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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 11/3/2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-III.
The previous rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahtu et al (US2007/0148350) in view of Fujikawa et al. (US2023/0146757) and Selvakumar et al (Surface & Coatings Technology 205 (2011) 3493–3498) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahtu et al (US2007/0148350) in view of Fujikawa et al. (US2023/0146757), Selvakumar et al (Surface & Coatings Technology 205 (2011) 3493–3498) and Glass et al (MRS Online Proceedings Library, Volume 555, pages 185–190, 1998) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (reproduced)
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahtu et al (US2007/0148350) in view of Fujikawa et al. (US2023/0146757) and Selvakumar et al (Surface & Coatings Technology 205 (2011) 3493–3498).
Regarding claims 1-7, Rahtu discloses atomic layer deposition (ALD) processes without using a plasma for forming a metal-carbide thin film (para 0012). The processes comprise contacting a substrate in a reaction space with alternating and sequential pulses of a first metal source chemical, a second source chemical comprising carbon, and a third source chemical (para 0013). The first metal source chemical comprises a chemical formula M1Xy, M1 is a metal atom, preferably selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W. However, in other embodiments M1 is selected from the group consisting of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, Cu, Zn, Cd, Ge, Si, Sn, Sb, Ga, Ru, Ir, Pd, Pt, Au, Rh, Re, B, In and Al (para 0065). Xy is one or more ligands for M1. Each X is preferably a halogen ligand selected from the group consisting of I, Br, Cl and F. However, in some embodiments at least one X can be a metalorganic ligand, such as a cyclopentadienyl (for example, cyclopentadienyl, methylcyclopentadienyl, pentamethylcyclopentadienyl, ethylcyclopentadienyl, isopropylcyclopentadienyl, tertbutylcyclopentadienyl, and indenyl), alkoxide (for example, methoxide, ethoxide, isopropoxide, and tertbutoxide), alkyl (for example, methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl), carbonyl, cyclo-octadiene, benzene or hydrogen ligand (para 0067). The second source chemical comprises M2R3, wherein M2 is a metal atom, preferably selected from the group consisting of B, Al, In, Sn, Bi, Sn, Zn, Pb, Sb and Ga. R is a ligand for M2 and can be any ligand, preferably a metalorganic ligand, more preferably an organometallic ligand (para 0066). A pulse of a second source chemical is provided that reacts with the molecules left on the substrate surface by the preceding pulse. In some embodiments the source chemical preferably comprises a species that is to be incorporated in the thin film, such as nitrogen, oxygen, silicon or carbon. Thus, the desired species is incorporated into the thin film by the interaction of the source chemical with the monolayer left by the metal reactant (para 0041). Rahtu does not specifically disclose the second source chemical comprising at least at least one alkyne group or at least one organometallic alkene as claimed. Fujikawa discloses a carbon precursor including bis(trimethylsilyl)acetylene BTMSA (meets the claimed compound recited in claims 3-5). Fujikawa discloses in the case of using BTMSA as the carbon precursor, because BTMSA that does not contain a halogen group and does not have a nucleophilic side chain it was possible to form a high-purity metal carbide film that did not contain halogen, a C—C bond, a C—H bond or the like (para 0052). Selvakumar discloses using both BTMSA and 1,4-bis(trimethylsilyl)benzene (TMSB) (meets the claimed compound recited in claim 6) as carbon precursors for producing chlorine-free metal carbide thin film (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use BTMSA and TMSB as the carbon precursors in Rahtu’s processes, therefore, a metal carbide film having no impurities such as Cl, N, or the like could be formed.
Regarding claim 8, Rahtu discloses forming a metal precursor on a base material and reacting a carbon-containing precursor comprises conducting the forming and the reacting at a temperature of from about 25° C. to about 450° C (para 0076).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahtu et al (US2007/0148350) in view of Fujikawa et al. (US2023/0146757) and Selvakumar et al (Surface & Coatings Technology 205 (2011) 3493–3498) as applied above, further in view of Glass et al (MRS Online Proceedings Library, Volume 555, pages 185–190, 1998).
Rahtu in view of Fujikawa and Selvakumar discloses atomic layer deposition (ALD) processes for forming a metal-carbide thin film as described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Rahtu does not disclose the reacting the metal and the carbon to form a metal carbide or a metal carbide material comprises forming the metal carbide or the metal carbide material comprising a carbon-rich matrix, a superstoichiometric metal carbide, a metal-doped carbon-rich region, or a combination thereof. However, Rahtu also discloses that the metal carbide is having a wide range of phases with varying metal/carbon ratios (para 0030). Glass discloses that the superstoichiometric metal carbide can be controlled and produced by control of carbon-precursor flow and film density correlates with stoichiometry (conclusions), which see the superstoichiometric metal carbide with low film density. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to adjust the metal/carbon ratios by controlling the precursors’ flows in the process of Rahtu, in order to produce the metal carbide thin film with desired stoichiometry and density. The law held that differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that it would not have been prima obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at arrive at the method of claim 1 by modifying Rahtu with Fujikawa because Fujikawa teaches a method of forming a silicon carbide, not a metal carbide or a metal carbide material. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. The examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Fujikawa was relied for the teaching of a carbon precursor bis(trimethylsilyl)acetylene BTMSA, for use in forming a silicon carbide material. Rahtu discloses a method of forming a metal carbide or silicon carbide (M is selected from the group Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, Cu, Zn, Cd, Ge, Si, Sn, Sb, Ga, Ru, Ir, Pd, Pt, Au, Rh, Re, B, In and Al, para 0064). Both Rahtu and Fujikawa are directed to method of forming a carbide -containing film, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made would motivate to use BTMSA as the carbon precursor in Rahtu’s method, thereby metal carbide films having no impurities such as Cl, N, or the like could be formed. Simple substitution of one known carbon precursor for another carbon precursor would achieve the predictable result of providing carbon desired in the film. Moreover, case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
Applicant also argued that Selvakumar teaches the forming of silicon carbide thin film using CVD process, which is different from the ALD process recited in claim 1, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success that the ALD process taught in Rahtu may be modified with the CVD process of Selvakumar. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Selvakumar discloses using both BTMSA and 1,4-bis(trimethylsilyl)benzene (TMSB) as carbon precursors for producing chlorine-free carbide thin film (abstract). Because it is known, as evidenced by Fujikawa, that BTMSA can be used as a carbon precursors for producing chlorine-free carbide thin film with ALD process, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try using 1,4-bis(trimethylsilyl)benzene (TMSB) as the carbon precursor in the method of Rahtu with a reasonable expectation of success. A claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). The law also held that absolute predictability is not a necessary prerequisite to a case of obviousness. Rather, a degree of predictability that one of ordinary skill would have found to be reasonable is sufficient. The Federal Circuit concluded that "[g]ood science and useful contributions do not necessarily result in patentability." Id. at 1364, 83 USPQ2d at 1304.
Claims 1-12 remain unpatentable for the reasons of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
2/19/2026