ALUMINUM-CONTAINING INHIBITOR COMPOUNDS FOR SELECTIVE DEPOSITION

§102 §103

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/Restriction Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 and 20 in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged. Claim(s) Status Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/14/2026. Priority This application claims benefit of U.S. provisional application 63/557,297, filed 02/23/2024. A review of this provisional application confirms that all of the subject matter of the elected claims is fully supported therein. Consequently, the effective filing date of elected claims 1-14 and 20 is 02/23/2024. See MPEP § 2133.01 (“The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis.”). Information Disclosure Statement The Primary Examiner has reviewed the IDSs filed 02/21/2025 and 07/16/2026. Drawings The drawings filed 02/21/2025 are acceptable. See MPEP § 608.02(b)(I). 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canova et al., Using metal precursors to passivate oxides for area selective deposition. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 41, 033407 (2023). Canova teaches that, in the process of area-selective deposition (ASD), in which films are grown only on certain surfaces of a substrate (i.e., a substrate having a first surface and a second surface), the selective deposition can be enhanced by introducing an inhibitor that suppresses nucleation or growth (e.g., in the area where growth is not desired). The inhibitor can be introduced as a single dose before film growth to block surface-reactive sites. Canova at § I. Canova further specifically teaches inhibiting the formation of films of trimethylamine alane (TMAA) and hafnium borohydride with AlMe3 (an Al-containing inhibitor), which is known to provide surface passivation for area selective deposition and is known to convert hydroxylated surfaces to methyl- (i.e., methoxy-) terminated surfaces (i.e., the second surface), while not adsorbing on non-hydroxylated surfaces (i.e., the first surface). Id.at § III(B)-(C). The thus-formed substrate, having selectively-deposited TMAA and/or hafnium boride film(s) on portions thereof where the other portions are inhibited by AlMe3, anticipates claim 20. 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) 1-5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canova et al., Using metal precursors to passivate oxides for area selective deposition. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 41, 033407 (2023) in view of Oh et al., Elucidating the Reaction Mechanism of Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3 with a series of Al(CH3)xCl3-x and Al(CyH2y+1)3 Precursors, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 11757-11766. Claim 1 The teaching of Canova is detailed above. As noted, this reference does not teach a substituted aluminum alkyl. The Primary Examiner interprets substituted as requiring either (i) that the alkyl group is substituted with a non-hydrogen atom substituent, and/or (ii) the alky group in its entirety is substituted with a non-alkyl group. Canova is the closest prior art and, as noted above, teaches AlMe3 wherein all ligands are alkyl groups (-CH3) and contain no non-hydrogen atom substituents; i.e., it is not substituted. Oh teaches that Al(CH3)xCl3-x and Al(CyH2y+1)3 adsorb on hydroxyl-functional surfaces in the same manner as Al(CH3)3. Fig. 1. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Canova so as to utilize, as the Al-containing inhibitor, a Cl-substituted Al-containing inhibitor, motivated by the desire and expectation of successfully blocking those areas of an -OH functional substrate on which it is adsorbed to achieve SA-ALD. Claims 2-5 & 14 As noted above, AlMe3 (an Al-containing inhibitor), which is known to provide surface passivation for area selective deposition and is known to convert hydroxylated surfaces to methyl- (i.e., methoxy-) terminated surfaces (i.e., the second surface), while not adsorbing on non-hydroxylated surfaces (i.e., the first surface). Canova at § III(B)-(C). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-13 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: The prior art neither teaches nor suggests the claimed process wherein the Al-containing inhibitor is substituted with a cyclopentadienyl or an indenyl group. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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. WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III Primary Examiner Art Unit 1759 /WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 2 October 2026