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
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/20/2026.
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Fig. 1 is included in the abstract . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 13-14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narkeviciute et al (WO2021/262527).
As to claim 1, Narkeviciute et al. discloses a method or forming a film (see abstract), comprising; prepare a substate including a first film having a first surface (see 804 of Fig. 8 – dielectric layer, see 0111) and a second film having a second surface (see 802 of Fig. 8 – metal layer – see 0111 ), the second and first film being different (metal and dielectric layers); selectively forming a graphene containing film on the second surface (see 0112 – graphene applied to metal surface; 806 of Fig. 8B); performing a hydrogen-containing plasma processing on the substrate (see 810 of Fig. 8D; 0131); and selectively forming a target film on the first surface (see 808 of Fig. 8C and 0123).
As to claims 2 and 3, the first film is a dielectric layer formed of silicon oxide (see 0110) and the second film is a conductive film (see 0110).
As to claim 4, the conductive film can be a metal such as copper, tungsten, molybdenum (see 0110).
As to claim 5, the deposited film is a dielectric film such as aluminum oxide (see 0123).
As to claim 7, the graphene can be applied using plasma chemical vapor deposition process or plasma atomic layer deposition process (see 0112).
As to claim 8, the plasma can be a microwave plasma (see 0023).
As to claims 13 and 14, hydrogen gas plasma is used to modify the surface of the graphene (see 0125 and 0131).
As to claim 18, the graphene containing layer is removed (see 0129).
As to claim 19, a native oxide film is formed on the second surface, and is removed prior to forming the graphene (see 0061).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narkeviciute et al. (WO2021/262527) as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Tapily et al. (US 2018/0301335).
The teachings of Narkeviciute et al. as applied to claim 5 are as stated above.
Narkeviciute et al. teaches the target film can be silicon oxide (See 0120) but fails to teach the particular method of forming the silicon oxide film as recited in claim 6.
Tapily et al. discloses a process for selectively forming a dielectric material on a dielectric substrate, wherein process includes selectively depositing a graphene layer and then forming the SiO2 film on the portions of the substrate not covered by the graphene layer (see abstract). Tapily et al. further discloses the SiO2 film is formed by coating the substrate with a metal-containing catalyst and exposing the substrate to a process gas containing silanol gas at a temperature of about 150 C or less (see 0017). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Narkeviciute et al. to include forming the SiO2 film using the deposition process taught by Tapily et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both references are directed to selectively applying a dielectric film (SiO2 ) on a substrate, and Tapily et al. teaches a known operable method for forming SiO2 under conditions compatible with selective deposition.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narkeviciute et al. (WO2021/262527) as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above.
The teachings of Narkeviciute et al. as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 are as stated above.
Narkeviciute et al. fail to teach the claimed temperature of 250-450 C or 400-450C as required by claims 9-10, a film thickness of 0.5-10nm or 4 to 6 nm as required by claims 11-12, or the hydrogen-containing gas plasma processing parameters of claim 15.
As to claims 9-10, the graphene is applied at temperature of 200-400C (see 0114, 0140) which overlaps the claimed range. 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). Narkeviciute et al. further teaches the temperature depends on the thermal sensitivity of the underlying surface (see 0114). Accordingly, selecting a deposition temperature within the claimed range sufficient to form the graphene layer while avoiding damage to the underlying substrate would have been an obvious matter of routine process optimization.
As to claims 11-12, the thickness of the graphene layer is between 3-20 Angstroms (0.3-2 nm – see 0140) which overlaps the claimed range. 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).
As to claim 15, Narkeviciute et al. fails to teach the claimed parameters as recited by the claim. However, Narkeviciute et al. does state the graphene is annealed at a temperature of 300-400C for a period of 20 seconds to 3 minutes to remove functional groups and reduce nucleation on the graphene surface (see 0114). Narkeviciute et al. further teaches treating the graphene at a temperature of 200C or greater to modify the surface, including introducing defective nucleation sites or causing controlled degradation of the layer over time (see 0131) . Thus, Narkeviciute et al. teaches the treatment conditions used to modify the graphene surface chemistry and nucleation behavior are adjustable parameters that directly affect selective deposition performance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed parameters through routine experimentation in order to optimize the surface modification of the graphene thereby suppressing undesired nucleation of the target film, especially absent any criticality in using the claimed range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: Narkeviciute et al. (cited above) fails to teach removing excess portion of the target film by etching as required by the claim 16. The prior art of Maes (US 2021/0134586) discloses selectively applying a SIOCN film over a low-k film (see abstract, Figs.) where if there is overlap of the SIOCN film on the metal portion of the surface it is removed via etching (See Fig. 2a and 2b, 0006). However, Maes does not teach or suggest combining the etch-back process with the graphene blocking layer process of Narkeviciute et al., particularly where Narkeviciute et al. teaches modifying the graphene to suppress nucleation such that substantial overgrowth is avoided.
The cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the specific etch-back limitation of claim 16.
As to claim 17, Narkeviciute et al. teaches a barrier film formed between the metal layer (see 520A) and the first film (510 of Fig. 5), but does not teach forming an overhang of the target film over the barrier film and subsequently removing that overhang, as required by claim.
Zhang et al. (US 2012/0139114) discloses a substrate having a first surface (metal) and a second surface (of dielectric material) separated by a barrier layer (see 130 of Fig.), and further teaches forming a graphene cap over the metal surface (see 260 of Figs.). However, Zhang does not teach depositing a target film over the second surface such that the film extends over the barrier region and is subsequently removed.
The cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the overhang and removal limitation of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights