches a method of manufacturing a microelectronic device (Fig. 15), the method comprising: forming a dielectric layer (108, see Fig. 3 and drawings objection above) on a substrate (substrate is below 101, see ¶ [0049]: “ Insulating layer 201 can be formed on… a semiconductor substrate ”), the dielectric layer including at least one feature defining a gap (135) having sidewalls (vertical surfaces of 135) and a bottom (bottom horizontal surfaces of 135); forming a blocking layer (140, see Fig. 5; ¶ [0042]: “ SAM 140 … prevents deposition of the barrier layer on the metallic material 104 ”; hence 140 is a blocking layer ) on the bottom by exposing the substrate to a blocking species (¶ [0042]: alkyl or alkenyl ), the blocking species comprising a hydrocarbon (an alkyl or an alkenyl is known in the art as a functional group of hydrocarbons); selectively depositing a barrier layer (150, see Fig. 6) on the sidewalls; removing the blocking layer (see Fig. 7 and ¶ [0046] ); and performing a gap fill process (see Fig. 8 and ¶ [0047] ) to fill the gap with a gapfill material (160). Dutta further teaches the blocking layer to be a SAM layer (¶ [0042] ). However, Dutta does not teach adding at least one additive to the blocking species. Lee, in the same field of invention, teaches a method of adding at least one additive (¶ [0018]: multi-solvent solution ) to the blocking species (blocking compound; ¶ [0018]: SAM solution is composed of a blocking compound and the multi-solvent solution). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Lee into the method of Dutta to add at least one additive to the blocking species. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the coverage of the blocking layer by fine-tuning the physical properties of the blocking layer such as solubility, viscosity, and/or dielectric constant through the use of the additive, i.e., multi-solvent solution (Lee ¶ [0016] ), with the ordinary skilled artisan noting that Lee also teaches using a hydrocarbon (¶ [0018]: alkyl group) as the blocking species in a SAM solution (¶ [0018]) . Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one additive comprises one or more of an oxygen-containing compound (Lee ¶ [0019]: multi-solvent solution includes alcohol and an ester; alcohols are known in the art to contain an -OH group and esters are known in the art to contain a -COOR group, both of which have oxygen ) or a nitrogen-containing compound. Regarding claim 6, Dutta et al. teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the at least one additive has a concentration in a range of from 1 ppm to 200,000 ppm in the blocking species. However, Lee further teaches optimizing the concentration of the alcohol and ester components of the additive in terms of weight percents in the range of 10 wt. % to 90 wt. % (¶ [0019]: for example, alcohol: 10 wt. % to 90 wt. %, ester: 10 wt. % to 90 wt. %; see also Table 1 above ¶ [0030] ). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Lee into the method of Dutta et al. to set the concentration of the at least one additive to a range of 1 ppm to 200,000 ppm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the ranges of the concentration of the at least one additive for the further purpose of adjusting the solubility of the blocking compound, and/or to improve the coverage and selectivity of the blocking layer (Lee ¶ [0019] ), and/or to optimize the Al/Cu ratios in order to protect the metal portion (110; see ¶ [0029]-[0031]). The ordinary skilled artisan would also find it obvious that parts per million (ppm), which is a measurement of concentration in terms of volume, is another representation of concentration in terms of weight as expressed in wt. %, since weight/mass and volume is a ratio of density. Furthermore, Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("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."). Also, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning). See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A) and MPEP 2144 (I). Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 6, wherein the at least one additive has a concentration in a range of from 1 ppm to 1,500 ppm in the blocking species (Lee ¶ [0019]; see also claim 6 rejection ). Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, wherein the barrier layer (150, see Dutta Fig. 7) comprises tantalum nitride (TaN) formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (see Dutta ¶ [0045] ). Regarding claim 14, the method of claim 1, wherein removing the blocking layer comprises a plasma treatment process (plasma etch; see Dutta ¶ [0046] ). Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 1, wherein the gapfill material comprises one or more of copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), ruthenium (Ru), tungsten (W), or molybdenum (Mo) (copper, cobalt, or tungsten; see Dutta ¶ [0047] and ¶ [0032]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US 2020/0144107 A1) in view of Lee (US 2020/0020580 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wojtecki (US 2023/0178370 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Dutta et al. teach the method of claim 1, but do not teach the method to be further comprising of precleaning the substrate prior to forming the blocking layer. Wojtecki, in the same field of invention, teaches a method comprised of precleaning the substrate (see step 102 in Fig. 1; also see Fig. 2 and ¶ [0030] ) prior to forming the blocking layer (302 is a self-assembled monolayer, see step 104 in Fig. 1; also see Figs. 3-6 and ¶ [0031]-[0038] ). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Wojtecki into the method of Dutta et al. to preclean the substrate before performing the method steps of Dutta et al. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of ensuring the surfaces of the substrate is devoid of any substances that may interfere with the blocking species of Dutta (see Wojtecki ¶ [0028]: “ cleaning to promote quick depositions on a structure ” ), with the person of ordinary skill noting that since Dutta teaches the blocking species to be a self-assembled monolayer that has a functional group that needs to bind to the metallic layer (104; see Dutta ¶ [0042] and Fig. 5 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US 2020/0144107 A1) in view of Lee (US 2020/0020580 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in in view of Chin (US 2022/0246534 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Dutta et al. teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach the method to be further comprised of selectively depositing a metal liner on the barrier layer on the sidewalls prior to removing the blocking layer. Chin, in the same field of invention, teaches a method of selectively (1422 is not deposited on 1502; see Fig. 15E and ¶ [0147] ) depositing a metal liner (1422) on the barrier layer (1420; ¶ [0136]: made of TaN ) on the sidewalls prior to removing the blocking layer (1502 is removed in Fig. 15F and ¶ [0148]; see also ¶ [0143]: “ 1502 prevents or blocks tantalum nitride and ruthenium precursors from being absorbed into the bottom surface ” ). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Chin into the method of Dutta et al. to selectively deposit a metal liner on the barrier layer on the sidewalls prior to removing the blocking layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using the metal liner as a diffusion barrier for a copper layer (1424, see Chin Fig. 15G and ¶ [0137] ), for the further purpose of forming low-resistance interconnects in order to improve device performance (¶ [0025] ). Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 9, wherein the metal liner comprises one or more of ruthenium (Ru), cobalt (cobalt), molybdenum (Mo), and tantalum (Ta) (1422 made of ruthenium; see Chin ¶ [0136] ). Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 10, wherein the metal liner comprises a single layer of ruthenium (Ru) (see Chin ¶ [0136] ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US 2020/0144107 A1) in view of Lee (US 2020/0020580 A1) and Chin (US 2022/0246534 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Hsueh (US 2023/0290678 A1) . Regarding claim 12, Dutta et al. teach the method of claim 10, but does not teach: wherein the metal liner comprises a multilayer film having a first liner layer comprised of a first metal and a second liner layer comprised of a second metal. Hsueh, in the same field of invention, teaches a method wherein the metal liner (208&210; see Fig. 2A) comprises a multilayer film having a first liner layer (208) comprised of a first metal (¶ [0028]: 208 made of ruthenium ) and a second liner layer (210) comprised of a second metal (¶ [0029]: 210 made of cobalt) A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Hsueh into the method of Dutta et al. to modify the metal liner to be a multilayer film having a first liner layer and a second liner layer, with each liner layers comprised of two different metals. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improving the performance of the device by reducing the resistance between interconnects (Hsueh ¶ [0020] ). Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 12, wherein the first metal comprises ruthenium (Ru) and the second metal comprises cobalt (Co) (see Hsueh ¶ [0028]: 208 made of ruthenium; ¶ [0029]: 210 made of cobalt) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US 2020/0144107 A1) in view of Lee (US 2020/0020580 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kuo (US 2021/0391275 A1) . Regarding claim 15, Dutta et al. teach the method of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plasma treatment process increases a density of the barrier layer. Kuo, in the same field of invention, teaches a plasma treatment process that increases a density of the barrier layer (see ¶ [0049]: “ the plasma treatment process increases the density of the barrier layer ” ). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kuo into the method of Dutta et al. to modify the plasma treatment process, which removes the blocking layer (note: both Dutta ¶ [0046] and Kuo ¶ [0049] teaches removing the blocking layer using a plasma treatment process; Kuo specifically teaches sacrificial layer 48 as a blocking layer, see Fig. 5 and ¶ [0029]: “ a sacrificial layer 48 comprising a layer of 5-Decyne molecules can prevent the barrier layer 50 from forming on the conductive filling material 28 ”), to have the plasma treatment process increase a density of the barrier layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improving the selective formation of the barrier layer (Kuo ¶ [0011]: “[ T ] he selective formation of the conductive barrier layer is achieved through forming a sacrificial layer on an underlying metal feature. The sacrificial layer resists adhesion of the barrier layer material such that the barrier layer is selectively grown on the sidewalls of the via opening, with little or no barrier layer being formed on the sacrificial layer ” ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US 2020/0144107 A1) in view of Lee (US 2020/0020580 A1), Chin (US 2022/0246534 A1), and Wojtecki (US 2023/0178370 A1) . Regarding claim 17, Dutta teaches a method of manufacturing a microelectronic device (Fig. 15), the method comprising: forming a dielectric layer (108, see Fig. 3) on the substrate (substrate is below 101, see ¶ [0049]: “ Insulating layer 201 can be formed on… a semiconductor substrate ”), the dielectric layer including at least one feature defining a gap (135) having sidewalls (vertical surfaces of 108 bounded by 135) and a bottom (horizontal surfaces of 108 bounded by 135); forming a blocking layer (140, see Fig. 5) on the bottom by exposing the substrate to a blocking species (¶ [0042]: alkyl or alkenyl), the blocking species comprising a hydrocarbon (an alkyl or an alkenyl is known in the art as a functional group of hydrocarbons); selectively depositing a barrier layer (150, see Fig. 6) on the sidewalls, the barrier layer comprising tantalum nitride (TaN) formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (see ¶ [0045]); removing the blocking layer (see Fig. 7 and ¶ [0046] ); and performing a gap fill process (see Fig. 8 and ¶ [0047] ) to fill the gap with a gapfill material (160) comprising one or more of copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), ruthenium (Ru), tungsten (W), or molybdenum (Mo) (copper, cobalt, or tungsten; see ¶ [0047] and ¶ [0032]). However, Dutta does not teach the method to be comprised of adding at least one additive to the blocking species, the at least one additive comprising one or more of an oxygen-containing compound or a nitrogen-containing compound. Lee, in the same field of invention, teaches a method/device method comprised of adding at least one additive (¶ [0018]: multi-solvent solution ) to the blocking species (blocking compound; ¶ [0018]: SAM solution is composed of a blocking compound and the multi-solvent solution), the at least one additive comprising one or more of an oxygen-containing compound (¶ [0019]: multi-solvent solution includes alcohol and an ester; alcohols are known in the art to contain an -OH group and esters contain a -COOR group, both of which have oxygen ) or a nitrogen-containing compound. A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Lee into the method of Dutta to add at least one additive to the blocking species, with the additive to be comprised of one or more of an oxy-gen-containing compound or nitrogen-containing compound. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the coverage of the blocking layer by fine-tuning the physical properties of the blocking layer such as solubility, viscosity, and/or dielectric constant through the use of the additive, i.e., multi-solvent solution (Lee ¶ [0016] ), with the ordinary skilled artisan noting that Lee also teaches using a hydrocarbon (¶ [0018]: alkyl group) as the main component of the blocking species. However, Dutta et al. do not teach the method to be comprised of selectively depositing a metal liner on the barrier layer on the sidewalls, the metal liner comprising one or more of ruthenium (Ru), cobalt (cobalt), molybdenum (Mo), and tantalum (Ta). Chin, in the same field of invention, teaches a method comprised of selectively (1420 is not deposited on 1502; see Fig. 15E) depositing a metal liner (1422) on the barrier layer (1420; ¶ [0136]: made of TaN ) on the sidewalls, the metal liner comprising one or more of ruthenium (Ru), cobalt (cobalt), molybdenum (Mo), and tantalum (Ta) (ruthenium; see ¶ [0136] ). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Chin into the method of Dutta et al. to selectively deposit a metal liner on the barrier layer on the sidewalls, with the metal liner comprising one or more of ruthenium, cobalt, molybdenum, and tantalum. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using the metal liner as a diffusion barrier for a copper layer (1424, see Chin ¶ [0137] ), for the further purpose of forming low-resistance interconnects in order to improve device performance (¶ [0025] ). However, Dutta et al. does not teach the method to be comprised of precleaning the substrate. Wojtecki, in the same field of invention, teaches a method comprised of precleaning the substrate (see step 102 in Fig. 1; also see Fig. 2 and ¶ [0030] ). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Wojtecki into the method of Dutta et al. to preclean the substrate before performing the method steps of Dutta et al. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of ensuring the surfaces of the substrate is devoid of any substances that may interfere with the blocking species of Dutta (see Wojtecki ¶ [0028]: “ cleaning to promote quick depositions on a structure ” ), with the person of ordinary skill noting that since Dutta teaches the blocking species to be a self-assembled monolayer that has a functional group that needs to bind to the metallic layer (104; see Dutta ¶ [0042] and Fig. 5 ) and with the person of ordinary skill also noting that Wojtecki teaches also using a self-assembled monolayer (302 is a self-assembled monolayer, see Fig. 6 and ¶ [0031]).] Regarding claim 18 , the method of claim 17, wherein the at least one additive has a general of Formula (III) (Lee ¶ [0019]: solvent includes an alcohol, such as PGME; alcohols are known in the art to belong to the -OH functional group; see 112 (b) rejection above ), Formula (IV) , Formula (V) (Lee ¶ [0019]: solvent includes an ester, such as PGMEA; esters are known in the art to belong to the -COOR functional group; see 112 (b) rejection above ), Formula (VI), or Formula (VII). PNG media_image1.png 278 573 media_image1.png Greyscale where R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each independently hydrogen (H), an alkyl group, an alkene group, an alkyne group, an ether group, or an amide group having in a range of from 1 to 18 carbon (C) atoms (Lee ¶ [0019] teaches using solvents having any alcohol and ester; hence any alcohol and/or ester can read into the Markush groups defined in the claim; see also 112 (b) rejection above). Regarding claim 19, Dutta et al. teaches the method of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the at least one additive has a concentration in a range of from 1 ppm to 200,000 ppm in the blocking species. However, Lee further teaches optimizing the concentration of the alcohol and ester components of the additive in terms of weight percents (¶ [0019]: for example, alcohol: 10 wt. % to 90 wt. %, ester: 10 wt. % to 90 wt. %; see also Table 1 above ¶ [0030] ). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Lee into the method of Dutta et al. to set the concentration of the at least one additive to a range of 1 ppm to 200,000 ppm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Dutta et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the ranges of the concentration of the at least one additive for the further purpose of adjusting the solubility of the blocking compound, and/or to improve the coverage and selectivity of the blocking layer (Lee ¶ [0019] ), and/or to optimize the Al/Cu ratios in order to protect the metal portion (110; see ¶ [0029]-[0031]). The ordinary skilled artisan would also find it obvious that parts per million (ppm), which is a measurement of concentration in terms of volume, is another representation of concentration in terms of weight as expressed in wt. %, since weight/mass and volume is a ratio of density. Furthermore, Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("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."). Also, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning). See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A) and MPEP 2144 (I). Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 19, wherein the at least one additive has a concentration in a range of from 1 ppm to 1,500 ppm in the blocking species (Lee ¶ [0019]; see also claim 6 rejection ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2020/0350204 A1) in view of Lee (US 2020/0020580 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a method of manufacturing a microelectronic device (¶ [0019]: method applied to semiconductor wafers), the method comprising: forming a dielectric layer (210, see Fig. 2; note: non-metallic layer 210 is a dielectric as described in ¶ [0007] ) on a substrate (205; see ¶ [0049] ), the dielectric layer including at least one feature defining a gap (206) having sidewalls (207, 208) and a bottom (209); forming a blocking layer (230) on the bottom by exposing the substrate to a blocking species (¶ [0050]: an unsaturated hydrocarbon, represented by R′≡R″ ), the blocking species comprising a hydrocarbon (¶ [0050] ); selectively depositing a barrier layer (240; ¶ [0051] ) on the sidewalls; removing the blocking layer (¶ [0052] ] ); and performing a gap fill process (Fig. 2 shows 250 filling the gap; also see ¶ [0053] ). However, Yu does not teach: adding at least one additive to the blocking species. Lee, in the same field of invention, teaches a method of adding at least one additive (¶ [0018]: multi-solvent solution ) to the blocking species (alkyl chain blocking compound described in ¶ [0018]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Lee into the method of Dutta to add at least one additive to the blocking species. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yu in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the coverage of the blocking layer by fine-tuning the physical properties of the blocking layer such as solubility, viscosity, and/or dielectric constant through the use of the additive, i.e., multi-solvent solution (Lee ¶ [0016] ), with the ordinary skilled artisan noting that Lee also teaches using a hydrocarbon (¶ [0018]: alkyl group) as the blocking species. Regarding claim 3 , the method of claim 1, wherein the hydrocarbon is an unsaturated hydrocarbon having a general formula of Formula (I) or Formula (II) (Yu ¶ [0032], [0033]: R′═R″ or R′≡R″), PNG media_image2.png 98 306 media_image2.png Greyscale where R and R’ are each independently hydrogen (H), an alkyl group, an alkene group, an alkyne group, an ether group, or an amide group having in a range of from 1 to 25 (C) atoms (see Yu ¶ [0035]; see also 112(b) rejection above). Regarding claim 5 , the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one additive has a general of Formula (III) (Lee ¶ [0019]: solvent includes an alcohol, such as PGME; alcohols are known in the art to belong to the -OH functional group; see 112 (b) rejection above ), Formula (IV) , Formula (V) (Lee ¶ [0019]: solvent includes an ester, such as PGMEA; esters are known in the art to belong to the -COOR functional group; see 112 (b) rejection above ), Formula (VI), or Formula (VII). PNG media_image1.png 278 573 media_image1.png Greyscale where R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each independently hydrogen (H), an alkyl group, an alkene group, an alkyne group, an ether group, or an amide group having in a range of from 1 to 18 carbon (C) atoms (Lee ¶ [0019] teaches using solvents having any alcohol and ester; hence any alcohol and/or ester can read into the Markush groups defined in the claim; see also 112 (b) rejection above). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS YAP whose telephone number is (703)756-1946. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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. /DOUGLAS YAP/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 2 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 3 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 4 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 5 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 6 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 7 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 8 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 9 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 10 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 11 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 12 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 13 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 14 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 15 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 16 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/439,305 Page 17 Art Unit: 2899
Prosecution Insights