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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 12 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 March 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “wherein the plasma is maintained when switching between (d1) and (d2).” The limitation is indefinite, because “the plasma” in step d(1) in Claim 1 is a plasma formed from a first gas containing hydrogen gas while “the plasma” in step (d2) is a plasma formed from a second gas containing no hydrogen gas. Because (d2) is a plasma which is not the plasma of (d1) in Claim 1, it is not clear in what way “the plasma is maintained when switching between (d1) and (d2). ”Examiner considers the limitation to include the interpretations that the plasma in both (d1) and (d2) also includes a common species (e.g. the second gas or a third unrecited gas) or that the plasma in (d1) continues until a different plasma (d2) is provided.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illiberi et al. (US 20210301392).
Regarding Claim 1, Illiberi et al. (US’392) teach a film-forming method for forming a silicon oxide film on a substrate (Abstract), the film forming method comprising: (a) preparing a substrate having on a surface thereof a first region where an insulating film (dielectric 220) is exposed and a second region where a conductive film (metal 210) is exposed (Fig. 2A); (b) selectively forming an inhibiting layer for inhibiting formation of the silicon oxide film on the second region (passivation of metal 210 with polymer layer 240) [0087]; (c) forming the silicon oxide film on the first region (dielectric) while inhibiting formation of the silicon oxide film 260 on the second region by the inhibiting layer (Figs. 2E-2F; [0088]); and (d) reforming the silicon oxide film formed on the first region; wherein (c) includes: (c1) supplying a metal catalyst gas to the surface and adsorbing (chemisorption) the metal catalyst gas to the first region (Abstract; [0009, 0022,0024,0031-0032,0042,0047,0088,0098]); and (c2) supplying a silanol-containing gas to the surface to react the silanol-containing gas with the metal catalyst gas adsorbed to the first region to form the silicon oxide film (Abstract; [0009,0011]), and wherein (d) includes: (d1) exposing the surface to a plasma formed from a first gas containing hydrogen gas, for example, to reform the silicon oxide film by cleaning the oxide surfaces of passivation material deposited during cycles of deposition of passivation material and silicon oxide (Fig. 1; [0233,0034,0039,0083]) and/ or to remove silicon oxide from one surface by etching without removing all of it from a second surface (“etch back”)[0232-0233,0083-0084]; the phrase “without removing all of the silicon oxide from over the dielectric surface” in [00232] suggests partial removal over the first region (dielectric). Plasma etching includes plasma comprising hydrogen, oxygen, noble gas species, or nitrogen; and plasma consisting essentially of noble gas species, performed in multiple deposition cycles until a desired thickness of silicon oxide is reached [0232.0233].
US’392 fails to expressly teach two distinct steps (d1) and (d2) for reforming the silicon oxide film. However, because reforming can be performed in cycles with a variety of possible plasma species (plasma comprising hydrogen, comprising oxygen, or either comprising or consisting essentially of noble gas), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform multiple cycles of reforming the silicon oxide film with various combinations of the plasma (for example, to account for different contaminants and/ or reactivity of various layers to the plasma), including with plasmas including hydrogen (and possibly also other species), followed by plasmas including species other than hydrogen (e.g. oxygen and/ or noble gasses or consisting essentially of noble gasses) with a reasonable expectation of reforming the silicon oxide film (etching back and/ or cleaning) with plasmas of the recited species.
Claim 2, US’392 teaches that the entire deposition process, including any post-deposition plasma cycles, can be performed a plurality of times and also that the post-deposition plasma cycles can be performed a plurality of times (Fig. 1; [0038-0039,0232-0233]). US’392 fails to teach expressly a step (d1) and a step (d2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’392 with cycles of steps (d1) and (d2), because it would have been obvious to perform the entire process of deposition and removal multiple times, with steps (d1) and (d2) as obvious steps (see rejection of Claim 1 above), and also because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to perform multiple cycles of (d1) and (d2) as needed in a single deposition cycle as desired to remove passivation layers on silicon oxide and/or silicon oxide material as needed, because US’392 suggests the suitability of plasmas both including hydrogen and not including hydrogen to perform the recited functions in multiple cycles.
Regarding Claims 3-4, US’392 teaches that the entire deposition process, including any post-deposition plasma cycles, can be performed a plurality of times and also that the post-deposition plasma cycles can be performed a plurality of times (Fig. 1; [0038-0039,0232-0233]). US’392 fails to teach expressly either that the plasma is maintained or that the plasma is stopped when switching between (d1) and (d2). However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’392 with cycles of steps (d1) and (d2) either by stopping the plasma when switching as when performing the entire process of deposition and removal multiple times, with steps (d1) and (d2) as obvious steps with different suitable plasmas (see rejection of Claim 1 above) or by maintaining a hydrogen plasma up to the point a plasma of different composition is provided while performing multiple cycles of (d1) and (d2) as needed in a single deposition cycle as desired to remove passivation layers on silicon oxide and/or silicon oxide material as needed, because US’392 suggests the suitability of plasmas both including hydrogen and not including hydrogen to perform the recited functions in multiple cycles. Moreover, it is prima facie obvious to make steps continual or batch, given the suggestions to use plasma as needed and in multiple cycles. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 5, US’392 fails to teach that the plasma contains specifically both hydrogen and an inert gas. However, it was conventional at the time of invention to mix inert gas (e.g. Argon) in a plasma. Additionally, US’392 suggests a plasma not only consisting essentially of noble gas species, but also comprising noble gas species [0233]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’392 with a plasma of a first gas comprising hydrogen and noble (inert) gas followed by a plasma of a second gas consisting of noble gas, for example.
Regarding Claim 6, see the rejections of Claims 3-5 above.
Regarding Claim 7, US’392 teaches performing (c1) and (c2) a plurality of times [0011-0012,0039,0088]. Moreover, the limitation represents a prima facie obvious duplication of parts. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 8, US’392 teaches performing c and d a plurality of times (Fig. 1; [0011-0012,0039,0088,0232]). Moreover, the limitation represents a prima facie obvious duplication of parts. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 9, US’392 teaches a cycle including (b), performed a plurality of times. See citations in the rejections of Claims 7-8 above.
Regarding Claim 10, US’392 teaches that the inhibiting layer is formed of a self-assembled monolayer [0036].
Regarding Claim 11, US’392 teaches that the metal catalyst gas comprises TMA (trimethyl aluminum) [0009].
Regarding Claim 12, US’392 teaches that the silanol-containing gas comprises TPSOL (tris(tert-pentoxy(silanol)) [0009].
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Illiberi et al. (US 2021/0301394) (selective deposition of silica oxide on metal using inhibitor, including self-assembling monolayer, deposited on dielectric)
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights