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 1-15 are pending in this application, which is a 371 of PCT/KR2023/003580.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
It is noted that the abstract begins with “The present invention relates to”. The examiner suggests its deletion.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed to a method. The examiner suggests amending the abstract to reflect same.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to a method. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 10-12 are 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.
In claim 10 lines 2-4, the terms “the oxide film”, “the nitride film”, “the metal film” and “the selective film” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 11 lines 2-3, the phrase “an ALD chamber … or a PECVD chamber” is deemed confusing. Independent claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, requires an adsorption step, which inherently is an ALD process step. Can an adsorption step really be performed in say, a CVD chamber? Because once adsorption is performed, doesn’t it make it an ALD chamber? Clarification and appropriate amendments, if necessary, are requested.
In claim 12 line 4, the abbreviation “DLI” is confusing and undefined in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (2017/0068162) in view of Fukuzawa et al. (2017/0342559).
Claim 1, Kasahara teaches a pattern forming method (title) in which multiple layers are formed on a substrate (abstract and Figure 1A). Specifically, base layer 2 and processed layer 3 are formed on a substrate 1 (0013 and Figure 1A) followed eventually by a second mask layer 6 which includes silicon oxide film by an atomic layer deposition process (0019). However, the reference fails to teach adsorption and a ligand substitution agent.
Fukuzawa teaches of forming an oxide or nitride film by ALD using a silicon precursor and a hydrocarbon precursor (title) in which a first precursor is adsorbed on a substrate and feeding a second precursor which is adsorbed on a substrate followed by forming a monolayer constituting an oxide or nitride film by ligand substitution reaction (abstract). It is specifically noted that Fukuzawa teaches and ALD process which had adsorption. Hence, the adsorption would be inherent in Kasahara’s ALD process. However, it would have been obvious to utilize the ligand substitution step in Kasahara with the expectation of success because Fukuzawa teaches of ligand substitution to form an oxide film by ALD.
Regarding claim 2, Kasahara teaches TEOS (0013), which contains oxygen and 4 carbons.
Regarding claim 3, Kasahara teaches TEOS (0013), which contains oxygen and a double bond.
Regarding claim 4, Kasahara teaches TEOS (0013), which contains oxygen and a double bond to carbon.
Regarding claim 9, Kasahara teaches silicon (0019).
Regarding claim 10, Kasahara teaches silicon oxide (0019).
Regarding claim 11, Kasahara teaches ALD (0019).
Regarding claim 12, Kasahara teaches vapor deposition (0013), which means vapors are used and thus reads on VFC.
Eom et al. (Chemistry of Materials article) teaches a ligand exchange and substitution reaction in an ALD process and has been cited as relevant art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art references fail to teach or suggest the claimed ligand substitution agent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 02/16/2026