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 .
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 20-21 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "selectively depositing organic passivation material on the first surface of the substrate according to claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 only recites “selectively depositing organic polymer material”, it does not recite “selectively depositing organic passivation material”, thus there exists a disconnect as to what features of claim 1 are actually requisite within the method of claim 20. Are these two materials: “organic passivation material” and “organic polymer material” supposed to be referencing the same thing, or different things? If not, how are they supposed to interrelate? It is noted that “organic passivation material” is recited in claim 19, but claim 20 does not depend from claim 19. For purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as at least inclusive of any such scenario.
The other dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 6, 9-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tois et al (US 2017/0352550; hereafter Tois).
Claims 1 and 19: Tois teaches a method of selectively depositing organic polymer / passivation material on a first surface of a substrate relative to a second surface of the substrate by a cyclic deposition process (see, for example, abstract, [0006], [0008]), the method comprising
providing a substrate in a reaction chamber (see, for example, [0006-0008], [0048], figures, examples);
providing a first vapor-phase organic reactant into the reaction chamber (see, for example, [0006-0009], [0048] examples);
providing a second vapor-phase organic reactant into the reaction chamber (see, for example, [0008-0009]);
wherein the first and second vapor-phase organic reactants form the organic polymer / passivation material selectively on the first surface (see, for example, abstract, [0008-0009]);
and wherein the first vapor-phase organic reactant comprises a cyclic compound comprising at least two primary amine groups (such as 1, 4 diaminobenzene A.K.A p-phenylenediamine) (See, for example, [0109]).
Claim 2: Tois further teaches wherein the second vapor-phase organic reactant comprises a dianhydride (see, for example, [0015], [0059], [0084-0085], [0103]).
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 9: Tois further teaches wherein the cyclic compound is a carbocycle, further comprising an aromatic ring, further a six-membered carbocycle comprising two primary amine groups, bonded directly or indirectly to positions 1 and 4 of a carbon ring, respectively, further p-phenylenediamine (AKA 1, 4 diaminobenzene) (See, for example, [0109]).
Claim 10: Tois further teaches wherein the organic polymer material comprises polyimide (See, for example, [0008], [0015]).
Claim 11: Tois further teaches wherein the organic polymer material is deposited on the first surface relative to the second surface with a selectivity of about 50% or higher, further about 80% (see, for example, [0009], [0011] [0054]).
Claim 14: Tois further teaches treating the deposited organic polymer material with reactive species comprising hydrogen radicals (see, for example, [0010], [0119-120]).
Claim 15-16: Tois further teaches wherein the first surface comprises a dielectric surface, further SiO2 (see, for example, [0038], [0047], [0133]).
Claim 17: Tois further teaches wherein the first surface comprises a metal oxide, elemental metal, or metallic surface (see, for example, [0038-41].
Claim 18: Tois further teaches wherein the first surface comprises a metal selected from a group consisting of zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, molybdenum, tungsten, iron, ruthenium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, aluminum, gallium, indium and tin (see, for example, [0038-0041])
Claim 20: Tois further teaches a method of selectively depositing a dielectric material on a second surface of a substrate, the method comprising selectively depositing organic passivation / polymer material on the first surface of the substrate according to claim 1 before depositing the dielectric material (see, for example, [0165] and rejection to claim 1 above).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mickols et al (US 2009/0159527; hereafter Mickols).
Claims 3, 7, and 9: Tois teaches the method of claim 1 above, further particularly to the deposition of polyimide via reaction of polyfunctional amide, including cyclic compounds and a polyfunctional anhydride precursors, (See, for example, [0102-0103], [0109]). But Tois does not explicitly teach wherein the wherein the cyclic compound comprises a six-membered carbocycle comprising further three primary amine groups, bonded directly or indirectly to positions 1, 3 and 5 of a carbon ring, respectively. Mickols teaches a method of deposition, further by vapor, of polyimide via reaction of polyfunctional amine, including cyclic compounds, and a polyfunctional anhydride precursors (see, for example, [0009], [0034]). Like Tois, Mickols has taught wherein p-Phenylenediamine is a suitable and predictable amine precursor for polyimide, and further teaches wherein 1,3,5-triaminiobenzene is similarly suitable (see, for example, [0040]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated 1,3,5-triaminiobenzene (AKA 1,3,5-benzenetriamine) as the cyclic compound since such a precursor is recognized in the art as a suitable alternative to p-Phenylenediamine for the deposition of polyimide, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zong et al (WO 2020/082674; citations directed to machine translation provided herein, hereafter Zong).
Claims 3 and 5: Tois teaches the method of claim 1 above, further particularly to the deposition of polyimide via reaction of polyfunctional amide, including cyclic compounds and a polyfunctional anhydride precursors, (See, for example, [0102-0103], [0109]). But Tois does not explicitly teach wherein the wherein the cyclic compound comprises an alicyclic ring. Zong teaches a method of deposition, further by vapor, of polyimide via reaction of diamine, including cyclic compounds, and a polyfunctional anhydride precursors (see, for example, [0001], [0007-8], [0013], ). Like Tois, Zong has taught wherein p-Phenylenediamine is a suitable and predictable amine precursor for polyimide, and further teaches wherein the diamine is preferably selected from aromatic and alicyclic diamines, noting that molecular structure is known to be a result effective variable influencing resulting material properties such as rigidity, heat resistance, crystallinity, and strength (see, for example, [0008]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a cyclic compound comprising an alicyclic ring since such a precursor is recognized in the art as a suitable alternative to p-Phenylenediamine for the deposition of polyimide, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claim(s) 3-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2016/0056411; hereafter Kim).
Claims 3-6 and 8-9: Tois teaches the method of claim 1 above, further particularly to the deposition of polyimide via reaction of polyfunctional amide, including cyclic compounds and a polyfunctional anhydride precursors, (See, for example, [0102-0103], [0109]). But Tois does not explicitly teach wherein the wherein the cyclic compound comprises an alicyclic ring / one of those of claim 8. Kim teaches a method of deposition of various layers, further by vapor; and additionally is directed to formation of polyimide via reaction of diamine, including cyclic compounds, and a polyfunctional anhydride precursors (see, for example, abstract, [0011-0016], [0043-0050] ). Like Tois, Kim has taught wherein p-Phenylenediamine is a suitable and predictable amine precursor for polyimide, and further teaches wherein various diamine compounds for synthesizing polyimide are well known in the polyimide-relating field and include a variety of alicyclic and aromatic carbocycles of [0015], further, such as a cyclohexanetrialkanamine / 1,4 or 1,3 cyclohexanedimethaneamine( 1-4 or 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane) (See, for example, [0014-0015]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated one of the alicyclic and aromatic carbocycles of [0015], alternatively / further, such as 1-4-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane) since such a precursor is recognized in the art as a suitable alternative to p-Phenylenediamine for the deposition of polyimide, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 4-5: Kim further teaches the cyclic compound comprises an aromatic or alicyclic ring (See, for example, [0015]).
Claim 6: Kim further teaches a six-membered carbocycle comprising two primary amine groups, bonded directly or indirectly to positions 1 and 4 of a carbon ring, respectively, further p-phenylenediamine (AKA 1, 4 diaminobenzene) (See, for example, [0015]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Habel et al (US 2007/0163490; hereafter Habel).
Claim 12: Tois teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the cyclic deposition of polyimide is used as a passivating / masking material before subsequently selectively depositing a dielectric material on a second surface of a substrate (see, for example, [0165]). But Tois is silent as to a ratio of vertical growth to lateral growth of the organic polymer material (polyimide material) over the first surface so it doesn’t teach the claimed range. Habel teaches a method of mask deposition and use of the mask to achieve selective deposition / growth of subsequent material (See, for example, abstract, figures). Habel further teaches wherein controlling a vertical to lateral growth rate of deposited material, further to values of 3.0 or higher, can improve control over the selectivity of deposited material (see, for example, [0014-0015], [0028], [0031], [0052-54]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated deposition conditions for the polyimide wherein the ratio of vertical growth to lateral growth over the first surface is 3.0 or greater, since tailoring of such a ratio is known to be a result effective variable so discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); since such a magnitude would predictably improve control of the selectivity of deposited and subsequently deposited material; and /or since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US 2021/0136922; hereafter Liu).
Claim 13: Tois teaches the method of claim 1 above, further particularly to the cyclic deposition of polyimide via reaction of diamines, including cyclic compounds and a polyfunctional anhydride precursors, (See, for example, [0102-0103]). Tois is silent as to the resulting CTE of the polyimide films, so it does not explicitly teach a CTE below 20ppm K-1. Liu teaches a method of cyclic deposition, further by vapor, of polyimide via reaction of diamine, including cyclic compounds, and a polyfunctional anhydride precursors (see, for example, abstract, [0024], [0082]], ). Like Tois, Zong has taught wherein p-Phenylenediamine is a suitable and predictable amine precursor for polyimide, and further teaches wherein the polyimide layers deposited via such methods preferably possess a coefficient of thermal expansion of less than or equal to 20, further 19 ppm/K to contribute to improved properties (See, for example, [0082], [0117-119]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated depositing the polyimide with a CTE of below 20 ppm/K, such as </ 19ppm/K since such a value is predictably achieved and desired in the prior art via a cyclic vapor deposition from similar precursors to yield desirable films, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tois as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Tois et al (US2020/0066512; hereafter Tois512).
Claim 21: Tois teaches the method of claim 20 above, further particularly to the cyclic deposition of polyimide before subsequently selectively depositing a dielectric material on a second surface of a substrate (see, for example, rejection to claim 20 above, and [0165]). Tois is silent as to the mode of depositing the dielectric material, so it does not explicitly teach cyclic deposition. Tois512 teaches a method of selective deposition of oxide layers onto a substrate, further a substrate previously treated with selective deposition of polyimide passivation (See, for example, abstract, [0046-0047]). Tois512 teaches wherein the deposition process is a cyclic deposition via PEALD allowing for the achievement of enhanced selectivity and controllable alteration of chemistry over the course of deposition to tailor resulting characteristics (See, for example, [0017-0019], [0043-0046], [0089]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a cyclic deposition method to achieve the deposition of the dielectric material as such a method is well known in the art to co-operate with previously selectively polyimide passivated substrates to selectively deposit overlying dielectric material and as such cyclic deposition provided enhanced tailoring of selectivity, chemistry, and properties over the course of deposition, and further since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights