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 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Degai preferentially deposits TiN on a metal portion on the substrate in addition to the nitride layer portion in some embodiments, thus Degai does not teach the claim language. However, it is noted that currently the claim language includes “substrate comprising two dielectric materials…” which does not limit the presence of a metal material. Further, the claim requires that the metal oxide or oxynitride is selectively deposited on the nitride layer over the oxide, it does not exclude metal layers. 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). Degai teaches preferentially depositing on nitride over oxide in Fig 6B, for example, para 0112-0114. The claims do not exclude this embodiment.
The applicant further argues that various embodiments in Degai do not teach the claim language. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but rather whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Furthermore, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the techniques is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” See id. At 417.
The applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Dube. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Dube et al. teaches it is effective for removing native oxides off of the same silicon substrate materials.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained. Objections to the drawings are withdrawn due to amendments.
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, 10-12, 14-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degai et al. (US 2022/0005685 A1) in view of Dube et al. (US 2017/0084449 A1)
As to claim 1, Degai et al. teaches a method of selectively depositing a metal oxide or metal oxynitride on a substrate (para 0114), the substrate comprising a surface, the surface comprising: an oxide layer portion comprising hydroxyl groups on SiO2 and a nitride layer portion (para 0043, natural oxide), the method comprising: pretreating the surface with a cleaning, where the cleaning removes a native oxide layer on the nitride layer portion (para 0043); and functionalizing the surface of the substrate with at least one cycle of exposing the surface to an aminosilane small molecule inhibitor (DMATMS, for example in para 0046-0047), followed by at least one cycle of: exposing the surface to a metal precursor (para 0019, 0038, 0079, for example); and exposing the surface to a co-reactant (para 0112-0113), to provide a metal oxide or metal oxynitride layer selectively deposited on the nitride layer portion of the substrate over the oxide layer portion of the substrate (Fig 6B, for example, para 0112-0114). Degai et al. does not teach that its natural oxide cleaning process includes utilizing a plasma.
Dube et al. is drawn to selective deposition of SiO2 and SiN substrates and teaches that native oxides may be removed from these substrate materials using a plasma process in para 0029-0031. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degai et al. to include the plasma process of Dube et al. as Dube et al. teaches it is effective for removing native oxides off of the same silicon substrate materials.
As to Claim 2, Degai et al. teaches wherein the nitride layer portion of the substrate comprises silicon nitride (SiN) (Figs 5, 6).
As to claim 4, Degai et al. teaches at least DMATMS in para 0046-0047.
As to claims 5-6, the metal precursor includes titanium tetrachloride in Degai para 0019.
As to claim 8, Dube et al. teaches post deposition etching processes that are common in semiconductor arts in para 0006.
As to claim 10, the selectivity is as shown in Degai et al. Fig. 6B. Further, the amount of selectivity is shown to be a result effective variable as it depends upon reaction conditions such as temperature (para 0074-0098 and Examples). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the selectivity in the claimed range, since 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 claims 11-12, 14-16, 18 and 20, these limitations are taught as discussed above.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degai et al. (US 2022/0005685 A1) in view of Dube et al. (US 2017/0084449 A1) and in further view of Tan et al. (US 2023/0118701 A1)
Degai and Dube do not teach the etching or cleaning gas combination. Tan et al. teaches a plasma to etch a selectively deposited metal film and a plasma that removes an oxide as containing CF4 and N2 in para 0031 and Claims 4-6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degai et al. and Dube et al. to include the claimed plasma gases as Tan et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degai et al. (US 2022/0005685 A1) in view of Dube et al. (US 2017/0084449 A1) and in further view of Nakatani et al. (US 2023/0175116 A1)
Degai and Dube do not teach the claimed co-reactant, though Degai teaches many different oxidizing reactants to make oxide and oxynitride films as discussed in the cited sections above. Nakatani et al. teaches a similar selective deposition process (abstract, Figures) that uses water as its oxidant for its halogen metalloid precursor in para 0132. . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degai et al. and Dube et al. to include water as a reactant as Nakatani teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
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 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
Prosecution Insights