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 .
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 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of updating the first paragraph of the Specification with US Patent No. 12,205,820 issued from the parent application.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugita et al. (US20150087158).
Regarding claim 1, Sugita discloses a process for film deposition (paragraph 0001), the process comprising one or more deposition cycles comprising: contacting a first surface of a substrate and a second surface of the substrate with a first vapor phase precursor comprising at least two amino groups (exposed surface of layer 4 reads on a first surface, exposed surface of layer 6 reads on a second surface; paragraphs 0064 and 0066; and Fig. 5A), wherein the first surface and the second surface comprise different materials (paragraph 0064 and Fig. 5A); and contacting the first surface of the substrate and the second surface of the substrate with a second vapor phase precursor comprising an anhydride (paragraph 0066 and Fig. 5A), wherein contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors forms an organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate (paragraph 0066 and Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 2, Sugita discloses wherein the first vapor phase precursor is represented by a chemical formula of R1(NH2) 2, and wherein R1comprises an aliphatic carbon chain (diaminobutane, paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 3, Sugita discloses wherein the aliphatic carbon chain comprises 4 carbon atoms (diaminobutane, paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 4, Sugita discloses wherein the first vapor phase precursor comprises a diamine (diaminobutane, paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 9, Sugita discloses wherein the anhydride comprises pyromellitic dianhydride (PMDA) (paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 11, Sugita discloses wherein the organic film comprises polyimide (paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 14, Sugita discloses wherein a selectivity for depositing the organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate is at least 50% (Fig. 5B).
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 of this title, 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 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sugita et al. (US20150087158) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Sugita discloses wherein the first vapor phase precursor comprises diaminobutane (paragraph 0048). Sugita is silent about diaminobutane; however, 1, 4-diaminobutane is a common isomer of diaminobutane.
Regarding claim 10, Sugita discloses heating the substrate to a temperature in a range from 20°C to 450°C (paragraph 0065), which encompasses the range recited in the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1, 6-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bristol et al. (WO2015047345) in view of Nakao et al. (US20110039420).
Regarding claim 1, Bristol discloses a process for film deposition (lines 15-26, page 19), the process comprising one or more deposition cycles comprising: contacting a first surface of a substrate and a second surface of the substrate with a first vapor phase precursor, wherein the first surface and the second surface comprise different materials; and contacting the first surface of the substrate and the second surface of the substrate with a second vapor phase precursor, wherein contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors forms an organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate (the metal surface reads on a first surface, the dielectric surface reads on a second surface, alternating reaction of bifunctional monomers indicates a first vapor phase precursor and a second vapor phase precursor; lines 1-5, page 20 and Fig. 5A).
Bristol is silent about the first vapor phase precursor comprising at least two amino groups and the second vapor phase precursor being an anhydride. However, Bristol teaches that the polymer is a condensation polymer such as polyimide, and is formed via alternating reaction of bifunctional monomers (lines 1-5, page 20). In addition, Nakao teaches that in forming polyimide as a condensation polymer via alternating reaction of bifunctional monomers, the monomers are diamine and anhydride (oxydianiline and pyromellitic di anhydride, paragraph 0071 and Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use diamine and anhydride monomers as taught by Nakao to form polyimide film in the method of Bristol, with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Regarding claim 6, Bristol discloses wherein the first surface of the substrate comprises a metallic surface (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 7, Bristol discloses wherein the second surface comprises an inorganic dielectric surface (lines 1-9, page 9).
Regarding claim 8, Bristol discloses wherein the second surface comprises silicon (line 2 on page 9).
Regarding claim 12, Bristol in view of Nakao discloses wherein the organic film comprises polyamic acid (the organic polymeric material may be formed as any of various condensation polymers formed via alternating reaction of two bifunctiona] monomers, Bristol, lines 1-5, page 20; a film of polyamic acid is formed due to a surface reaction between the oxydianiline and the pyromellitic di anhydride, Nakao, paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 13, Nakao discloses converting the polyamic acid to polyimide (Nakao, paragraph 0071).
Claims18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al. (US20150087158) in view of Nakao et al. (US20110039420) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in in view of Rajagopalan et al. (US20120164829).
Regarding claim 18, Sugita is silent about cleaning the first surface and second surface prior to contacting the first surface and second surface with either of the first vapor phase precursor or second vapor phase precursor. However, Sugita discloses that contacting the first surface and second surface with either of the first vapor phase precursor or second vapor phase precursor is performed after forming a recess to expose a conductive layer (paragraphs 0064-0066 and Fig. 5). However, Rajagopalan teaches that a native oxide (oxidized metal) is formed on a metallic surface when exposed to the environment (normally air), and a native oxide treatment process can be used to reduce the native oxide to form the metal (paragraph 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to realize that a native oxide would typically exist on a surface of metal after exposed to air and use a native oxide treatment process to clean the substrate before the vapor exposure so that the surface of the metal is free of native oxide.
Regarding claim 19, Rajagopalan discloses wherein cleaning the substrate comprises cleaning the substrate with a reducing process (paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 20, Rajagopalan discloses wherein cleaning the substrate comprises cleaning the substrate with a plasma cleaning process (paragraph 0081).
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-11 and 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,373,820 (hereinafter ‘820).
Regarding claim 1, ‘820 claims a process for film deposition (claim 1), the process comprising one or more deposition cycles comprising: contacting a first surface of a substrate and a second surface of the substrate with a first vapor phase precursor comprising at least two amino groups (claims 1 and 4), wherein the first surface and the second surface comprise different materials (claims 16 and 17); and contacting the first surface of the substrate and the second surface of the substrate with a second vapor phase precursor comprising an anhydride (claims 1 and 6), wherein contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors forms an organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate (claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, ‘820 claims wherein the first vapor phase precursor comprises a diamine (claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, ‘820 claims wherein the first surface of the substrate comprises a metal oxide, elemental metal, or metallic surface (claim 15).
Regarding claim 7, ‘820 claims wherein the second surface comprises a dielectric surface (claim 12).
Regarding claim 8, ‘820 claims wherein the second surface comprises silicon (claim 17).
Regarding claim 10, ‘820 claims heating the substrate to a temperature greater than about 170° C (claim 7), which encompasses the range as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, ‘820 claims wherein the organic film comprises polyimide (claim 3).
Regarding claim 14, ‘820 claims wherein a selectivity for depositing the organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate is at least 50% (claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, ‘820 claims after contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors, subjecting the substrate to an etch process, wherein the etch process has a chemistry for removal of organic material and removes substantially all of any deposited organic film from the second surface of the substrate and does not remove substantially all of the deposited organic film from the first surface of the substrate (claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, ‘820 claims wherein the etch process comprises exposing the substrate to one or more of hydrogen atoms, hydrogen radicals, or hydrogen plasma (claim 19).
Regarding claim 17, ‘820 claims wherein the etch process comprises exposing the substrate to one or more of oxygen atoms, oxygen radicals, or oxygen plasma (claim 20).
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5 and 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,453,701 (hereinafter ‘701).
Regarding claim 1, ‘701 claims a process for film deposition (claim 1), the process comprising one or more deposition cycles comprising: contacting a first surface of a substrate and a second surface of the substrate with a first vapor phase precursor comprising at least two amino groups (claims 1 and 7), wherein the first surface and the second surface comprise different materials (claims 4 and 5); and contacting the first surface of the substrate and the second surface of the substrate with a second vapor phase precursor comprising an anhydride (claims 1 and 8), wherein contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors forms an organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate (claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, ‘701 claims wherein the first vapor phase precursor is represented by a chemical formula of R1(NH2) 2, and wherein R1comprises an aliphatic carbon chain (claim 7).
Regarding claim 4, ‘701 claims wherein the first vapor phase precursor comprises a diamine (claim 7).
Regarding claim 5, ‘701 claims wherein the first vapor phase precursor comprises 1,6-diaminohexane (claim 7).
Regarding claim 6, ‘701 claims wherein the first surface of the substrate comprises a metallic surface (claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, ‘701 claims wherein the second surface comprises a dielectric surface (claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, ‘701 wherein the anhydride comprises pyromellitic dianhydride (PMDA) (claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, ‘701 claims wherein the organic film comprises polyimide (claim 6).
Regarding claim 15, ‘701 claims after contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors, subjecting the substrate to an etch process, wherein the etch process has a chemistry for removal of organic material and removes substantially all of any deposited organic film from the second surface of the substrate and does not remove substantially all of the deposited organic film from the first surface of the substrate (claim 9).
Claims 1, 6-8, 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-8, 13 and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,387,107 (hereinafter ‘107).
Regarding claim 1, ‘107 claims a process for film deposition (claim 1), the process comprising one or more deposition cycles comprising: contacting a first surface of a substrate and a second surface of the substrate with a first vapor phase precursor comprising at least two amino groups (claims 1 and 16), wherein the first surface and the second surface comprise different materials (claim 1); and contacting the first surface of the substrate and the second surface of the substrate with a second vapor phase precursor comprising an anhydride (claims 1 and 17), wherein contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors forms an organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate (claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, ‘107 claims wherein the first surface of the substrate comprises a metallic oxide (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, ‘107 claims wherein the second surface comprises a dielectric surface (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, ‘107 claims wherein the second surface comprises silicon (claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, ‘107 claims wherein the organic film comprises polyimide (claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, ‘107 claims wherein a selectivity for depositing the organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate is at least 50% (claim 13).
Regarding claim 15, ‘107 claims after contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors, subjecting the substrate to an etch process, wherein the etch process has a chemistry for removal of organic material and removes substantially all of any deposited organic film from the second surface of the substrate and does not remove substantially all of the deposited organic film from the first surface of the substrate (claim 15).
Regarding claim 18, ‘107 claims cleaning the first surface and the second surface prior to contacting the first surface and the second surface with either of the first vapor phase precursor or the second vapor phase precursor (claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, ‘107 claims wherein cleaning the substrate comprises cleaning the substrate with a reducing process (claim 2).
Regarding claim 20, ‘107 claims wherein cleaning the substrate comprises cleaning the substrate with a plasma cleaning process (claim 3).
Claims 1-2, 4-11 and 14-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 12, 14-16, 18-19 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,820 (hereinafter ‘820).
Regarding claim 1, ‘820 claims a process for film deposition (claim 1), the process comprising one or more deposition cycles comprising: contacting a first surface of a substrate and a second surface of the substrate with a first vapor phase precursor comprising at least two amino groups (claims 1 and 3), wherein the first surface and the second surface comprise different materials (claim 1); and contacting the first surface of the substrate and the second surface of the substrate with a second vapor phase precursor comprising an anhydride (claim 1), wherein contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors forms an organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate (claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, ‘820 claims wherein the first vapor phase precursor is represented by a chemical formula of R1(NH2) 2, and wherein R1comprises an aliphatic carbon chain (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, ‘820 claims wherein the first vapor phase precursor comprises a diamine (claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, ‘820 claims wherein the first vapor phase precursor comprises 1,6-diaminohexane (claim 3).
Regarding claim 6, ‘820 claims wherein the first surface of the substrate comprises a metallic surface (claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, ‘820 claims wherein the second surface comprises a dielectric surface (claim 19).
Regarding claim 8, ‘820 claims wherein the second surface comprises silicon (claim 18).
Regarding claim 9, ‘820 claims wherein the anhydride comprises pyromellitic dianhydride (PMDA) (claim 4).
Regarding claim 10, ‘820 claims heating the substrate to a temperature in a range from 170° C. to 210° C (claim 6).
Regarding claim 11, ‘820 claims wherein the organic film comprises polyimide (claim 8).
Regarding claim 14, ‘820 claims wherein a selectivity for depositing the organic film selectively on the first surface of the substrate relative to the second surface of the substrate is at least 50% (claim 12).
Regarding claim 15, ‘820 claims after contacting the substrate with the first and second vapor phase precursors, subjecting the substrate to an etch process, wherein the etch process has a chemistry for removal of organic material and removes substantially all of any deposited organic film from the second surface of the substrate and does not remove substantially all of the deposited organic film from the first surface of the substrate (claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, ‘820 claims wherein the etch process comprises exposing the substrate to one or more of hydrogen atoms, hydrogen radicals, or hydrogen plasma (claim 15).
Regarding claim 17, ‘820 claims wherein the etch process comprises exposing the substrate to one or more of oxygen atoms, oxygen radicals, or oxygen plasma (claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, ‘820 claims cleaning the first surface and the second surface prior to contacting the first surface and the second surface with either of the first vapor phase precursor or the second vapor phase precursor (claim 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections as set forth in this Office Action are overcome and if they are rewritten or amended to include 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:
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: subjecting the substrate to an etch process, wherein the etch process has a chemistry for removal of organic material and removes substantially all of any deposited organic film from the second surface of the substrate and does not remove substantially all of the deposited organic film from the first surface of the substrate, in the context of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 16-17, they are dependent from claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhou et al. (J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, year 2013, vol. 31, pages 040801-1 to 040801-18) teaches that in a process of depositing organic film using two vapor phase precursors (molecular layer deposition of polymer film), surface condition is very important for the film growth as surface species are involved in the deposition process (abstract and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights