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 .
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 are rejected. Mowles teaches a compound comprising
bis(pentamethylcyclopentadienyl)zinc [0130]. Although does not teach substitution of
methyl group for (n-)propyl group on the cyclopentadienyI ring. However, it would be
obvious to simply substitute (n-)propyl group for the methyl group (R1 and R2) 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
2144.08), 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 (R1 and R2), 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 melting point
(below 10C) which in fact is liquid below 10C.
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 2144.08).
for example, Kadokura teaches substitution of propyl group in
bis(propyltetramethylcyclopentadieny) 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 have the claimed melting point
(below 10C) which in fact is liquid below 10C.
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].
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard Blom et al, J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun., 1985, 266-267, here after Blom, further in view of Hidekimi Kadokura et al (Japanese Patent: 2009-030162, here after Kadokura).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected. Blom teaches a compound comprising
bis(pentamethylcyclopentadienyl)zinc. Although does not teach substitution methyl
group for (n-)propyl group on the cyclopentadienyl ring. However, it would be obvious to
simply substitute (n-)propyl group for 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 2144.08), as for
example in the art, Kadokura teaches substitution of propyl group in
bis(propyltetramethylcyclopentadieny) 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 Blom, but (n-)propyl
group is substitute for the methyl group (R1 and R2), 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 melting point
(below 10C) which in fact is liquid below 10C.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected. Blom teaches a compound comprising
bis(pentamethylcyclopentadienyl)zinc. Although does not teach substitution methyl
group for propyl group on the cyclopentadienyl ring. However, it would be obvious to
simply substitute (-n) propyl group for 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 2144.08). for example,
Kadokura teaches substitution of propyl group in bis (propyltetram
ethylcyclopentadienyl) 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 Blom, 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 melting point (below 10C) which in fact is liquid below 10C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/01/26, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(a) of claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues compounds in similar structure will have similar properties, however MPEP 2144.08 teaches "Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds in fact simple substitution of one known element for other results in obtaining predictable results as for example Kadokura teaches substitution of propyl group in bis (propyltetramethylcyclopentadienyl) to reduce melting point of the precursor[abstract].
The applicant argues Mowles teaches the melting point of the compound is 107C and is ideal, however disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
The applicant argument argues regarding melting point and vapor pressure of compound by substituting (n-propyl) group for methyl group, however the rejection is based on melting point and lowering the melting point by this substitution which in fact the applicant agrees with.
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 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
Prosecution Insights