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 without traverse of Groups I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on July 20, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 20, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear how many times “N times” is because “N” is not defined by the specification or the claims.
Claims 2 is indefinite because it is not clear how many times “M times” and “N times” are because “M” and “N” are not defined by the specification of the claims.
Claims 4 is indefinite because it is not clear how many times “M times” and “N times” are because “M” and “N” are not defined by the specification of the claims.
Claims 5 is indefinite because it is not clear how many times “M times” and “N times” are because “M” and “N” are not defined by the specification of the claims.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is not clear how steps (e), (c) and (d) can be performed sequentially in this order because step (e) which requires forming a metal-containing film does not have the source material and reactant from steps (c) and (d) to form the metal-containing film.
Claims 7 is indefinite because it is not clear how many times “M times” and “N times” are because “M” and “N” are not defined by the specification of the claims.
Claims 8 is indefinite because it is not clear how many times “M times” and “N times” are because “M” and “N” are not defined by the specification of the claims.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is not clear how steps (e), (b), (c) and (d) can be sequentially performed in this order since step (e) which requires forming a metal-containing film does not have the source material and reactant from steps (c) and (d) to form the metal-containing film and step (e) requires forming the metal-containing film where the modification layer is not formed by the modification layer is not formed until step (b).
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al (U.S. Patent # 10,900,120) in view of Muscat (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0199399).
In the case of claims 1 and 18, Sharma teaches a method for processing a substrate during the manufacturing of a semiconductor device by forming a passivating layer on the surface of the substrate followed by selective deposition (Abstract and Column 5 Lines 12-18). The method of Sharma comprised a step (b)/510 wherein a modification layer in the form of a passivation layer was formed on a metallic surface of a substrate. This was followed by a step (c)/525 and step (d)/535 of supplying a reactant which led to a step (e) of forming a dielectric material. Sharma teaches that these steps were performed multiple times. (Column 13 Lines 45-63 and Figure 5)
Sharma teaches that the passivation comprised supplying a passivating agent which included organic containing agents (Column 2 Line 40 through Column 3 Line 20). Furthermore, Sharma teaches that the formed dielectric material included a metal-containing film/layer (Column 9 Line 59 through Column 10 Line 9).
Sharma does not teach having performed a step (a) wherein an adsorption promoting layer was formed capable of promoting and adsorption of an organic-containing agent on the substrate by supplying a halogen-containing agent to the substrate. However, as was discussed previously, Sharma taught that the modification layer was a passivation layer used in selective deposition. Furthermore, Sharma teaches that the passivation agent included alkoxy groups (Column 3 Lines 6-15) and was removed after selective deposition (Column 10 Lines 36-62).
Muscat teaches a method for selectively depositing metal film on a substrate surface wherein a substrate was exposed to a halogen-containing agent in the form of a gas phase halogen which adsorbed on the substrate surface followed by modifying/reacting the adsorbed halogen with a material comprising an alkoxy to form a passivation layer (Abstract Page 3 Paragraphs 0031 and 0032 and Page 4 Paragraph 0050). Muscat teaches that adsorbing a halogen onto the substrate surface prior to forming the passivation layer allowed for the passivation layer to be removed by heating without leaving any significant contamination (Page 6 Paragraphs 0064-0065 and 0069).
Based on the teachings of Muscat, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adsorbed a halogen-containing agent on to the substrate surface of Sharma prior to forming the modification/passivation layer because adsorbing a layer of halogen onto a substrate surface prior to forming a passivation layer allowed for the passivation layer to be removed by heating without leaving any significant contamination.
As for claims 2-10, Sharma teaches that the passivation and selective deposition were cyclically performed multiple times in order to refresh the passivation layer and form a dielectric material of a desired thickness (Column 13 Line 43 through Column 14 Line 17 and Figures 4-6).
As for claim 11, Sharma teaches that the substrate comprised a metal oxide film/second surface and a non-metal oxide film/first surface and the passivation layer was formed on the first/non-metal surface (Column 9 Lines 34-58 and Figures 3A-3D).
As for claims 15 and 16, Sharma teaches that the organic-containing agent/passivating agents included amino/amine groups and multiple alkyl groups (Column 12 Lines 43-64).
As for claim 17, Sharma teaches having removed portions of metal oxide surfaces/films prior to forming the passivation layer (Column 10 Line 63 through Column 11 Line 19).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al in view of Muscat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takatsuki et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0111675).
The teachings of Sharma in view of Muscat as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 12-14, through Muscat teaches having supplied a halogen-containing agent to pre-treat the substrate Muscat does not teach that the halogen-containing agent contained one of a Group 14, 15 or 16 element, oxygen or an oxyhalide.
Takatsuki teaches a method for forming a metal layer on a substrate wherein prior to formation the substrate was pre-treated with a halogen-containing gas (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0007). Takatsuki teaches that the halogen-containing gases included oxyhalides such as thionyl chloride (Page 4 Paragraph 0048-0049).
Based on the teachings of Takatsuki, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used an oxyhalide such as thionyl chloride as the halogen-containing gas of Sharma in view of Muscat because oxyhalides were known halogen agents in the art for pretreating a substrate prior to metal deposition.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 18 have been rejected. Claims 19 and 20 were withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights