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 .
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, 9, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahn et al. (US 2008/0191351).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahn et al. (US’351) teach a method of forming an indium molybdenum oxide layer (IMO layer) on a substrate within a reaction chamber, the method comprising: performing a cyclical deposition process comprising a plurality of repeated deposition cycles (Fig. 2;[0034]), wherein a deposition cycle comprises; (a) contacting the substrate with a vapor phase indium precursor (Fig. 2); (b) contacting the substrate with a vapor phase molybdenum precursor (Fig. 2); and (c) contacting the substrate with an oxygen reactant (e.g. water [0042], oxidizing to form an oxide layer [0022], requiring oxygen) (Fig. 2; Claim 15; [0023]).
Regarding Claim 2, US’351 teaches a cyclical deposition process comprising atomic layer deposition (Claims 13-19; [0018,0038]).
Regarding Claim 3, US’351 teaches a deposition cycle, comprising an indium oxide sub-cycle (Claim 14).
Regarding Claim 4, US’351 teaches a molybdenum doped indium oxide (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, US’351 teaches that the cyclical deposition process comprising atomic layer deposition can include heating a substrate to 200 C, during at least some portion of the deposition process [0043].
Regarding Claim 11, US’351 teaches indium chloride (InCl2) [0042].
Regarding Claim 14, US’351 teaches oxidation of InCl2 with water [0042] and teaches oxidation of In/Mo metal layers, which require a reactant, comprising oxygen (O) [0023].
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) 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2008/0191351).
Regarding Claim 5, US’351 teaches various alternatives for producing a molybdenum doped indium oxide layer, including depositing a compound layer including indium oxide and molybdenum nitride, depositing In/Mo layers and then oxidizing the layers, or depositing a metal layer and an oxide layer (e.g. indium oxide layer and molybdenum layer) followed by further processing [0023,0042]. US’351 fails to teach a deposition cycle comprises an indium oxide sub-cycle and a molybdenum oxide sub-cycle. However, given the suggestions in US’351 to oxidize metal layers separately or simultaneously and to deposit one metal layer (not specifying either indium or molybdenum) and another metal oxide layer before processing (where processing metal layers includes oxidizing), 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’351 by oxidizing each deposited metal layer (whether indium or molybdenum) separately or together in separate sub-cycles or in a single sub-cycle with a reasonable expectation of achieving a molybdenum doped indium oxide.
Regarding Claim 6, US’351 teaches contacting the substrate after step (a) and after step (b) (e.g. oxidizing between steps (a) and (b) in the case of first forming indium oxide in a sub-cycle including depositing indium followed by oxidation [0042] and also oxidizing deposited metal In/Mo after both (a) and (b) to form molybdenum-doped indium oxide, requiring an oxygen reactant, including multiple cycles) (Clam 15; [0023,0042]. US’351 also teaches depositing an unspecified metal oxide layer (i.e. containing Mo or In) and an unspecified metal layer (i.e. of In or Mo) and then processing them, where processing a metal layer includes oxidizing [0023]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention modify the process of US’351 by depositing each metal layer in a subcycle followed by oxidation in each cycle, because US’351 teaches that one can deposit indium and molybdenum each as metals before oxidizing them together; deposit laminate, including a metal oxide layer (whether In or Mo is unspecified) and a metal layer, then process the layers, where processing a metal layer, includes oxidizing; and suggests that a metal oxide layer can be deposited by first depositing a metal layer followed by oxidizing that metal layer in a sub-cycle.
Regarding Claim 7, US’351 teaches oxidizing both indium and molybdenum layers (In/Mo) and mixing them [0023] or depositing an unspecified metal oxide layer (i.e. containing Mo or In) and an unspecified metal layer (i.e. of In or Mo) and then processing them, where processing a metal layer includes oxidizing [0023], and depositing a metal oxide layer, includes oxidizing a deposited monolayer, comprising the metal [0042]. Thus, 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’351
Regarding Claim 8, US’351 fails to teach performing the indium oxide sub-cycle in a first reaction chamber and a molybdenum oxide sub-cycle in a second reaction chamber. Having taught depositing a metal and/ or a metal oxide in sub-cycles [0023,0042] in a chamber, it is obvious to perform the cycles or subcycles all in the same chamber or in different chambers with a reasonable expectation of performing a subcycle in an ALD chamber capable of performing ALD processes. Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the process of US’351 to perform each sub-cycle using a different metal precursor in different chambers because of an obvious design choice to have a reaction chamber dedicated to each precursor.
Regarding Claim 10, US’351 does not teach a specific doping concentration. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2008/0191351) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2007/0234949).
Regarding Claim 12, US’351 teaches that one deposit either an indium metal or an indium oxide, where the indium oxide can be deposited in a sub-cycle, including an indium precursor and an oxygen source (water) (Fig. 2; [0024, 0042]). US’351 teaches InCl2 as an example of an indium precursor [0042]. US’351 fails to teach other indium precursors for depositing either an indium metal or an indium oxide. Ahn et al. (US’949) is analogous prior art in the field of depositing metal oxide films, including by ALD, including deposition of doped indium oxide, including molybdenum doped indium oxide (Abstract; [0003,0019]). US’949 teaches analogous steps of depositing indium oxide with a precursor vapor followed by pulsing an oxygen source reactant [0039]. US’949 suggests that InCl3 is a precursor of an indium oxide layer. Id. 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’351 with InCl3 as a precursor of indium oxide, because US’949 suggests that InCl3 is a suitable precursor to deposit an indium oxide layer, also the goal of US’351.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2008/0191351) in view of Sarnet et al. (US 2018/0127873).
Regarding Claim 13, US’351 teaches oxidizing both indium and molybdenum layers [0023]. US’351 fails to teach Mo(CO)6 or Mo(NtBu)2(NMe2)2 precursors for ALD. Sarnet et al. (US’873) is analogous art in the field of ALD deposition of metal oxide layers, including molybdenum oxide (Abstract) and provides evidence that both Mo(CO)6 or Mo(NtBu)2(NMe2)2 were conventional precursors in the prior art for deposition of any kind of layer containing molybdenum [0004]. 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’351 by using Mo(CO)6 and/or Mo(NtBu)2(NMe2)2 precursors for the ALD process of US’351, because US’873 suggests these were conventional precursors in the prior art for depositing any kind of molybdenum-containing film by ALD.
Claim(s) 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2008/0191351) in view of Derderian et al. (US 2005/0123690).
Regarding Claim 15, US’351 teaches an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process for forming an indium molybdenum oxide layer, the ALD process comprising a deposition cycle comprising alternately and sequentially contacting a substrate in a reaction chamber with indium(II) chloride, a molybdenum precursor, and an oxygen reactant (ozone), and repeating the deposition cycle until the indium molybdenum oxide layer has been formed to a desired thickness and composition (Abstract; Fig. 2; [0022-0023,0028,0034,0036,0042]).
US’351 fails to teach other indium precursors. Derderian et al. (US’690) is analogous art in the field of metal oxide deposition, including indium oxide deposition, including indium oxide deposition by ALD, and teaches a trimethylindium precursor for depositing an indium oxide layer in combination with an oxygen reactant (ozone) (Claim 19). 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’351 with ozone as oxygen reactant, because US’690 suggests a trimethylindium precursor reacted with an oxygen reactant (ozone) for depositing an indium oxide by ALD.
Regarding Claim 18, US’351 does not teach a specific doping concentration. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical.
Regarding Claim 19, US’351 teaches various alternatives for producing a molybdenum doped indium oxide layer, including depositing a compound layer including indium oxide and molybdenum nitride, depositing In/Mo layers and then oxidizing the layers, or depositing a metal layer and an oxide layer (e.g. indium oxide layer and molybdenum layer) followed by further processing [0023,0042]. The combination of US’351 in view of US’690 fails to teach a deposition cycle comprising an indium oxide sub-cycle and a molybdenum oxide sub-cycle. However, given the suggestions in US’351 to oxidize metal layers separately or simultaneously and to deposit one unspecified metal layer – suggesting either indium or molybdenum -- and another unspecified metal oxide layer (i.e. the other of either indium or molybdenum) before processing (where processing metal layers includes oxidizing), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’351 in view of US’690 by oxidizing each deposited metal layer (whether indium or molybdenum) separately or together in separate sub-cycles or in a single sub-cycle with a reasonable expectation of achieving a molybdenum doped indium oxide.
Regarding Claim 20, US’531 teaches water vapor as oxygen reactant [0042]. US’690 teaches a trimethylindium precursor for depositing an indium oxide layer in combination with an oxygen reactant (ozone) (Claim 19). 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’351 with ozone as oxygen reactant, because US’690 suggests a trimethylindium precursor reacted with an oxygen reactant (ozone) for depositing an indium oxide by ALD.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2008/0191351) in view of Derderian et al. (US 2005/0123690) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Sarnet et al. (US 2018/0127873).
Regarding Claims 16-17, US’351 teaches oxidizing both indium and molybdenum layers [0023]. The combination of US’351 in view of US’690 fails to teach Mo(CO)6 or Mo(NtBu)2(NMe2)2 precursors for ALD. US’873 is analogous art in the field of ALD deposition of metal oxide layers, including molybdenum oxide (Abstract) and provides evidence that both Mo(CO)6 or Mo(NtBu)2(NMe2)2 were conventional precursors in the prior art for deposition of any kind of layer containing molybdenum [0004]. 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’351 by using Mo(CO)6 and/or Mo(NtBu)2(NMe2)2 precursors for the ALD process of the combination of US’351 in view of US’690, because US’873 suggests these were conventional precursors in the prior art for depositing any kind of molybdenum-containing film by ALD.
Conclusion
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