DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on June 29, 2026, claims 1 – 10 are pending. Claim 10 has been withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged for the foreign translation of the certified copies of papers. The translations of such certified copies of papers were filed on August 29, 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. US 20030129306 A1 (hereafter “Wade”) in view of either Hämäläinen et al. “Atomic Layer Deposition of Noble Metals and Their Oxides”. Chemistry of Materials (2014), 26, 786 – 801 or Park et al. “Metallorganic Chemical Vapor Deposition of Ru and RuO2 Using Ruthenocene Precursor and Oxygen Gas”. (2000) J. Electrochem. Soc. 147 203 (hereafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9:
Wade is directed to a method of depositing ruthenium films on substrates by liquid source chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Abstract; [0002]). Wade discloses that their CVD method comprises: supplying a liquid ruthenium film precursor, e.g. Ru(Cp)2 or Ru(EtCp)2 [meeting claims 2, 3, 4] and an oxygen source gas, e.g. O2 ([0040], [0050], [0090], [0057] – [0072]) to a substrate inside a chamber with a pressure of 8 Torr [under vacuum, meeting in part claim 9], wherein the substrate temperature is within a range between 100°C to 500°C; and forming a ruthenium film from the supplied ruthenium film precursor and oxygen source ([0012], [0039], [0090], [0057] – [0072]). The substrate may be e.g. a thermal oxide substrate, seeded with a tantalum pentoxide or ruthenium oxide layer [metal oxide] ([0039]).
Wade discloses that the process is intended to be limited to a kinetic-limited temperature regime characterized by relatively low temperatures (Abstract; [0002], ) in contrast to a mass-transfer limited regime ([0009]). When deposited under kinetic-limited temperature and using a liquid precursor, Wade indicates that relatively pure and thin ruthenium films can be deposited ([0010], [0039]).
While Wade does not expressly teach an embodiment of their method that sets a temperature of the substrate less than 150°C, Wade discloses an overlapping 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Wade does not expressly teach that the supply of the metal complex compound having the cyclopentadienyl ligand removes metal oxide.
As noted above, Wade discloses that ruthenium film is deposited under conditions falling within a kinetic-limited temperature regime. Wade further discloses that the precursor is vaporized to a temperature of about 100 – 300°C to form the CVD material source gas for processing ([0012]); and that kinetic-limited temperature regime is characterized by the chemical reactions at the substrate surface being determinative of the deposition rate of the ruthenium film ([0043]). In other words, the CVD reaction is surface-mediated.
Hämäläinen is directed to review of atomic layer deposition methods for depositing noble metals and their oxides (Abstract). As depicted in Fig. 9, reproduced below with annotations, Hämäläinen discloses a layer-by-layer deposition of a noble metal film, where preceding metal atomic has a surface metal oxide layer that is subsequently removed by supplied metal organic complexes (page 792 – 795). In Fig. 9 as reproduced below, the step corresponds to the picture depicted in the upper left corner of the figure to the upper right corner of the figure. Hämäläinen also specifically discusses an ALD process of depositing ruthenium metal using oxygen and Ru(Cp)(CO)2Et [ruthenium with a cyclopentadienyl ligand “Cp”] and another of depositing ruthenium metal using oxygen and RuCp2 (page 793; Table 4). As clearly depicted within Figure 9, the underlying ruthenium layer has the metal of the Ru-ligand complex absorbed onto the metal oxide layer and the oxygen present on the surface released with carbon as carbon dioxide and water.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While ALD is a type of chemical vapor deposition technique distinct from the concurrent flow chemical vapor deposition as taught by Wade, ALD is characterized by surface-mediated half reactions; ALD’s characterization is known to those of ordinary skill in the art as well as implied by Hämäläinen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the formation of a ruthenium film under kinetic limited conditions as taught by Wade would also remove metal oxides, such as from a ruthenium oxide seed-layered substrate or a substrate defined by the growing film of ruthenium metal with surface oxygen because Wade teaches that the reaction of the ruthenium precursor having a cyclopentadienyl group is surface-mediated, and Hämäläinen discloses that the formation of noble metal films entails the reaction of surface oxygen atoms with the ruthenium precursor in order to form ruthenium metal. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conditions of the method of Wade to remove metal oxides in order to form pure ruthenium films, as taught by Wade and Hämäläinen.
Alternatively Park, directed to the deposition of ruthenium and ruthenium dioxide films by CVD under a surface-mediated temperature regime (Abstract, page 207 1st col ) discloses that surface-mediated CVD of ruthenium films require surface-absorbed oxygen (page 208 2nd col). In the ruthenium-forward reaction, the absorbed oxygen is reacted with the cyclopentadienyl ligand to form organic byproducts. Park discloses that a surface-mediated temperature regime may be deposition by CVD at temperatures less than 275°C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the formation of a ruthenium film under kinetic limited conditions as taught by Wade would also remove metal oxides, such as from a ruthenium oxide seed-layered substrate or a substrate defined by the growing film of ruthenium metal with surface oxygen because Wade teaches that the reaction of the ruthenium precursor having a cyclopentadienyl group is surface-mediated, and Park discloses that the formation of noble metal films entails the reaction of surface oxygen atoms with the ruthenium precursor in order to form ruthenium metal. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conditions of the method of Wade to remove metal oxides in order to form pure ruthenium films, as taught by Wade and Park.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) The cited references fail to disclose or suggest at least the features of "removing a metal oxide film on a surface of the metal layer by supplying a metal complex compound having a cyclopentadienyl ligand to the substrate" and "wherein the removing the metal oxide film further includes setting a temperature of the substrate to be less than 150 degrees C” recited in Claim 1.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) As a preliminary matter, during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit' s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
A key issue with regards to the broadest reasonable interpretation is the broadest reasonable interpretation of removing a metal oxide film. In its plain language, the removal of a metal oxide film means, among its senses, to move by taking away or alternatively to get rid of or eliminate. However, such a plain meaning is partially inconsistent with the specification. Figure 4A to 4C of the instant disclosure is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The instant specification indicates on paragraph [0042] that a metal oxide film is illustrated by reference numeral 341. Reference numeral 341 encapsulates surface oxygen atoms on a (“pure”) metal layer 340. The specification repeatedly references numeral 341 as a metal oxide film and that the removal is via reaction model. See paragraphs [0036], [0040] – [0041], [0043] – [0044], [0051]. Additionally, the instant specification equates removal of the metal oxide film 341 with reduction of such a film.
Accordingly, the Examiner takes the position that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, oxygen atoms bound to a metal layer or substrate constitute a metal oxide film, and that removal of the metal oxide film is the same as eliminating such surface oxygen atoms by any means. As claimed, such a removal step does not exclude other concurrent steps or a broader process such as the deposition of a metal.
The Examiner also notes that the claimed subject matter is a surface processing method comprising the recited steps. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This includes any unrecited steps that introduce metal oxide films onto a metal layer; in other words, the claims as presented do not require that the substrate initially has a metal oxide layer on a metal layer, only that there is a step of removing a metal oxide film (i.e. surface oxygen).
With regards to Applicant’s submission that Wade in itself does not imply the removal of the surface oxide, Hämäläinen and Park are provided to expand and explain the reaction mechanisms of surface mediated vapor deposition. The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art' to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). This includes the sub-steps of a given process step that would inherently occur or would have been expected to occur to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments concerning Hämäläinen and their contention that metal oxide is removed by the CVD method at substrate temperatures of 200 to 500°C, the Examiner notes that such a view is a piecemeal analysis of Hämäläinen. Hämäläinen provides for what is known in the field of chemical vapor deposition and its sub-type atomic layer deposition. Part of the deposition process entails removal of surface oxygen, i.e. removal of the metal oxide film under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Furthermore, Hämäläinen indicates that it is known that metal deposition can occur at temperatures of less than 200°C by atomic layer deposition (page 788 1st col). Wade indicates that metal deposition can occur at temperatures between 100°C and 300°C, which overlaps with the claimed temperature range of removing metal oxides. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Deriving such a recognition from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art would not constitute improper hindsight reasoning because it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is therefore proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With regards to Applicant’s arguments concerning Park and their contention that Park merely discloses the deposition sequence RuO2 MOCVD by the following Equations [1] to [3], the Examiner notes that as presented, the claims do not require or define at what point is a metal oxide film present on a given substrate. Furthermore, Park expressly states that that one of the two reaction mechanisms (Eq [2]) requires absorbed oxygen atoms on the surface of a substrate (“… * mark shows the adsorbed state … dissociation of an oxygen molecule on the surface … ΘO* is the surface coverage of atomic oxygen …”) (page 208 2nd col – page 209 1st col).
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Such inferences includes the knowledge of reaction mechanisms and their requirements, regardless of the source of absorbed oxygen atoms. Such a source of oxygen atoms is disclosed in Wade in the disclosed metal oxide film (Wade [0039]).
Further Comments on the Scope of the Present Claims
The Examiner notes that as presented, the scope of the claims allow for concurrent processes to occur alongside the removal of a metal oxide film, such as chemical vapor deposition. The Examiner notes that the instant specification also describes embodiments where the remnants of the metal complex, including the metal within the metal complex, are desorbed from the metal layer surface. See Fig. 4 and paragraph [0054]. The Examiner notes that should the Applicant consider amendments that incorporate such subject matter, that further search and/or consideration would be required.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights