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
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saly [US 20200234950] in view of Noh [US 20210189146] in view of Abelson [US 11584986].
Claim 1: Saly teaches a method of selectively depositing on a surface (film forming) [abstract] by: (A) providing a substrate including a first film and a second film in different regions of a surface of the substrate (first material 20 and second material 30) [Fig. 1; 0020]; the second film being formed of a material different from the material of the first film [0021-0022];
(B) supplying modification gas formed into plasma to the surface of the substrate thereby modifying the surface of the substrate (exposing substrate to nitriding agent to form amine terminated surface such as ammonia plasma or hydrazine plasma) [0023-0024]; and (C) after (B) selectively forming a self-assembled monolayer on a surface of the second film rather than the surface of the first film (after nitriding, exposing substrate to blocking molecules to form a blocking layer selectively) [0027; Fig. 1]; where the modification gas used in (B) contains hydrogen and nitrogen (ammonia or hydrazine) [0024]; and (C) includes (Ca) supplying carboxylic acid [0028; 0014] to the chamber in a state in which the substrate is housed in the process chamber [0014] and the internal pressure of the process chamber is reduce (1 Torr to 800 Torr, and further can be separated by vacuum curtains; which indicates the process chamber is being placed under a lower pressure than atmosphere) [0026; 0016] and the gas of the carboxylic acid being a precursor of the self-assembled monolayer [Fig. 1; 0029]. However, Saly does not appear to teach supplying carboxylic acid in gas form. Noh is provided.
Noh, directed to selective deposition [abstract] teaches blocking agents forming a SAM layer on the surface [0031] such as carboxylic acid [0034] can be formed by dipping the surface or vapor spraying with the blocking agent [0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide spraying or dipping to apply the blocking agent to the surface since Noh teaches either way is an operable technique for applying blocking agent to the substrate.
However, the prior art does not appear to teach (Cb) maintaining, for a set period of time, a state in which supply of the gas of the carboxylic acid to the chamber is stopped or a state in which a flow rate of the gas of the carboxylic acid supplied is reduced compared to (Ca). Abelson is provided.
Abelson, directed to selective CVD [title], teaches inhibitor agent can be supplied as a gas [col 9, ln 40-45] and wherein a portion of the inhibitor agent remains accommodated in the area for 0.5 seconds to 30 minutes after the step of exposing the substrate is stopped [col 10, ln 5-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to stop the supply of inhibitor over a period of time as taught by Abelson, so as to influence the nucleation of the deposition onto the desired area [col 34, ln 15-20].
Claim 2: Abelson teaches the period of time is from 30 seconds to 1 hour [col 16, ln 50-55].
Claim 4: Abelson teaches an internal pressure of the process chamber in (Cb) is lower than an internal pressure of the process chamber in (Ca) (the partial pressure during the step of supplying the inhibitor is at 300mTorr or less, whereas the partial pressure of the step of supplying the precursor gas is 100mTorr [col 13, ln 25-35]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that during the supply of the inhibitor agent, Cb step, would be lower than the internal pressure of Ca step since Abelson teaches supplying a larger partial pressure of inhibitor will cause a reduction of pressure in the chamber in comparison to supplying a lower partial pressure of the precursor gas in step Ca.
Claims 5-6: Although Abelson does not explicitly teach the claimed internal pressure ranges, since Abelson teaches pressure may affect the deposition process [col 32, ln 40-45]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the internal pressure of the chamber through routine experimentation as a result effective variable over the deposition process.
Claim 8: Abelson teaches the steps (Ca) and (Cb) can be repeated [col 8-11].
Claim 10: Saly teaches the modification gas can be ammonia [0023-0024].
Claim 11: Saly teaches the deposition cycles can be repeated [0015].
Claim 16: Saly teaches forming a target film (40) on the surface of the first film while inhibiting formation of the target film on the second film using self-assembled monolayer [Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saly in view of Noh and Abelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hausmann [CN 112005343].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 3 and claim 8. Hausmann is provided.
Claim 3: Hausmann, directed to selective deposition [abstract], teaches the deposition instructions can be adjusted to stop the flow of gases for delays [pg 13, para 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stopping flow of gases during delays since Hausman teaches such adjustments can be made depending upon the desired film result [pg 12, para 5 to pg 13, para 1].
Claim 8: Hausmann teaches the process steps and delays can be repeated [para 13, para 1].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saly in view of Noh and Abelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tois [US 20180233350].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 7. Tois is provided.
Claim 7: Tois, directed to selective passivation and deposition [title], teaches that the passivation agent can be a carboxylic acid [0123], such as benzoic acid (C6H5COOH) [0123]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide benzoic acid as a example of the carboxylic acid since Tois teaches such passivation agent is well known and operable.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saly in view of Noh and Abelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noh2 [US 20220119939].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 9. Noh2 is provided.
Claim 9: Noh2 teaches a method for selective deposition [abstract], wherein an inhibitor can be carboxylic acid [0122] and the inhibitor can be modified with ammonia or other co-reactants such as H2O or H2O2 [0132].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide other co-reactants such as H2O or H2O2 since Noh2 teaches such modifier are known and operable to ammonia while in use with inhibitors such as carboxylic acids.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saly in view of Noh and Abelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharma [US 10900120]
Saly teaches the first film may be a dielectric [0003-0004; 0017; 0021-0022], however does not appear to teach the second film is a conductive film for claim 12. Sharma is provided.
Claim 12: Sharma, directed to selective deposition of substrate by passivation [abstract], teaches the substrate can comprise a dielectric surface and a metallic surface [Fig. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first insulating film and second conductive film since Sharma teaches such selective deposition is desirable onto these types of substrate surfaces.
Claim 13: Sharma teaches the conductive film can be Cu, Co, and W film [col 3, ln 25-27].
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saly in view of Noh and Abelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tapily [US 20200328078].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does appear using a reductive gas to clean the substrate prior depositing. Tapily is provided.
Claims 14-15: Tapily teaches using a reductive gas to clean the substrate from residue prior to deposition [Fig. 1; 0015] using reductive gas such as hydrogen gas and plasma [0015]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use hydrogen gas and plasma to clean the substrate prior to deposition since Tapily teaches this is an operable technique of removing unwanted residue from the substrate prior to depositing onto the substrate.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saly in view of Noh and Abelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu [US 20190148144].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach all the limitations of claim 17. Liu is provided.
Claim 17: Liu teaches a film forming apparatus [Fig. 1-2] that performs selective deposition [abstract], which comprises a process chamber (100) [Fig. 1]; a holder (192) configured to hold a substrate in an interior of the process chamber [Fig. 1]; a gas supplying (130) configured to supply gas to the interior of the process chamber [Fig. 1]; a conveyor (200) configured to convey the substrate into and out of the process chamber [Fig. 2]; and a controller including a processor and a memory storing one or more programs [0025, 0029], which the processor controls the processing system [0025, 0029], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this would include controlling the gas supply, gas exhauster, conveyor and film deposition.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12540394. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the instant application fully encompass the subject matter of the claims of related patent or alternatively the claims of related patent anticipates the claim in the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718