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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-20 amended
Claims 1-2, 4-19 pending
Claim 20 allowed
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tois (PG Pub 2018/0233350 A1) in view of Nozawa (PG Pub 2020/0294797 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Tois teaches the process of selectively depositing a film on the substrate (abstract). Tois teaches the process include the preparing of the substrate having two areas, and coating a polymer/organic layer as passivation layer on two areas of the substrate (figure 18, [0234]), where the polymer layer comprises polyurea [0079]-[0080]. Tois teaches the process of annealing the polyurea film [0106], and the selective removal of the polyurea from an area (one of the two areas) where the polyurea remains on the 1st surface, and polyurea on the 2nd surface is removed (figure 18, [0234]). Tois teaches the subsequent process of depositing a target/dielectric material on the 2nd surface where the polyurea has been removed (figure 18, [0234]). Where the remaining area (of the first surface) having the polyurea layer is annealed [0106], and then is removed (figure 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tois teaches the selectively removing the polyurea layer which was deposited on the 2nd area/surface, such that the remained polyurea film pattern (patterned by having various thicknesses) is formed on the 1st surface/area (figure 18). Tois teaches the thickness of the polyurea layer (before annealing) is thicker that the resulting polyurea film pattern (after annealing) (figure 19).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tois teaches the formed polyurea film pattern has greater thickness that the target film (figure 19).
PNG
media_image3.png
876
1038
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tois does not teach the annealing to selectively remove the polyurea layer as a single step.
However, Nozawa is in the process of depositing polyurea film on a substrate [0032], teaches the selective removal of the polyurea using annealing process at temperature between 260℃-300℃, leading to a thinner thickness of the polyurea [0086], figure 13.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Tois with Nozawa to anneal the polyurea film to reduce the thickness in the first area/surface to a desired thickness (of the first area) and completely remove the polyurea film form the second area/surface [0086]-[0087], figure 13.
Consider Claim 2, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the 1st surface/area is made of inorganic dielectric material (nonmetallic), and the 2nd surface/area is made from metallic material (Trois, claim 15).
Consider Claim 4, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the selective removal of the polyurea and the annealing process at temperature between 260℃-300℃ (Nozawa, [0086]). 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 5-6, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the annealing process at vacuum pressure of 0.1-10 Torr (Nozawa, [0055]). 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 7, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the polyurea layer on the first area and second area, and having variation of thicknesses/heights between the first area and second area (Tois, figure 18).
PNG
media_image4.png
331
670
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Consider Claim 8, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the complete removal of the polyurea from the second area/surface (Tois, figure 18).
Consider Claim 9, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches second area/surface include catalyst agent (Tois, [0063]).
Consider Claims 10-11, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the deposition of target layer on second area/surface, followed by removal of the polyurea from the first area/surface (Tois, figure 18), where the polyurea layer having variation of thicknesses (Tois, figure 18), as having a resulting pattern based on the initial thickness.
Consider Claims 12-13, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the removal of the polyurea film under annealing using plasma with hydrogen gas (Nozawa, [0091]).
Consider Claims 14-15, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the metallic surface include Cu (Tois, [0064]), and the dielectric surface include TiO2 (Tois, [0056]).
Consider Claim 16, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches plasma cleaning (Tois, [0070]).
Consider Claims 17-18, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the deposition of the polyurea include using diisocyanatobutane (Tois, [0123]), using CVD process (Tois, [0063]).
Consider Claim 19, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the process in claim 1. Additionally, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the polyurea layer having variation of thicknesses (Tois, figure 18), and the removal process in vacuum annealing atmosphere (Nozawa, [0083]), using CVD process (Tois, [0063]). Additionally, the combined Tois (with Nozawa) teaches the deposition of target layer on second area/surface, followed by removal of the polyurea from the first area/surface (Tois, figure 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 20,
None of the prior arts discloses or suggests the process of selectively film forming including the process of coating polyurea film on first area and second area, where the polyurea film on the second area is removed, then an inhibition layer is formed on the second area, then then the polyurea film on the first area is removed, and then the target film is formed on the first area, in such a way the thickness of the target film is greater than the thickness of the inhibition layer, as claimed in claim 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-19 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tois with Nozawa.
The applicant argued against Tois, on the ground that Tois does not disclose the newly amended claim 1, where claim 1 was amended stating “the thickness of the polyurea film pattern on the first area is greater than a thickness of the target film”.
However, the prior art of Tois disclose that the thickness of the polyurea film pattern (which is remained on the first area) is greater than the thickness of the target film (which is formed on the second area) see figure 19.
PNG
media_image3.png
876
1038
media_image3.png
Greyscale
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718