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 without traverse of Group-II claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 19-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group-I,
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jongyoon Bae ET AL: "Investigation of the Hydrophobic Nature of Metal Oxide Surfaces Created by Atomic Layer Deposition", Langmuir, vol. 35, no. 17, 10 April 2019 (2019-04-10), pages 5762-5769,XP093125957, US ISSN: 0743-7463, DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b00577 in view of Yu et al (US20170342553A1).
Re claim 1 Bae teaches, a method of processing a substrate (α-Al2O3, α-Sio2 or Y/Tio2 experimental method), comprising: forming an oxide layer (Al2O3, SiO2 or Tio2, Abstract page 5762) containing a predetermined element (Al, Si or Ti, pages 5762) by supplying a precursor gas containing the predetermined element (see table 2 , page 5763) to the substrate such that hydroxyl group terminations are formed on a surface of the oxide layer (introduction, hydroxyl groups on the surface, page-5762) and
(b) hydrophobizing the surface of the oxide layer (fig 3, depicting the increase of hydrophobicity) by supplying a modifying gas containing a hydrocarbon group to the substrate (table 2, exposed to atmospheric hydrocarbons, page 5766).
Bae does not teach a first film on the substrate.
Yu taches a first film (304, fig 3A) [0041] formed on the substrate [0041].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by into the structure of Bae to include a first film on the substrate as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bae based on the teaching of Yu in the above manner for the purpose of achieving improved deposition selectivity to provide a greater margin for line-to-line breakdown and electrical leakage performance in the device [0011].
Bae and Yu do not teach a density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the oxide layer is higher than a density of hydroxyl group terminations on a surface of the first film before forming the oxide layer.
Bae does teach a density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the oxide layer is higher than a density of hydroxyl group terminations on a surface of the first film (top surface of α-Al2O3 substrate) before forming the oxide layer (see fig 3 the surfaces of the single crystals are more hydrophobic than the deposited layers, as described in the introduction page 5762, for metal oxides this is due to increase of hydroxyl groups).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Bae and Yu to include a density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the oxide layer is higher than a density of hydroxyl group terminations on a surface of the first film before forming the oxide layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bae in the above manner for the purpose of surface protection. [page 5763].
Re claim 2 Bae in view of Yu teaches the method of claim 1, the first film (304, fig 3A) [0041] is an oxygen-free film [Yu, 0041].
Re claim 3 Bae teaches, the method of Claim 1,
Bae does not teach in (a), the oxide layer is further formed on a second film formed on the substrate , a composition of the second film being different from a composition of the first film .
Yu teaches, in (a), the oxide layer (306, fig 3A) [0041] is further formed on a second film (302, fig 3A) formed on the substrate [0041], a composition of the second film (302, Sio2) being different from a composition of the first film (304, fig 1B) [0026-0027].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Yu into the structure of Bae to include in (a), the oxide layer is further formed on a second film formed on the substrate, a composition of the second film being different from a composition of the first film as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bae based on the teaching of Yu in the above manner for the purpose of achieving improved deposition selectivity [0011].
Re claims 4 and 5 Bae in view of Yu tach the method of Claim 3, wherein the density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the surface of the first film before (a) is different from a density of hydroxyl group terminations on a surface of the second film before (a) claim 4 and the density of the hydroxyl group terminations formed on the surface of the oxide layer is higher than the density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the surface of the second film before (a) claim 5.
Bae does not teach the density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the surface of the first film before (a) is different from a density of hydroxyl group terminations on a surface of the second film before (a).
Yu does teach the density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the surface of the first film before (a) is different from a density of hydroxyl group terminations on a surface (surface of 304) of the second film (304, fig 3A) [0041] before (a) claim 4 and the density of the hydroxyl group terminations formed on the surface of the oxide layer is higher than the density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the surface of the second film (304, fig 3A) before (a) claim 5 (Yu teaches the hydroxyl group termination on the surface of the first film and hydroxyl group terminations on the surface of the second film before forming the oxide layer, more hydrophobic surface this is due to increase of hydroxyl groups) [0012, 0042].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Bae to include the density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the surface of the first film before (a) is different from a density of hydroxyl group terminations on a surface of the second film before (a) claim 4 and the density of the hydroxyl group terminations formed on the surface of the oxide layer is higher than the density of the hydroxyl group terminations on the surface of the second film before (a) claim 5 as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bae in the above manner for the purpose of achieving improved deposition selectivity [0011].
Re claim 6 Bae in view of Yu teach the method of Claim 3, wherein the first film (304 , fig 3A) [Yu, 0041] is an oxygen-free film, and the second film (302, fig 3A) is an oxygen-containing film (SiO2, fig 3B) [Yu, 0026-0027].
Re claim 7 Bae in view of Yu teaches, wherein in (b), the surface of the oxide layer is terminated with the hydrocarbon group by supplying the modifying gas to the substrate [exposed to atmospheric hydrocarbons, page 5762-5766, Table 2 and fig 4].
Re claim 9 Bae in view of Yu the method of Claim 7, wherein the modifying gas is a gas containing an alkyl group (alkyl silane, an alkoxy siloxane. etc.) [Yu, 0027].
Re claim 10 Bae in view of Yu the method of Claim 9, wherein the modifying gas is an aminosilane-based gas.(dbisdimethylamino etc) [Yu, 0027-0028].
Re claim 8 Bae in view of Yu teaches, wherein in (b), the surface of the oxide layer is hydrophobized by causing the modifying gas (TMSDMA) [Yu, 0026] to react with hydroxyl groups terminating the surface of the oxide layer. [Yu, 0026]].
Re claim 11 Bae in view of Yu teaches, the method of claim 1 wherein (a) is performed at a temperature (10 to 50 degree C) [Yu, 0021] equal to or lower than a processing temperature (10 to 50 degree C) [Yu, 0021] at which the first film (304, fig 3A) [Yu, 0021-0023] is formed.
Re claims 12 and 13 Bae teaches, the method claim 11,
Bae does not teach (a) is performed at a temperature of 150 degrees C or lower (claim 12) and(b) is performed at a temperature equal to or lower than a temperature at which (a) is performed (claim 13).
Bae teaches, (a) is performed at a temperature of 150 degrees C or lower (table 2 , the oxide layer is rendered hydrophobic at room temperature, page 5764) claim 12 and (b) is performed at a temperature equal to or lower than a temperature at which (a) is performed claim 13 (table 2, page 5764, metal oxide precursor reservoir temperature 25 or 35 or 65-degree C).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Bae to include (a) is performed at a temperature of 150 degrees C or lower claim 12 and (b) is performed at a temperature equal to or lower than a temperature at which (a) is performed claim 13, as claimed because normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may be impact patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected results of the prior art, such ranges are termed “ critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bae in the above manner for the purpose of preventing the overoxidation. [page, 5763].
wherein 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.” See also In reWaite 77 USPQ586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935).
Re claim 18 Bae teaches the method of processing a substrate
Bae does not teach the method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of Claim 1.
Yu teaches the method of manufacturing a semiconductor device [0015- 0016].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Yu into the structure of Bar to include the method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of Claim 1 as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bae based on the teaching of Yu in the above manner for the purpose of achieving protective coating on the device.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae modified by Yu as applied to claim 1 further in view of Kim et al (US 20220259722A1).
Re claim 14 and 15 Bae in view of Yu teach the method of claim 1,
Bae and Yu do not teach a) and b) are performed in a same chamber claim 14 and (b) is performed continuously subsequent to (a) claim 15.
Kim teaches a) and b) are performed in a same chamber [0095] claim 14 and (b) is performed continuously subsequent to (a) [0095] Claim 15 (a surface modification layer (14) can be continuously formed using the same atomic layer deposition equipment without a need to change equipment so as to form a surface modification layer 14 and the deposition process of the modification subject layer and the surface modification layer were continuously progresses by an in-situ method) [0095].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Kim into the structure of Bae and Yu to include a) and b) are performed in a same chamber as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bea and Yu based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner for the purpose of improving the effect of modifying a substrate surface [0058].
Re claim 16 Bae in view Yu teaches the method of Claim 1,
Bae and Yu do not teach a thickness of the oxide layer is 1.5 nm or more.
Kim teaches a thickness of the oxide layer is 1.5 nm or more.(10 nm) [0095]
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Kim into the structure of Bae and Yu to include a thickness of the oxide layer is 1.5 nm or more as claimed in order to optimize the performance of the device
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bae and Yu based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner for the purpose of improving the effect of modifying a substrate surface [0058].
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 17 Bae in view of Yu teaches the method of claim 1, Bae does not teach wherein in (a), the oxide layer is formed by performing, a predetermined number of times, a cycle of non-simultaneously supplying the precursor gas and an oxidizing agent to the substrate.
Kim teaches in (a), the oxide layer (12, fig 1-2) [0085] is formed by performing, a predetermined number of times, a cycle of non-simultaneously supplying the precursor gas and an oxidizing agent to the substrate (10, fig 1-2). [Kim, 0085].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Kim into the structure of Bae and Yu to include in (a), the oxide layer is formed by performing, a predetermined number of times, a cycle of non-simultaneously supplying the precursor gas and an oxidizing agent to the substrate as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bae and Yu based on the teaching of Kim in the above manner for the purpose of improving the effect of modifying a substrate surface [0058].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 pm.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 2/17/26