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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach regulating an interval between adsorption sites as now claimed. However, Waseda et al., for example, shows exposure of the substrate surface to and O and H containing compound in Fig. 6A that achieves this purpose as broadly claimed. The claim does not include any features that would teach over what is shown in 6A, for example, as it only requires that the substrate be exposed to an O and H containing substance without anything more that would ‘regulate’ the interval. Similarly, Nakatani teaches that an O and H containing substance on the surface before the deposition of an inhibition layer controls where the layer is deposited in para 0060, which also meets the broad claim language. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Any new grounds of rejection are due to amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-18 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Waseda et al. (US 2021/0202245 A1)
As to claim 1, Waseda teaches a method of processing a substrate, the method comprising: forming an inhibitor layer on a first surface of a substrate having the first surface and a second surface (Fig. 6A) by supplying a modifying agent to the substrate to adsorb inhibitor molecules contained in the modifying agent on the first surface (Fig 6B); and forming a film on the second surface by supplying a film-forming agent containing a catalyst to the substrate after forming the inhibitor layer on the first surface (Fig. 6C, para 0027, 0043), wherein a width of each of the inhibitor molecules is a, an interval between adsorption sites on the first surface is b, and a width of a catalyst molecule constituting the catalyst is c, and wherein c>b-a is satisfied when a is smaller than b, and c>xb-a (x is the smallest integer that satisfies a<xb) is satisfied when a is larger than b. Waseda satisfies these limitations because it uses the same compounds (Fig 6A-6B, paras 0050-0084) as the instant specification in paras 0092, 0120-0122 and 0123 and thus they would be expected to have the same sizes.
As to claims 2-5 and 7, Waseda teaches these size limitations as they teach the same compounds(Fig 6A-6B, paras 0050-0084) as the instant specification in paras 0092, 0120-0122 and 0123.
As to claim 11, the adsorption site on the first surface includes an OH group as shown in Fig. 6A.
As to claims 12-14, the compounds are taught in Fig 6A-6B, paras 0050-0084.
As to claims 15-16, the second film is formed as claimed in paras 0070-0089.
As to claim 17, one surface is an oxide and the other is different in Figs. 6A-6C.
As to claim 18, a semiconductor device is made by this method in para 0002.
As to claim 21, the surface is cleaned before OH termination in para 0126, which would inherently remove native oxides.
As to claim 22, the substrate is heat treated in para 0100.
As to claim 23, the inhibitor layer is desorbed in para 0123.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2023/0411146 A1) in view of Nakatani (US 2020/0303186 A1)
As to claim 1, Murakami et al. teaches a method of processing a substrate, the method comprising: forming an inhibitor layer 20 on a first surface of a substrate having the first surface and a second surface (Fig. 3-5) by supplying a modifying agent to the substrate to adsorb inhibitor molecules contained in the modifying agent on the first surface (20, Fig. 3-5); and forming a film on the second surface by supplying a film-forming agent containing a catalyst to the substrate after forming the inhibitor layer on the first surface (30, 40 in Fig. 3-5, abstract, Fig. 12-14). Murakami does not explicitly give the relative sizes of the inhibitor molecules, interval between adsorption sites or the catalyst molecule.
However, in Figs. 12-14, Murakami shows catalyst molecules 30,40 that are unable to pass through the intermolecular gap of the inhibition layer 20 due to their relative size (para 0047-0048). This achieves the same technical effect of the relative sizes as shown in instant Figures 8-10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Murakami’s relative sizes would fulfill the cited equations and relative sizes as claimed as the same effect is achieved. Further, these relative sizes would be modified based on the desired result to be achieved in Murakami’s Figures. Thus, these relative sizes are also modified by routine experimentation. 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
Murakami does not show a regulating step before deposition of the inhibitor layer. Nakatani teaches a step such as having an -OH terminated surface that determines where the inhibitor layer will be deposited in para 0060. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Murakami to include an -OH terminated surface (thus from exposing a surface to an O and H containing substance as claimed) as taught by Nakatani to determine where the inhibiting layer will be deposited.
As to claims 2-5 and 7, Murakami does not explicitly give the relative sizes of the inhibitor molecules, interval between adsorption sites or the catalyst molecule. However, in Figs. 12-14, Murakami shows catalyst molecules 30,40 that are unable to pass through the intermolecular gap of the inhibition layer 20 due to their relative size (para 0047-0048). This achieves the same technical effect of the relative sizes as shown in instant Figures 8-10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Murakami’s relative sizes would fulfill the cited equations and relative sizes as claimed as the same effect is achieved. Further, these relative sizes would be modified based on the desired result to be achieved in Murakami’s Figures. Thus, these relative sizes are also modified by routine experimentation. 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 11, the adsorption site on the first surface includes an OH group as shown in Murakami Fig. 8.
As to claim 12, the catalyst is basic in Murakami para 0035-0037.
As to claims 13-14, the inhibitor layer includes alkyl group termination in Murakami para 0030-0033.
As to claims 15-17, Murakami et al. does not explicitly teach that the second film is formed from a raw material and reactant and that the surface comprises two distinctly different films, one including an oxide. Nakatani teaches a similar method (abstract) where selectivity is between two sections of a substrate with two different surfaces next to eachother (Figs. 5A-5E) and the second surface comprises a film that is formed using a reactant and raw material as in Fig. 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Murakami to adapt to two different surfaces and other deposition methods for the second film as taught by Nakatani in order to modify its method for other uses and expand its applications.
As to claim 18, a semiconductor device is made by this method in Murakami para 0029.
As to claim 23, the inhibitor layer is removed or desorbed as broadly claimed in Murakami para 0049-0050.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2023/0411146 A1) in view of Nakatani (US 2020/0303186 A1) and Waseda et al. (US 2021/0202245 A1)
Murakami and Nakatani do not teach removing a natural oxide film or heat treating the substrate as claimed. Waseda is in the same field of endeavor and teaches both of these features as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Murakami and Nakatani to include these features as Waseda teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Conclusion
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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718