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 2-3 and 22 cancelled
Claims 1,4, 6-9, 15 amended
Claims 1, 4-21 pending
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, 4-14, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (PG Pub 2023/0070312 A1), and in view of Noh (PG Pub 2022/0119939 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Cho teaches the process of depositing filling material within a recess/gap (abstract), where the filling layer comprises an oxide [0097], [0130]. Cho teaches the coating process comprise depositing using atomic layer deposition system (abstract) the following steps:
Step (A) of providing a substrate having gap in a chamber [0061] where the gap have an opening is bordered by a perimeter in a surface area adjacent to and outside of the gap, as the gap have an inner surfacer (Figures 1-4, 16-22),
Step (B) of providing an inhibitor material (reaction inhibitor) [0014], forming an inhibition layer (111/211) [0060], [0131], where greater portion outside the gap (150/ 250) than the inner surface of the gap (150/250) (fig. 4 and 18), inhibitor material such as (Me2N)2SiMe2 (bis(N,N-dimethylamino) dimethylsilane) [0014], or methanol that present as a side product that is separated from reacting two groups [0088],
Step (C) of providing a metal precursor (first reactant) [0018], where the first reactant is adsorbed (chemisorbed) (claim 1), where the metal precursor/first reactant form first precursor layer within the inner side of the gap (claim 1), forming first filling layer [0020], metal such as Zirconium [0018],
Step (D) of providing a second reactant such as oxygen [0019],
Step (E) of repeating steps (a)-(d) until a desired thickness [0020], [0099],
Cho does not teach the supplying of inhibitor or metal precursor in a pulse into the chamber.
However, Noh is in the process of forming in zirconium oxide layer on the substrate [0042], where the substrate have a recess (figure 1), teaches the process includes
Step (A): deposition is performed in an ALD processor, including placing the substrate within the chamber [0044], where the substrate (102) have recess (104) ([0147], figure 1), where the recess (104) comprise an opening surrounded by a surface area adjacent and outside the recess, and where the recess comprise an inner surface (figure 1). Noh teaches
Step (B): the pulsing inhibitor are deposited onto the substrate [0057], where the substrate include a recess (figure 1).
Step (C): the pulsing a precursor into the chamber to deposit onto the substrate having an inner surface within the recess [0057], where the precursor is chemisorbed onto the substrate [0146].
Step (D): the pulsing of the co- reactant deposit onto the substrate [0057], where the co- reactant comprises oxide such as ozone [0034], reacting with the precursor forming a film [0013].
Step (E): the process of repeating step (A) – step (D) until a desired thickness is formed [0065].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Cho with Noh to provide the inhibitor, metal precursor and oxygen in a pulsing forming, to provide with a controlled feeding process of the material [0149].
Consider Claim 4, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the forming of metal oxide [0033], and the formed film is zinc oxide (Noh, [0042]).
Consider Claim 5, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the process of purging (Cho, [0099]), where the process of purging using inert gas (Noh, [0060]), where the purging step is performed subsequent to the previous steps and after (Noh, figure 4).
Consider Claim 6, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches pulsing the inhibitor with first time of 0.1 second and the pulsing of the precursor with second time with duration of 0.5 second (Noh, [0143]).
Consider Claim 7, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the dose of inhibitor is larger than a dose of precursor or vice versa (Noh, [0143]) where the inhibitor and the precursor supplied in a vapor form (Noh, [0012]). This include the dose of the vaporized inhibitor is less than the vaporized precursor, including having lower 1st partial pressure of the inhibitor than the 2nd partial pressure of the precursor.
Consider Claim 8, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the use of inhibitor material such as ZrCp2Cl2 with MW of 292.31 (Cho, [0014]), and metal precursor Ti(OiPr)4 with MW (Cho, [0018]).
Consider Claim 9, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the dose of inhibitor is larger than a dose of precursor or vice versa (Noh, [0143]) where the inhibitor and the precursor supplied in a vapor form (Noh, [0012]).
Consider Claim 10, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the process of supplying inhibitor and oxygen species/co-reactant simultaneously (Noh, [0057]).
Consider Claim 11, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the inhibitor include alcohols [0017], where simple alcohol such as methanol include an alkyl group.
Consider Claim 12, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the dose of inhibitor is larger than a dose of oxygen species/co-reactant or vice versa (Noh, [0143]) where the inhibitor and the co-reactant supplied in a vapor form (Noh, [0012]). This include the dose of the vaporized inhibitor is less than the vaporized co-reactant, including having lower 1st partial pressure of the inhibitor than the 2nd partial pressure of the oxygen species.
Consider Claim 13, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the inhibitor include material such as dimethoxy ethane (Noh, [0026]) with molecular weight of 90 g/mol, and where the co-reactant/oxygen species includes material such as ozone (Noh, [0034]), with micro weight of 48 g/mol.
Consider Claim 14, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the dose of inhibitor is larger than the dose of oxygen species/co-reactant or vice versa (Noh, [0143]). Therefore, the pulsing of the inhibitor at the 1st concentration is less than the pulsing of the oxygen species and the 2nd concentration.
Consider Claim 15, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the gap having a first width on the surface of the gap and a second width at the bottom surface of the gap (Figure 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
900
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consider Claims 18-19 and 21, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the first width is less than the second width, and the opposing sidewalls form an inverse taper from the second width to the first width at the at least one opening (Cho, fig 18), or via (Cho, fig 29).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (PG Pub 2023/0070312 A1), and in view of Noh (PG Pub 2022/0119939 A1) in further view of Nguyen (Gradient area-selective deposition for seamless gap-filling in 3D nanostructures through surface chemical reactivity control).
Consider Claims 16-17 and 20, the combined Cho (with Noh) teaches the previously taught in claims 15, with inhibitor layer (211) having a concentration gradient through the gap (Cho, figure 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
900
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The combined Cho (with Noh) does not teach the flux amount of the inhibitor approximate to the opening of the gap, nor the claimed parameters of the gap.
However, Nguyen is in the process deposition using ALD process (method section, 1st paragraph, page 7) within a gap of a substrate (figure 5), teaches the use TTIP and TDMAT as metal precursor and H2O as an oxygen species and TMPMCT as inhibitor (1st paragraph, left Col, page 8). Nguyen teaches the deposition of inhibitor on the distribution of inhibitor materials proximate to the opening is higher flux when compared to the bottom surface and the side walls of the hole (figure 4e-4f). Nguyen teaches the concentration gradient of the inhibitor with greater concentration of the inhibitor a proximate the opening with gradual decrease toward the bottom surface (figure 4e-4f). Nguyen teaches the first width (upper width) is less than the second width (lower width), where the hole along with the side walls form inverse taper (figure 1a), and where the second width is wider than the first width (figure 1a, see SEM image).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Cho (with Noh) with Nguyen to use metal precursor for forming metal oxide, to provide with a higher controlled gradient within the gap (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-21 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 Cho with Noh.
The previously applied 112 claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn.
The applicant argued against the prior art of Liu.
In light of the prior art of Cho with Noh, the applicant’s argument is moot.
The applicant argued against the previously rejection of Noh for claim 6, on the ground that the only difference in the sentences are the words "precursor" is exchanged for "inhibitor." The teaching of Noh does not reasonably make obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select "pulsing the inhibitor for a first time period and pulsing the metal precursor for a second time period, wherein the first time period is shorter than the second time period" as claimed. Rather, the Office Action resorts to impermissible hindsight to read such a limitation into Noh, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to suggest that the exposure times are equal. As Noh stated in [0143];
PNG
media_image3.png
284
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Noh gave the ordinary skilled person in the art the freedom to pick and choose any duration of inhibitor with any duration of the precursor without placing a restriction on combination, such as both (inhibitor and precursor) must have the same duration, as argued.
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
Prosecution Insights