CTNF 19/261,691 CTNF 85056 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Application Claims 1-12 are pending and presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 1. Claim 12 is 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 12 depends from claims 8 and 9 and recites that the first and second processing module are communalized into a single module. However, claim 9 from which claim 12 depends requires a vacuum transfer chamber connected to both modules and a substrate transfer mechanism wherein the controller outputs a single for executing transferring the substrate from the first module to the second module. However, the language of a transfer chamber and transferring between two modules is inconsistent with claim 12 which requires the modules being a single module. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite as it is unclear if two modules are actually required with a means to transfer between the two or a single module is being claimed. For examination purposes, an apparatus that includes a single module that performs sputtering of both tungsten and molybdenum will be interpreted as reading upon claims 8, 9 and 12 until the language is clarified. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA 2. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rane et al. (“Microstructure, electrical resistivity and stresses in sputter deposited W and Mo films and the influence of the interface of bilayer properties”) . I. Regarding claims 1-4, Rane teaches a method comprising: providing a substrate with a silicon oxide layer (Section 2.1); forming a tungsten underlying film on the silicon oxide layer on the substrate by sputtering (Section 2.1 and 3.3); and forming a molybdenum metal film on the tungsten underlying film by sputtering (Sections 2.1 and 3.3). Rane teaches all the critical limitations of claims 1-4; therefore, Rane anticipates the claims. II. Regarding claims 5 and 6, it is noted that these claims only recite further limitations when the molybdenum film is formed by an ALD method, which is an alternative in parent claim 4, from which claims 5 and 6 depend. In this case, Rane teaches the alternative that the molybdenum metal film is formed by sputtering (see Section 2.1); therefore, the additional limitations of claims 5 and 6 are moot, and Rane also anticipates claims 5 and 6 . 07-15-aia AIA 3. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rane et al. (“Studies on the electrical resistivity of bilayer and multilayer thin films of sputtered tungsten and molybdenum”, hereinafter referred to as Rane2) . I. Regarding claims 1-4 and 7, Rane2 teaches a method comprising: providing a substrate with a silicon oxide layer (Section 2.1); forming a tungsten underlying film on the silicon oxide layer on the substrate by sputtering (Section 2.1) at thickness of 2 nm or 5 nm (Section 2.1 and Figure 2); and forming a molybdenum metal film on the tungsten underlying film by sputtering (Section 2.1). Rane2 teaches all the critical limitations of claims 1-4 and 7; therefore, Rane2 anticipates the claims. II. Regarding claims 5 and 6, it is noted that these claims only recite further limitations when the molybdenum film is formed by an ALD method, which is an alternative in parent claim 4, from which claims 5 and 6 depend. In this case, Rane2 teaches the alternative that the molybdenum metal film is formed by sputtering (see Section 2.1); therefore, the additional limitations of claims 5 and 6 are moot, and Rane2 also anticipates claims 5 and 6 . 07-15-aia AIA 4. Claim(s) 8, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffiths et al. (WO 2023/205184) . Regarding claims 8, 9 and 11, Griffiths teaches an apparatus (Figures 17A and 17B) comprising: a first processing module (0162) for forming a first metal film on a substrate by ALD (0167), where the first metal may be tungsten (0064); and a second module (0162) for forming a bulk metal film, potentially of molybdenum, on the first metal film by ALD (0162); a controller for controlling all aspects of the process and apparatus (0175); a vacuum transfer chamber to which both modules are connected (element 1703, Figure 17A and 0161); and a substrate transfer mechanism disposed in the vacuum transfer chamber (0165). Griffiths teaches all the critical limitations of claims 8, 9 and 11; therefore, Griffiths anticipates the claims . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim (s) 8, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rane2 . Regarding claims 8, 9 and 12, Rane2 teaches an apparatus comprising: a single module for forming a first tungsten layer by sputtering and for forming a molybdenum layer by sputtering (Section 2.1, as noted above, see the 112(b) rejection, this is interpreted as reading upon the limitations of claims 8, 9 and 12 with respect to two modules and a transfer chamber and transfer mechanism). Rane2 fails to explicitly teach the apparatus including a controller for controlling the forming of the layers. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is conventional to include a controller in sputtering apparatuses to control the deposition process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rane2’s apparatus to include a controller for controlling the tungsten and molybdenum deposition process. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for greater control over the process by careful manipulation of the process conditions to allow for automatically controlling the process to allow for optimal products . 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim (s) 8, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rane2 in view of Hou et al. (WO 2024/155351) . Regarding claims 8, 9 and 12, Rane2 teaches an apparatus comprising: a single module including a first processing module for forming a first tungsten layer by sputtering and a second processing module for forming a molybdenum layer by sputtering (Section 2.1, as noted above, see the 112(b) rejection, this is interpreted as reading upon the limitations of claims 8, 9 and 12 with respect to two modules and a transfer chamber and transfer mechanism). Rane2 fails to explicitly teach the apparatus including a controller (0019) for controlling the forming of the layers. However, Hou teaches using a controller for controlling a physical vapor deposition (for example, sputtering, see 0009) for forming a tungsten layer (0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rane2’s apparatus by including a controller. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for automatic and careful control of Rane2’s deposition process . 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Rane2 . Regarding claim 10, Griffiths teaches all the limitations of claim 9, see above, including that a processing module is configured to form molybdenum by ALD (see above), and that tungsten can be applied as an underlying layer (see above), additionally Griffiths teaches that the apparatus can include a module for performing a physical vapor deposition process, PVD, (0166). Griffiths fails to explicitly teach a module configured to form the tungsten by a sputtering method. However, Griffiths does teach a module for performing physical vapor deposition (note that sputtering is a type of physical vapor deposition) and Rane2 teaches that it is beneficial to apply a thin layer of tungsten by sputtering using a sputtering module (see Section 2.1) before a bulk layer of molybdenum is applied over the top of the tungsten (see Summary section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Griffiths’s apparatus by having Griffiths’s PVD module configured to deposit the tungsten by sputtering as disclosed by Rane2. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Rane2 teaches that a thin sputtered layer of tungsten provides lower electrical resistivity (see Summary section). Conclusion Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-12 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5. 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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. /ROBERT S WALTERS JR/ June 1, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/261,691 Page 2 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/261,691 Page 3 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/261,691 Page 4 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/261,691 Page 5 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/261,691 Page 6 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/261,691 Page 7 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/261,691 Page 8 Art Unit: 1717 Application/Control Number: 19/261,691 Page 9 Art Unit: 1717
Prosecution Insights