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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the disclosure indicating the vapor pressure of the compound is 0.4 torr or more at 150 C. For claims 2, and 4 there is no support in disclosure indicating the compound is liquid at 23C and vapor pressure of the compound is 0.4 torr or more at 150 C.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas Mowles et al (U.S. Patent Application: 2002/0062858, here after Mowles),
further in view of Hidekimi Kadokura et al (Japanese Patent: 2009-030162, here after
Kadokura).
Claims 1 and 7 rejected. Mowles teaches a compound comprising
bis(pentamethylcyclopentadienyl)zinc [0130]. Although does not teach substitution of
methyl group for (n-)propyl group on the cyclopentadienyl ring. However, it would be
obvious to simply substitute (n-)propyl group for the methyl group (R2 and R3) arriving
at applicant's claimed compound as structural relationships may provide the requisite
motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compound (MPEP
2144.09.1), as for example in the art, Kadokura teaches substitution of propyl group in
bis(propyltetramethylcyclopentadienyl) to reduce melting point of the precursor[abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention was made to have a compound of Mowles, but n-propyl
group is substitute for the methyl group (R3 and R4), because it is obvious to modify
known compounds to obtain new compound and reduce melting point of the compound.
The resultant product would be identical and inherently have the claimed vapor
pressure of 0.4 torr or more at 150C.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected. Mowles teaches a compound comprising
bis(pentamethylcyclopentadienyl)zinc [0130]. Although does not teach substitution of
methyl group for propyl group on the cyclopentadienyl ring. However, it would be
obvious to simply substitute propyl group for the methyl group arriving at applicant's
claimed compound as structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or
suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compound (MPEP 2144.09.1).
for example, Kadokura teaches substitution of propyl group in
bis(propyltetramethylcyclopentadienyl) to reduce melting point of the
precursor[abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention was made to have a compound of Mowles, but propyl
group is substitute for the methyl group (R3 and R4), because it is obvious to modify
known compounds to obtain new compound and reduce melting point of the compound.
The resultant product would be identical and inherently is liquid at 23C, and have vapor
pressure of 0.4 torr or more at 150C.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected for the same reason claim 2 is rejected. Mowles also teaches forming a zinc-containing film by CVD [0126]. The resultant product would be identical and inherently have the claimed vapor pressure at 150C.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected. Although Mowles teaches CVD and not ALD, however ALD is specific type of CVD and the precursors can be used interchainly with expectation of success, and in ALD process precursor and reactant(oxidant) are alternatively supply to surface of the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argument regarding 35. U.S.C 112(b) rejection is not persuasive; paragraph 0034 of the specification teaches distilling the solid content twice using a simple distillation apparatus at 100-150° C and at 0.4-0.5 torr; in fact, it teaches the condition for distillation and does not teach the vapor pressure of the compound, furthermore the Zn[C.sub.5(CH.sub.3).sub.4(n-C.sub.3H.sub.7)].sub.2 is not the only form of bis(alkyltetramethylcyclopentadienyl)zinc.
The applicant argument regrading decreasing melting point and decreasing vapor pressure is not persuasive as higher melting points typically indicate stronger intermolecular forces, which conversely lead to lower vapor pressures, and not higher. Replacing a methyl group (-CH3) with an n-propyl group (-CH2CH2CH3) generally decreases the melting point of a compound, therefore should increase the vapor pressure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718