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 1-22 pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6-9 recites the limitation “preferentially”. The “preferentially” is not considered concrete language, as the examiner is not sure if the applicant claiming those limitations or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (PG Pub 2022/0108915 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Liu teaches the process of depositing silicon containing materials (abstract) where the silicon containing material include silicon oxide [0018], where the silicon containing material/silicon oxide is deposited on a substrate having a gap (abstract) where the silicon oxide (203) is deposited within the gap (201) (figure 2, [0089]).
Liu teaches Step (a): the providing a substrate in a chamber (step 101) (figure 1, [0083]), where the substrate’s gap (201) includes side walls and bottom surface as inner surfaces (figure 2A), where a perimeter is a surface area between two adjacent gaps (figure 2A).
Liu teaches Step (b): the pulsing of the inhibitor (step 1001) into the chamber (figure 1, [0073]), where the deposited inhibition layer (202) in a portion of the gap adjacent to the opening and on the surface area (figure 2C).
Liu teaches Step (c): the pulsing of the first precursor [0073], where the first precursor is chemisorbed into the inner surface [0036].
Liu teaches Step (d): the pulsing the second precursor [0073], where the second precursor include oxygen species such as water, ozone [0066], where the second precursor/oxygen species react with the adsorbed first precursor [0037].
Liu teaches Step (e): the repeating of step (b) – (d) using loop (110) until a desired thickness is achieved (107) ([0085], figure 1).
Consider Claim 2, Liu teaches the materials of the inhibitor/inhibition layer is formed using carbon precursor [0023], where the carbon precursor includes hydrocarbon [0047], and where the hydrocarbon includes alcohol, carboxylic acid, ketone [0049].
Consider Claim 5, Liu teaches the step of purging between reactants/materials pulses with inert gas [0036].
Consider Claim 8, Liu teaches the inhibitor comprises toluene with 92 g/mol [0049], and the first precursor comprises disilane (SiH3)2 with 62 g/mol [0065].
Consider Claim 15, Liu 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 2).
Consider Claim 21, Liu teaches the gap is a via with two opening [0029].
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noh (PG Pub 2022/0119939 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Noh teaches the process of forming in zirconium oxide layer on the substrate [0042], where the substrate have a recess (figure 1). Noh 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). Noh teaches 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]. Noh teaches 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]. Noh teaches step (E): the process of repeating step (A) – step (D) until a desired thickness is formed [0065].
Consider Claim 2, Noh teaches the inhibitor include material such as alcohol, carboxylic acids [0018].
Consider Claims 3-4, Noh teaches the precursor is a metal oxide [0033], and the formed film is zinc oxide [0042].
Consider Claim 5, Noh teaches the process of purging using inert gas [0060] where the purging step is performed subsequent to the previous steps and after (figure 4).
Consider Claim 6, 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 [0142].
Consider Claim 7, Noh teaches the dose of inhibitor is larger than a dose of precursor or vice versa [0143] where the inhibitor and the precursor supplied in a vapor form [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 9, Noh teaches the dose of inhibitor is larger than a dose of precursor or vice versa [0143] where the inhibitor and the precursor supplied in a vapor form [0012].
Consider Claim 10, Noh teaches the process of supplying inhibitor and oxygen species/co-reactant simultaneously [0057].
Consider Claim 11, Noh teaches the inhibitor include alcohols [0017], where simple alcohol such as methanol include an alkyl group.
Consider Claim 12, Noh teaches the dose of inhibitor is larger than a dose of oxygen species/co-reactant or vice versa [0143] where the inhibitor and the co-reactant supplied in a vapor form [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, Noh teaches the inhibitor include material such as dimethoxy ethane [0026] with molecular weight of 90 g/mol, and where the co-reactant/oxygen species includes material such as ozone [0034], with micro weight of 48 g/mol.
Consider Claim 14, Noh teaches the dose of inhibitor is larger than the dose of oxygen species/co-reactant or vice versa [0143]. Therefore, the pulsing of the inhibitor at the 1st concentration is less than the pulsing of the oxygen species and the 2nd concentration.
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) 3-4, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (PG Pub 2022/0108915 A1) in view of Nguyen (Gradient area-selective deposition for seamless gap-filling in 3D nanostructures through surface chemical reactivity control)
Consider Claims 3-4, Liu teaches the process of deposition of an oxide material using first precursor (pre claim 1), using ALD process [0034].
Liu does not teach the use of metal precursor for forming metal oxide.
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), and where the formed metal is TiO2 (2nd paragraph, left Col, page 8).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Liu with Nguyen to use metal precursor for forming metal oxide, to provide with controlled gradient within the gap (abstract).
Consider Claims 16-20, Liu teaches the process in the above claim 15.
Liu does not teach the flux amount of the inhibitor approximate to the opening of the gap, nor the concentration gradient thought 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_image1.png
572
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
483
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Liu with Nguyen to use metal precursor for forming metal oxide, to provide with controlled gradient within the gap (abstract).
Claim(s) 6-9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (PG Pub 2022/0108915 A1).
Consider Claims 6-7, 9, Liu teaches the first/second precursors flow parameters (such as concentration, residence time, flow regulation) are adjusted [0054], and where the inhibitor pulse time is also adjusted [0043].
Liu does not explicitly teach the adjustment of the pulses and the partial pressure and the concentration of the inhibitor and the first precursor as claimed.
However, it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art to follow Liu’s teaching and adjust the flow, partial pressure and concentration to achieve a pulse time inhibitor to be greater than the pulse time of first precursor, and to achieve a partial pressure of the inhibitor to be below the partial pressure of the first precursor, and to achieve a concentration of the inhibitor to be less than the concentration of the first precursor, using known engineering principles and practices, to achieve a desired deposition reaction and the formation of the by-product [0054].
Consider Claim 8, Liu teaches the inhibitor comprises toluene with 92 g/mol [0049], and the first precursor comprises disilane (SiH3)2 with 62 g/mol [0065]. 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 22, Liu teaches the inhibitor to include alcohol [0049]. Although Liu does not explicitly teaches what type of alcohol, it would be obvious for ordinary skilled in the art to include simple alcohols such as methanol and or ethanol, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (PG Pub 2022/0108915 A1) in view of Khan (Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition Using Si Precursors as Inhibitors)
Consider Claim 22, Liu teaches the process of deposition of an oxide material using first precursor (pre claim 1), using inhibitor material including amine [0049].
Liu does not teach types of amine used as inhibitor.
However, Khan is in the prior art of selective coating using ALD process (abstract), teaches the use of bis(N,N dimethylamino) dimethylsilane (DMADMS) and (N,N dimethylamino) trimethylsilane (DMATMS) as inhibitors (abstract).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Liu with Khan to use DMADMS and DMATMS as inhibitors, to provides a potential approach for the utilization of AS-ALD in pattern fabrication inside 3D nanostructures (abstract).
Conclusion
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