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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are pending. Claim 6 is cancelled. Claim 17 is new.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0342553 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) in view of US 2020/0340112 to Wolf et al. (“Wolf”).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a substrate processing method (abstract) comprising: a preparation step (chemical oxide removal process, para [0021], Fig. 1b) of preparing a substrate that has, on a surface thereof, a first surface which contains Si (SiO2 surface) and a second surface which has a different chemical composition from the first surface and which contains Si (Si surface); a surface modification step (surface modification step, para [0026], Fib. 1c) of carrying out a silylation treatment (para [0027]) of bringing a silylating agent (trimethylsilane, TMSDMA) into contact with the first surface and the second surface; and a processing step of selectively carrying out a processing treatment with respect to the second surface after the surface modification step (deposition of layer ref. 112, para [0032] – [0036]).
Yu does not explicitly teach, after the surface modification step, carrying out a water repellency adjustment treatment of selectively decreasing water repellency of the second surface with respect to the first surface. However, Yu discloses the deposition gas comprising a carrier gas, such as an inert gas (para [0032]), and it can be reasonably expected that the influx of such a carrier gas, or any purging and/or evacuation, will reduce the number of absorbed inhibitor molecules on the second surface ref. 103 and thus result in reduced repellency.
Yu does not explicitly teach the method wherein the water repellency adjustment treatment includes a removal treatment of removing, by using a removing agent, at least a part of compounds derived from the silylating agent, which are chemically or physically bound to the second surface. However, employing an agent to remove inhibitor (thus reducing repellency) from an active surface was known in the art as effective for passivating oxide and inhibiting defects in deposition (see, e.g., Wolf at, inter alia, title, abstract, para [0046]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Yu method as was known wherein the water repellency adjustment treatment includes a removal treatment of removing, by using a removing agent, at least a part of compounds derived from the silylating agent, which are chemically or physically bound to the second surface, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit defects.
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses a method wherein in the surface modification step, a pretreatment is carried out before the silylation treatment, and wherein the pretreatment includes a treatment A-1 of removing a natural oxidation film on at least the first surface and/or a treatment A-2 of bonding OH to at least a part of Si on the first surface (para [0013] – [0026], preparation step includes the formation of a chemical oxide ref. 106 and its removal using plasma etch (para [0022]), dry etch (para [0024]), or a wet-etch using SC1 and SC2 (para [0025])).
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses a method wherein the treatment A-2 is a treatment A-2a of bringing an active species containing an oxygen element and/or a gas containing an oxygen element into contact with at least the first surface, or a treatment A-2b of bringing an oxidizing agent containing an oxygen element into contact with at least the first surface (para [0013] – [0026], preparation step includes the formation of a chemical oxide ref. 106 and its removal using plasma etch (para [0022]), dry etch (para [0024]), or a wet-etch using SC1 and SC2 (para [0025])).
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses a method wherein the treatment A-2a is at least one selected from the group consisting of a plasma treatment using a plasma containing an oxygen element, a UV/O3 treatment, and a gas treatment of carrying out exposure to a gas containing an oxygen element (para [0013] – [0026], preparation step includes the formation of a chemical oxide ref. 106 and its removal using plasma etch (para [0022]), dry etch (para [0024]), or a wet-etch using SC1 and SC2 (para [0025])).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses a method wherein the oxidizing agent includes a solution containing H2O2, and/or ozone water (para [0013] – [0026], preparation step includes the formation of a chemical oxide ref. 106 and its removal using plasma etch (para [0022]), dry etch (para [0024]), or a wet-etch using SC1 and SC2 (para [0025])).
Regarding claim 7, Yu/Wolf discloses a method wherein the removing agent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ammonia, an organic amine, a quaternary ammonium hydroxide, and hydrogen fluoride (Wolf, para [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses a method wherein in a case where the first surface is silicon oxide, the second surface is silicon, or alternatively, a compound formed between Si and at least one selected from the group consisting of N, C, and a metal element, or an oxide of the compound, in a case where the first surface is silicon, the second surface is a compound formed between Si and at least one selected from the group consisting of N, C, and a metal element, or an oxide of the compound, and in a case where the first surface is a compound formed between Si and at least one selected from the group consisting of N and C, or an oxide of the compound, the second surface is a compound formed between Si and a metal element, or an oxide of the compound (para [0013], [0014], Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses a method wherein in the processing step, the processing treatment includes a film forming treatment of forming a film on the second surface by an atomic layer deposition method and/or an etching treatment of etching the second surface (para [0032] – [0036], Fig, 1d).
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses a method wherein in the silylation treatment, the silylating agent is used, or a silylation composition containing the silylating agent is used (para [0026] – [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Yu discloses a method wherein the silylation composition contains at least one of a solvent, a dilution gas, or a catalytic compound (para [0026] – [0032], dilution gas).
Regarding claim 13, Yu discloses the use of a cleaning agent (para [0025], SC1 and SC2), but does not explicitly teach the method wherein the surface modification step includes a cleaning treatment of cleaning at least a part of the second surface with a cleaning agent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Yu method wherein the surface modification step includes a cleaning treatment of cleaning at least a part of the second surface with a cleaning agent, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the cleaning of the surface.
Regarding claim 14, Yu as modified discloses a method wherein the cleaning agent includes an aqueous cleaning solution and/or a rinsing solution (para [0025], SC1 and SC2).
Regarding claim 15, Yu teaches a substrate manufacturing method (abstract) comprising: a step of obtaining a substrate on which each step in the substrate processing method according to Claim 1 has been carried out (abstract, para [0002]).
Regarding claim 16, Yu discloses a method wherein in the processing step, the processing treatment includes a film forming treatment of forming a film on the second surface by an atomic layer deposition method (para [0011], [0032] – [0036], Fig, 1d).
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed.
Claim 8 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is US 2017/0342553 to Yu et al. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein in a case where a value of a water contact angle on the first surface is denoted as Si and a value of a water contact angle on the second surface is denoted as S2 immediately before the processing step after the surface modification step, (Si - S2)/S2 is 1.0 or more, in combination with the other method steps as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the skilled artisan would have found the modification of Yu to include a water repellency treatment that uses a removal at least a part of the compounds derived from the silylating agent to be superfluous and unnecessary since, it is alleged, Yu discloses that the objective of selectively forming the metal-containing layer on the first surface is satisfied with the hydrophobic modified second surface (remarks, page 8, para beginning “Yu thus teaches”), applicant is reminded that the stated motivation provided for the modification is not the objective referred to by applicant, but rather that provided by Wolf, i.e. inhibiting defects. Applicant’s attention is directed to the Office action mailed 03/25/2026, page 10, last para, wherein it states “… employing an agent to remove inhibitor (thus reducing repellency) from an active surface was known in the art as effective for passivating oxide and inhibiting defects in deposition (see, e.g., Wolf at, inter alia, title, abstract, para [0046]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Yu method as was known wherein the water repellency adjustment treatment includes a removal treatment of removing, by using a removing agent, at least a part of compounds derived from the silylating agent, which are chemically or physically bound to the second surface, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit defects.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a desirable reduction in repellency from typical purging processes) (remarks, page bridging pages 8-9) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (remarks, page 9, para beginning “In addition”), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Yu is relied upon for disclosing a water repellency adjustment treatment, and Wolf is relied upon for disclosing a removing agent.
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 ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights