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 .
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed May 22, 2026, claims 1 and 5 have been amended and claim 18 is new. Claim 17 is withdrawn. Claims 1 through 18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments against the 112(b) rejections are not persuasive. Claim 5 is still indefinite because it is not clear what reaction energy “an amide ligand” has to have. Therefore, it is not clear what the meets and bounds of the claim is. Furthermore, applicant has not provided any objective evidence that one of ordinary skill would what tens of nanometers is equal to. Therefore, claim 15 is still indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments against the teachings of Cho are not persuasive because Cho teaches having formed a first material layer/first atomic layer 131 on the inhibition layer 111 wherein the precursor material was intermixed with the inhibition layer 111 as show in Figures 4 and 5 of Cho because the precursor material was deposited in the open spaces of the inhibition layer 111. Therefore, Cho still anticipates the claims.
Applicant’s arguments toward claim 12 are not persuasive because applicant has not cited which section of Cho teaches that the taught process was “generally directed toward protecting against the invagination of impurities” or how this is relevant to the argument that Cho suggests using different precursor material to form material layers.
In response to applicant's argument that Lee is directed towards controlling the growth of conductive material, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 discloses “a reaction energy of the cyclopentadienyl ligand is higher a reaction energy of an amide ligand”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 requires having formed a first material layer on the deposition-hindering material wherein the first precursor is intermixed with the deposition hindering material on the surface of the substrate. This limitation is not supported by the disclosure of the present application as originally filled. Though Figure 2C of the specification of the present application appears to show the first precursor 30 “intermixing” with the disposition hindering material 20 by being deposited between the deposition hindering material 20 this is not clearly stated within the specification and Figure 2C does not depict a material layer being formed on the deposition hindering material 20.
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 5 and 15 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.
The term “a reaction energy of an amide ligand” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a reaction energy of an amide ligand” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 5 is indefinite because it is not clear that reaction energy the cyclopentadienyl ligand has to have because it is not clear what reaction energy “an amide” ligand is supposed to have.
The term “tens of nanometers” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tens of nanometers” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 15 is indefinite because it is not clear how nanometer the thickness of the formed insulating film has to have in order to be considered to have a thickness of tens of nanometers or less.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0395888).
In the case of claims 1 and 2, Cho teaches a method for forming a film on a substrate using atomic layer deposition (ALD) by filling a gap in a substrate with a filling layer which included insulating material (Abstract and Page 2 Paragraphs 0031-0032). The method of Cho comprised transferring a deposition-hindering material to a surface of the substrate by forming a first reaction inhibition layer 111 on the sidewall 150a of a gap 150 of the substrate followed by depositing a first material layer in the form of a first atomic layer 131 by transferring a first precursor onto the surface 150a of the substrate to form a first precursor layer 121 which was reacted with a second co-reactant to form the material/atomic layer 131 (Page 6 Paragraphs 0101-0105 and Figure 3-5). Furthermore, as shown in Figures 4 and 5 of Cho, the first material layer/first atomic layer 131 was formed on the inhibition layer 111 wherein the precursor material was intermixed with the inhibition layer 111 by having the precursor material be deposited in the open spaces of the inhibition layer 111.
Furthermore, Cho teaches that the deposition-hindering/reaction inhibitor material comprised an organic ligand, specifically a cyclopentadienyl ligand (Page 1 Paragraphs 0011-0012) and that the first precursor comprised an alkoxide ligand including methoxide (OMe), butoxide (OBu) and propoxide (OPr) (Page 6 Paragraph 0103).
As for claim 3, Cho teaches having purged the first precursor (Page 6 Paragraph 0103).
As for claim 4, Cho teaches that the substrate 100 comprised silicon (Page 4 Paragraph 0077).
As for claim 6, Cho teaches that the first material/atomic layer 131 comprised an oxide or a nitride (Page 6 Paragraph 0104).
As for claim 7, Cho teaches that the first precursor comprised titanium, zirconium or hafnium (Page 6 Paragraph 0103).
As for claim 8, Cho teaches having formed a plurality of material layers to form a first filling layer 141 by repeatedly performing the forming of the first material/atomic layer in a plurality of cycles (Page 6 Paragraph 0106 and Figure 6).
As for claim 9 and 10, Cho teaches having formed oxides or nitrides of titanium, zirconium or hafnium precursors (Page 6 Paragraphs 0103-0104).
As for claim 11, Cho teaches that the insulating film had a single layer structure in the form of a single first filling layer 141 (Page 6 Paragraph 0106 and Figure 6).
As for claim 13, Cho teaches that the insulating film/titanium dioxide thin layer was grown on the substrate (Page 4 Paragraph 0083-0085).
As for claim 15, Cho teaches having formed an insulating film/titanium dioxide layer having a thickness of 10 nm (Page 8 Paragraph 0129) which was within the range of tens of nanometers or less.
As for claim 16, Cho teaches that the thickness of the material layer/insulating layer was based/determined by the precursor (Page 8 Paragraph 0129).
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.
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.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al.
The teachings of Cho as it applies to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 12, Cho teaches an embodiment wherein a second material layer 142 was deposited on the first material layer 141 such that a multi-layer structure was stacked (Pages 6-7 Paragraphs 0108-0112). Cho does not teach that the second material 142 was different from the first material 141. However, Cho teaches that different material precursors were used to form the material/filling layers (Page 6 Paragraphs 0103-0104). Furthermore, "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP section 2144.06.I.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the first and second material/filling layers with different materials to form an insulating layer with desired properties.
As for claim 18, Cho teaches having repeated forming the material layer/first atomic layer to form a filling layer 141 (Page 6 Paragraph 0106 and Figure 6) followed by depositing the second material layer on the first material layer 141 (Page 7 Paragraphs 0110-0111 and Figures 8A and 8B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0268184).
The teachings of Cho as it applies to claim 2 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 5, though Cho teaches that the deposition-hindering material comprised a cyclopentadienyl ligand Cho does not teach that the cyclopentadienyl ligand had a reaction energy higher than an amide ligand. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Furthermore, Lee teaches a method for depositing a film by ALD on a substrate wherein the deposition rate/amount of the film formed was affected by an adsorbed inhibitor on the surface of the substrate (Abstract and Page 2 Paragraph 0017). Lee further teaches that the inhibitors comprised an organic ligand and that the activation/reaction energy of the inhibitor affected the adsorption of the vapor-phase precursor on to the substrate surface (Pages 3-4 Paragraph 0046).
Based on the teachings of Lee, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal reaction energy for the ligand of the deposition-hindering material of Cho through routine experimentation because the reaction energy affected the adsorption amount of the precursor onto the substrate surface.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al (U.S. Patent # 9,418,890).
The teachings of Cho as it applies to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 14, though Cho teaches having formed a first material/atomic layer by atomic layer deposition Cho does not teach that the layer had a thickness in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 nm.
Ma teaches a method for forming a film by atomic layer deposition in the manufacturing of semiconductor devices (Abstract and Column 1 Lines 18-21) wherein the film was formed at a thickness of 0.05 to 1.0 angstroms per cycle or 0.005 to 0.1 nm per cycle (Column 9 Lines 28-33).
Based on the teachings of Ma, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the first material/atomic layer of Cho to have a thickness in the range of 0.005 to 0.1 nm because this was a known deposition thickness for a cycle of atomic layer deposition. Furthermore, the taught range of 0.005 to 0.1 nm overlapped with the claimed range. 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). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 16 and 18 have been rejected. Claim 17 has been withdrawn from consideration. No claims were allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights