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 .
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.
Claims 10, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Boris Kobrin et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2010/0304132, here after Kobrin), further in
view of Tomonori Ueyama (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0313019, here after
Ueyama), and Stephen Wieder et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2009/0044754, here after Wieder).
Claim 10 is rejected. Kobrin teaches a method for forming a self-assembled
monolayer on a surface of a substrate [0044 last sentence], the method comprising:
disposing the substrate in a vacuum chamber [0046 first sentence];
rendering the surface of the substrate hydrophilic by supplying an evaporation
source (water vapor, moisture) that imparts a hydrophilic group to the surface of the
substrate into the vacuum chamber and plasma treatment [0041]; and
forming the self-assembled monolayer on the surface of the substrate by supplying an
evaporation source of a precursor material(chlorosilane) of the self- assembled
monolayer into the vacuum chamber in a state in which an evaporation source (water
vapor, moisture) that promotes hydrolysis of the precursor material of the self-
assembled monolayer has been supplied after the rendering of the surface of the
substrate hydrophilic [0047, 0087], the rendering of the surface of the substrate
hydrophilic and the forming of the self - assembled monolayer being performed without
opening the vacuum chamber to the atmosphere (processes are done in one chamber
without opening it). Korbin also teaches water vapor in the forming of the self-
assembled monolayer being water vapor left over the rendering of the surface of the
substrate hydrophilic [0041 first sentence, 0087, 0092]. Kobrin teaches the rendering of
the surface of the substrate hydrophilic and the forming of the self-assembled
monolayer are performed in the same vacuum chamber [0041, 0046, 0073, 0085 lines
10-13]. No plasma is generated during the formation of the self-assembled monolayer as the monolayer is formed after exposing the hydrophilic surface to evaporation source of a precursor material(chlorosilane). Korbin teaches using remote plasma and does not teach plasma treatment by plasmatizing an interior of the vacuum chamber to generate a plasma of the evaporation source. Ueyama taches a method of plasma depositing silicon oxide layer on surface of a substrate by silane and water (vapor) where the plasma forms within the film deposition chamber [0075, 0091-0092, 0094]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Kobrin where the process is done in Ueyama chamber, because it is suitable plasma chamber for depositing silicon oxide film. Kobrin teaches the evaporation source that imparts the hydrophilic group to the surface of the substrate, and the evaporation source that promotes the hydrolysis of the precursor material of the self-assembled monolayer are both water vapor [0041, 0047]. Ueyama does not teach the details of the plasma chamber requires by the claim. Wieder teaches
a plasma generator having a lower electrode (3) that serves as a stage [fig. 1] on which the substrate (4) is placed, an upper electrode (2) that is disposed opposite the lower electrode, a first wall supporting the lower electrode,
a second wall supporting the upper electrode, and
a side wall connecting the first wall and the second wall [fig. 1], and
a ground ring (8) being provided around the stage to provide a gap through which a gas in the vacuum chamber is discharged, the ground ring being disposed with a gap from the side wall [fig. 1] to help formation of uniform coating [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Kobrin, and Ueyama where the plasma chamber is Wieder plasma chamber, because it helps uniformity of coating.
Claim 15 is rejected as Kobrin teaches the rendering of the surface of the
substrate hydrophilic and the forming of the self- assembled monolayer are continuously performed without opening the vacuum chamber to the atmosphere [0047]. Ueyama's and Wieder’s chamber is capable to do both of the process without opening because are capable of having water vapor source and plasma in one chamber.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason claim 10 is rejected above, and also
teaches water vapor as the evaporation source of the precursor material of the self-
assembled monolayer film [0047] which is the same as evaporation source that imparts
the hydrophilic group to the surface of the substrate, therefore supplied from a gas
introduction port that introduces a gas (water vapor) into the vacuum chamber.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boris
Kobrin et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2010/0304132, here after Kobrin), Tomonori
Ueyama (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0313019, here after Ueyama), and Stephen Wieder et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2009/0044754, here after Wieder), further in
view of Anthony O'Hara (U. S. Patent Application: 2014/0308822, here after O'Hara).
Claim 21 is rejected. Kobrin, Ueyama, and Wieder teach the limitation of claim 20, theprior art taught by Kobrin teaches providing precursor to chamber by a bubbling [0025], but does not teach bubbler is provided to a gas pipe that is connected to the gas
introduction port. O'Hara teaches a method for forming a self-assembled monolayer on
a surface of a substrate and teach providing precursors to the chamber by passing a
carrier gas through one or more bubbler provided to a gas pipe that is connected to the
gas introduction port [fig. 1, 0023] and transporting the desired volumes of the precursor
material to the process chamber [0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
Kobrin, Ueyama, and Wieder when a bubbler S provided to gas pipe connected to gas
introduction port, because it helps to have desired volumes of the precursor material
vapor to the process chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive. The applicant argues no plasma generated during the forming the self-assembled monolayer. In fat Korbin teaches plasma treatment is done prior to formation of monolayer and during exposing the substrate to precursor and formation of monolayer no plasma process performs (only first monolayer). The applicant argues applying oxygen plasma us sued through the process, however claim is rejected based on formation of only first monolayer. The applicant argument regrading details o plasma chamber is not persuasive as Weider teaches plasma chamber requires by the claim (see claim rejection above).
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights