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 of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 05/27/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu [CN 105543736] in view of Murakami [US 20210098267].
Claim 1: Yu teaches a substrate processing method comprising: forming a Ru film (ruthenium plated film layer) on a substrate (molybdenum sheet); performing a plasma treatment (plasma bombardment) with inert gas (Ar) on which the Ru film is formed [abstract]. Yu further teaches known plating techniques also include electroless plating [background]. However, Yu does not appear to teach performing a reduction treatment of the substrate after plasma treatment. Murakami is provided.
Murakami teaches supplying a hydrogen containing gas to a substrate that comprises a Ru film to reduce an oxide of the Ru film [abst, 0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reduction step as taught by Murakami so as to improve film properties [0089-0090].
Claim 4: Yu teaches the plasma use inert gas such as Ar [abstr].
Claim 5: Yu teaches the substrate is biased during plasma treatment [pg 2].
Claim 10: Murakami teaches the plasma is a hydrogen plasma treatment using H2 gas [0033].
Claim 11: Yu teaches the pressure can range from 1-10Pa [pg 3], wherein the values are sufficiently close that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same results from such pressure teachings.
Claim 13: Yu teaches the plasma treatment may range from 5-30 minutes, wherein the values are sufficiently close that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same results from such pressure teachings.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyd [US 20140170328].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 2. Boyd is provided.
Claim 2: Boyd teaches forming Ru film by non-electrolytic plating by applying plating liquid onto the substrate and precipitating the plating film to become Ru film by heat and drying the substrate [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to look to Boyd on how to electrolytical plate Ru film on a substrate since Yu and Murakami are silent on the details electroless plating and Boyd teaches an operable and already known way of electroless plating Ru films.
Claim 3: Boyd teaches heating at 50-85 degrees C [0028].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka [WO 2019151078].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 6. Tanaka is provided.
Claim 6: Tanaka teaches a substrate with an insulating film formed on an underlying wiring and a via provided in the insulating film such that the wiring is exposed at the bottom of the via [abstract] and an electro plating film from the bottom of the via to use the exposed wiring as a catalyst [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art utilize the Ru film for such device since Tanaka teaches electorless plating film may be Ru [pg 9] as example.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun [US 20050274621].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to teach the limitations of claims 7-8. Sun is provided.
Claim 7: Sun teaches a Ru film that is annealed in hydrogen containing gas [abst] and heated at pressures such as 5mTorr - 1500 Torr [claim 14-15]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide hydrogen containing gas with the claimed pressure since Sun teaches such conditions are operable for annealing Ru type films [abst].
Claim 8: Sun teaches using forming gas [0040].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Murakami and Sun as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Jin [US 6479100].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 9. Jin is provided.
Claim 9: Jin teaches annealing of Ru containing film may be performed from a temperature of 200-400 degrees C [col 2, ln 30-50]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the annealing at the claimed temperature range since Jin teaches such values are operable for enhancing a Ru film [ col 2, ln 45-50].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamasaki [US 20040231585].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 12. Yamasaki is provided.
Claim 12: Yamasaki teaches that performing a inert plasma at a temperature of 400-750 degrees C [0063], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the temperature range as taught by Yamasaki since Yamasaki teaches such temperature is operable for annealing Ru containing films with inert plasma.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights