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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 claims 1-12, and Compound B, specifically 2-isopropoxy-2,4,6,8-tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane in the reply filed on 12/17/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 6, 8, 10 and 13-22 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/1/2025 is entered and fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art does not appreciate the benefits of using the compounds in FCVD processes. However, the intended use limitations added to the preamble of the claim are not considered limiting in this situation. The recited intended use does not change the structure of the claimed composition/compound. Accordingly, the issue is whether the compound/composition itself is new or non-obvious.
The examiner further notes that the amended limitation refers to the use in an FCVD process, but the arguments note that there is stability when exposed to plasma. Therefore, the benefits in the FCVD process may only be present when using a plasma assisted deposition.
Applicant points out that the OGASAWARA reference does not teach any specific formula. However, the generic formula teaches formulas that correspond to applicant’s claimed composition/compound and are known for use in CVD processes [0012]. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the compound/composition itself is obvious.
Applicant argues the MAYORGA reference similarly does not teach the use of the compound in FCVD or benefits of using TMCTS (tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane) with an additional alkoxy group. However, the reference actually teaches stabilizing a cyclotetrasiloxane against polymerization during CVD abstract. The reference clearly teaches substituting a C1-4 alkoxy a group. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the compound/composition itself is obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGASAWARA et al. (US 2007/0232821).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7,
OGASAWARA teaches a stabilizing compound abstract that can be cyclic [0012] shown in general formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
202
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The “n” group can be 3 corresponding to the 8 member ring of the elected species [0012]. Formula clearly shows 1 required H group which is also required in applicant’s compounds. The remaining R groups are hydrogen, C1-8 alkyl or alkoxy groups overlapping and homologs to the C1-10 groups claimed [0012]. When the R groups are methyl groups (C1 alkyl), hydrogen (H) and a single alkoxy group (C3 isopropoxy) the generic formula corresponds to the elected species.
The reference does not expressly teach the C3 as a branched (isopropoxy) alkyl. However, when teaching a C1-4 alkoxy group, the straight chain and branched alkyls are considered prima facie obvious as isomers, MPEP 2144.09.II.
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 12,
As described above, the reference teaches the compounds corresponding to claimed formula B. Looking more broadly at the reference, the “n” group could also be 2 or 4 corresponding to the non-elected species. Accordingly, the reference teaches each of the general formulas A-C. The reference does not teach mixing compounds together. However, the same reference is teaching the same generic formula that corresponds to each of the formula A-C. Accordingly, the compounds are each considered equivalents of each other according to the reference. The combination of equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAYORGA et al. (EP 1321469).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7,
MAYORGA teaches a compound used for stabilizing a precursor for CVD process abstract. The compound has formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
216
224
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the formula, R1-7 are hydrogen, a C1-10 alkyl, or C1-4 alkoxy group [0013].
The generic formula corresponds to the elected 2-isopropoxy-2,4,6,8-tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane -- when placed together:
PNG
media_image3.png
180
154
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
216
224
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The generic formula on the right corresponds to the elected species, when;
R1, R3, R5, and R7 are methyl (C1 alkyl group);
R2 and R6 are hydrogen; and
R4 is C3 alkoxy.
The reference does not expressly teach the C3 as a branched (isopropoxy) alkyl. However, when teaching a C1-4 alkoxy group, the straight chain and branched alkyls are considered prima facie obvious as isomers, MPEP 2144.09.II.
Looking at the other species in claim 7, each of the R groups from MAYORGA can similarly be selected to make each compound. Each alkoxy group are C1-4 in claim 7 as described in the reference. The remaining R groups are methyl (C1) and hydrogen (H). Looking further to the sub-genus Compound B. The examiner further notes that although the generic claim 1 can use alkoxy groups of up to 10 carbons (C10) the increasing length of carbon chains (homologs) may also be considered obvious over the same section of the MPEP.
The reference does not provide a single example in which the particular R group choices described above are made. However, the reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art is taught how to make a large number of compounds while staying within the disclosure. Each of the compounds is considered prima facie obvious.
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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712