1Notice 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 1-24 are pending in this application which is a CON of Serial Number 17/808384, now US Patent 12,138,654; which is a CON of Serial Number 17/022622, now US Patent 11,389,824; which is a CON of Serial Number 16/429750, now US Patent 10,814,349; which is a CON of Serial Number 15/070594, now US Patent 10,343,186; which is a CIP of Serial Number 14/879962, now US Patent 10,695,794.
The preliminary amendment dated 02/23/2026 adding new claims 21-24 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination will necessarily overlap. This is not found persuasive because the search of an organic vapor deposition method is significantly different and patentably distinct from a method of reducing an aspect ratio.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Newly added claims 21-24 will be added to the elected claims. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Specification
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities listed below.
Appropriate correction is required.
The parent application recited in the lineage in 0001 should be updated to reflect maturation into a US Patent.
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shota et al. (JP 2010-275577) (see English translation).
Shota teaches a film deposition method (title) in which a coating film is deposited on a body in an evacuated chamber by discharging an inert gas and introducing a raw material gas (abstract). Specifically, vapor deposition polymerization can occur (p.1 Technical Field) by using two kinds of evaporated raw material monomers which condense on the substrate at different temperatures to make it easier to condense and increasing film formation speed (p.1 Background). It is further noted that gas introduction pipes 7a and 7b are used to introduce the raw material monomer A and raw material monomer B with the use of an inert gas (p.2 Description paragraphs 3-7). A polyurea film can be formed (p.3 penultimate paragraph). It is noted that an inert gas is used to cool the substrate (p.3 paragraphs 7-9 and p.4 paragraph 9).
Regarding claims 2-3, Shota teaches a polyurea film (p.3 penultimate paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Shota teaches a temperature drop from 35oC to 11oC (p.4 paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 13, Shota teaches heating and cooling the means between the holder and substrate (p.3 paragraphs 8-11).
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 4, 7-9, 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shota et al. (JP 2010-275577) (see English translation) in view of Prasittichai et al. (Applied Materials & Interfaces article).
Shota teaches a film deposition method (title) in which a coating film is deposited on a body in an evacuated chamber by discharging an inert gas and introducing a raw material gas (abstract). Specifically, vapor deposition polymerization can occur (p.1 Technical Field) by using two kinds of evaporated raw material monomers which condense on the substrate at different temperatures to make it easier to condense and increasing film formation speed (p.1 Background). It is further noted that gas introduction pipes 7a and 7b are used to introduce the raw material monomer A and raw material monomer B with the use of an inert gas (p.2 Description paragraphs 3-7). A polyurea film can be formed (p.3 penultimate paragraph). It is noted that an inert gas is used to cool the substrate (p.3 paragraphs 7-9 and p.4 paragraph 9). However, the reference fails to teach the appropriate reactant.
Prasittichai teaches area selective molecular layer deposition of polyurea films (title) using 1,4-phenylenediisocyanate as a reactant (abstract). It would have been obvious to utilize the reactant of Prasittichai in the process of Shota with the expectation of success because Prasittichai teaches of using the reactant to form a polyurea film.
Regarding claim 7, Prasittichai teaches molecular layer deposition (abstract) which is a self-limiting process.
Regarding claim 8, Prasittichai teaches 1,4-phenylenediisocyanate and Shota teaches diaminodicyclohexyl methane (p.4 paragraph 3), which is similar to the claimed material. To utilize 1,6-diaminohexane would have been obvious given the teaching Shota in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 9, the applicant requires a specific time. Shota teaches varying time (Table 2). To utilize the claimed time would have been obvious given Shota’s teaching in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, Prasittichai teaches purging (p.13392 col.2).
Regarding claim 15, Prasittichai teaches precursor, purge, precursor, purge and repeating (p.13392 col.2), which read on reacting without mixing, removing excess, and repeating a plurality of cycles.
Claims 6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shota et al. (JP 2010-275577) (see English translation) and Prasittichai et al. (Applied Materials & Interfaces article) and further in view of TW 201436230 (see English translation). The combination of Shota/Prasittichai fails to teach the thickness ratio.
TW’230 teaches method for forming a semiconductor device (title) by using molecular layer deposition to deposit a material on a substate having source/drain regions, gates and gate spacers (p.5 first paragraph). The thickness is greater on the bottom than the top (p.5 paragraphs 1-2, Figure 2). To utilize the thickness ratio of TW’230 in the combination would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding 10, Prasittichai teaches precursor, purge, precursor, purge and repeating (p.13392 col.2), which read on reacting without mixing.
Regarding claim 11, TW’230 teaches the thickness ratio (p.5 paragraphs 1-2, Figure 2).
Claim 12, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shota et al. (JP 2010-275577) (see English translation) and Prasittichai et al. (Applied Materials & Interfaces article) and further in view of JP WO2009/099252 (see English translation). The combination of Shota/Prasittichai fails to teach the three dimensional structure.
JPWO’252 teaches making a three dimensional structure (p.20 paragraphs 1-6) by molecular layer deposition (p.21 paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to form a three dimensional structure by the combination depending on the final use of the product because JPWO’252 teaches of using molecular layer deposition to form a three dimensional structure.
Regarding claim 21, Shota teaches a temperature drop from 35oC to 11oC (p.4 paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 22, Prasittichai teaches precursor, purge, precursor, purge and repeating (p.13392 col.2).
Regarding claim 23, the applicant requires 1,6-diaminohexane. Shota teaches diaminodicyclohexyl methane (p.4 paragraph 3), which is similar to the claimed material. To utilize 1,6-diaminohexane would have been obvious given the teaching Shota in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 24, Prasittichai teaches 1,4-phenylenediisocyanate and Shota teaches diaminodicyclohexyl methane (p.4 paragraph 3), which is similar to the claimed material. To utilize 1,6-diaminohexane would have been obvious given the teaching Shota in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15, 21-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,695,794. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the elimination of a pressure is an obvious variation.
Pore teaches a method for vapor depositing an organic film, comprising: vaporizing a first organic reactant in a vaporizer at a temperature A to form a first reactant vapor; exposing a semiconductor substrate in a reaction space to the first reactant vapor at a temperature B, the temperature B being lower than the temperature A, and wherein the ratio of temperature A to temperature B in Kelvin is between about 1 and about 1.25; maintain the pressure within the vaporizer at a pressure higher than the pressure in the reaction space; and depositing the organic film on the semiconductor substrate using an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process, wherein the first organic reactant in the vaporizer is vaporized at the temperature A at the same time as the semiconductor substrate is exposed to the first reactant vapor at the temperature B during the depositing (claim 13), which is similar to pending claim 1. To eliminate a pressure requirement would have been obvious with its corresponding loss of function.
Claims 1-15, 21-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,343,186. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the elimination of a three-dimensional structure is an obvious variation.
Pore teaches a method for reducing the aspect ratio of three-dimensional structures on a semiconductor substrate, comprising: vaporizing a first reactant to form a first reactant vapor; exposing a semiconductor substrate in a reaction space to the first reactant vapor, the semiconductor substrate comprising a topography with a three-dimensional structure; and depositing an organic film over the semiconductor substrate preferentially over lower features of the topography compared to higher features of the topography such that the organic film reduces an aspect ratio of the three-dimensional structure on the semiconductor substrate as it deposits, wherein depositing includes exposing the semiconductor substrate to the first reactant vapor (claim 1), which is similar to pending claim 1. To eliminate a three-dimensional structure would have been obvious with its corresponding loss of function.
Claims 1-15, 21-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,389,824. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the elimination of a specific temperature is an obvious variation.
Pore teaches a method of forming an organic film, the method comprising: vaporizing a first reactant at a vaporizing temperature in a vaporizer to form a first reactant vapor; exposing a substrate in a reaction space to the first reactant vapor and a second reactant vapor, wherein the substrate is maintained at a temperature below about 130° C. during the exposing, wherein the temperature is between about 5° C. and about 50° C. below the vaporizing temperature during the exposing; and depositing a polyamic acid film from the first reactant vapor and the second reactant vapor on the substrate, wherein the polyamic acid film is mostly polyamic acid (claim 1), which is similar to pending claim 1. To eliminate a specific temperature would have been obvious with its corresponding loss of function.
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 03/16/2026