Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/388,225

Compositions and Methods Using Same for Deposition of Silicon-Containing Films

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Apr 18, 2019
Examiner
WILCZEWSKI, MARY A
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
VERSUM MATERIALS US, LLC
OA Round
9 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
10-11
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
703 granted / 828 resolved
+16.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
862
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 828 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 14 October 2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9-12, and 22 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 5-8 and 13-21 have been cancelled. This application is a divisional of application Serial No. 15/520,330, filed on 19 April 2017, now US Patent 10,316,407, which is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/US2015/027045, filed on 23 October 2015, which claims benefit of provisional application 62/068,248, filed on 24 October 2014. 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/520,330, filed on 19 April 2017. Terminal Disclaimer The terminal disclaimer filed on 14 January 2021 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 10,316,407 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 In light of Applicant’s Amendment, the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn. 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 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. Claims 11, 12, and 22 are again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scantlin et al., the article entitled “The Borane-Catalyzed Condensation of Trisilazane and N-Methyldisilazane”, in view of Sanchez et al., US 2016/0237099, both of record. Scantlin et al. disclose a composition comprising a silicon precursor selected from the group of bis(disilylamino)silane (N,N’-disilyltrisilazane), see “Borane-Catalyzed Condensations” on page 3082 and Table I on page 3083. Claim 11 requires the silicon precursor contain greater than, or equal to, 3 ppm, and less than 5 ppm, of halide ions. Although Scantlin et al. are silent about whether or not the bis(disilylamino)silane (N,N’-disilyltrisilazane) contains halide ions, Sanchez et al. teach the synthesis of silicon precursors containing less than 5 ppm of halide ions by using starting reactants, catalyst and optional solvents which are halogen free, see paragraph [0045]. The method of Sanchez et al. provides trisilylamine and tridisilylamine compounds containing less than 5 ppm of halide ions, thereby yielding a silicon nitride film which is not contaminated with chlorine or aminohalogens, see paragraphs [0002]-[0005]. Therefore, in order to obtain a high-quality silicon nitride film, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the precursor used in the composition for depositing the silicon nitride film should contain less than 5 ppm of halide ions. Claim 11 requires a solvent, wherein the solvent has a boiling point and wherein the difference between the boiling point of the solvent and that of the silicon precursor compound is 30oC or less. Sanchez et al. disclose halogen free amine substituted trisilylamine and tridisilylamine compounds and a method of their preparation. Furthermore, Sanchez et al. disclose that the solvent is selected so that its boiling point differs from the boiling point of the silicon precursor compound by about 10° C, see paragraph [0057]. In light of the teachings of Sanchez, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the silicon precursor disclosed by Sanchez et al. could have been used in the known reaction of Scantlin et al., thereby yielding a composition comprising a solvent (used in the synthesis process of Sanchez et al.), wherein the difference between the boiling point of the solvent and that of the silicon precursor compound is 30oC or less, since solvents are known to effect reaction rates, thereby providing control over the chemical reaction of Scantlin et al. With respect to claim 12, in light of the teachings of Sanchez et al., it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the halide ions could comprise chloride ions, see paragraph [0045] of Sanchez et al. With respect to claim 22, Sanchez et al. disclose in paragraph [0057] that the solvent can be toluene, xylene, mesitylene, and naftalene, which are aromatic hydrocarbons. Claim Objections In light of Applicant’s Amendment, the objection to claim 22 has been withdrawn. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 are allowable over the prior art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 have been found persuasive. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 with respect to claims 11, 12, and 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the solvents referenced in paragraph [0008] of Sanchez refer to the synthesis of compounds having silicon-nitrogen bonds rather than the deposition process for depositing silicon nitride or silicon oxide. Sanchez et al. disclose halogen free amine substituted trisilylamine and tridisilylamine compounds and a method for their preparation using solvents having a boiling point, wherein the difference between the boiling point of the solvent and that of the silicon precursor compound is 40° C or less. The use of the silicon precursor synthesized by the process of Sanchez using the claimed solvent would yield a composition comprising the silicon precursor and the solvent. The claim, as presently written, does not preclude introduction of the solvent into the claimed composition via the synthesis of the silicon precursor having silicon-nitrogen bonds. For this reason, the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 22 as being unpatentable over Scantlin et al. in view of Sanchez et al. has been maintained. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 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, Jessica Manno can be reached on 571-272-2339. 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. MARY A. WILCZEWSKI Primary Examiner Art Unit 2898 /MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 18, 2019
Application Filed
Aug 10, 2020
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 14, 2021
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2021
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 14, 2021
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 15, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 06, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 14, 2022
Response Filed
Mar 31, 2022
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 18, 2022
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 18, 2022
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 19, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 29, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 06, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 08, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 29, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 04, 2023
Notice of Allowance
Jun 01, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 06, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 10, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 14, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 31, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 14, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604642
OLED DISPLAY PANEL, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME, AND MICRO LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604578
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588321
METAL OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR-BASED LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588455
DOPANT DIFFUSION WITH SHORT HIGH TEMPERATURE ANNEAL PULSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581827
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

10-11
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 828 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month