Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 12-14, and 19-23 are pending.
Request for Continued Examination
The Request for Continued Examination filed 08/21/2026 has been accepted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments drawn to the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Written Description and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Enablement, see Remarks pages 6-12 filed 08/21/2026, are not persuasive.
Applicant provides a table on page 8 of the remarks directed to the table shown on page 25 and in reference to Figs. 8b and 9 of the originally filed specification showing examples of different calculated dielectric constants while varying the temperature between 100°C to 600°C, however this table fails to show this varying of temperature with respect to the other claimed variables, i.e. pressure, flow rate of first gas, volume ratio of the hydrocarbon gas and the hydrogen gas, and/or plasma intensity within the plasma reactor, and instead relies on varying / showing examples of dielectric constats at various thin film thickness and rms roughness on either Si substrates or Si/SiO2/Ag substrates, thus in order to arrive at the referenced dielectric constants undue experimentation covering the broad ranges of claimed variables is necessary to arrive at the claimed invention.
The assertion of undue experimentation does not necessarily arise from the range of a single variable. At least 5 variables are listed in the Affidavit Rule 132 filed 12/31/2025 (temperature, pressure, flow rate of a first gas, flow rate of a second gas, and plasma intensity in the reactor) and in the originally filed specification, and currently claimed in independent claims 1 and 4. Each variable has a range encompassing multiple orders of magnitude. The person of ordinary skill is left guessing as to the effects of each variable with respect to its interaction with every other variable. It is unclear how the person of ordinary skill would be able to experiment upon this.
For example: the pressure is disclosed in the specification as being between 0.1 and 10 Torr. This encompasses three orders of magnitude. The temperature is disclosed as between 20 and 700 C. Between only these two variables, in increments of .1 Torr and 1 C, there are roughly 70,000 points of experimentation. By further including the gas flow rate ratios between the two gases, as well as the intensity of the plasma in the reactor, these points of experimentation increase rapidly and exponentially.
Further example: the gas flow range of CH4:H2 as described in the Affidavit filed 12/31/2025 and the originally filed specification is 100:1 to 1:50, further limited in the amended claims to 1:10 to 20:10, the person of ordinary skill would have to maintain the flow rate of one gas while varying the other, for every variation of pressure, temperature, and plasma intensity. This alone would result in trillions of experimentation points.
While performing these experimentation points, the person of ordinary skill would not know if a deleterious or advantageous effect of experimenting on one variable is due to that single variable, its interaction with one other variable, two other variables, three other variables, or four other variables.
Therefore, the rejection of original claims 1-6 and 12-14 and subsequent new claims 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) enablement is maintained, as the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, to make and/or use the invention.
Therefore, the rejection of original claims 1-6 and 12-14 and subsequent new claims 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Written Description is maintained, as the ranges of variables (temperature, pressure, flow rate of a first gas, flow rate of a second gas, and plasma intensity in the reactor) presented in the specification are too broad in scope, i.e. the ranges of variables cover too many orders of magnitude and do not describe in sufficient manner how to achieve the targeted dielectric constant of the claimed invention, and therefore are not descriptive in such a manner to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor or joint inventor at the time of filing had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) Enablement
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 1-6, 12-14, and 19-23 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 enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1-18 are directed to a hydrocarbon film with a dielectric constant of 10 or more. Specifically claims 1-3 are drawn to a product (the hydrocarbon film), and claims 4-11 and 16-18 are drawn to a product by process of making the hydrocarbon film.
Regarding Wands factor (A), the breadth of the claims, the claimed hydrocarbon film with a dielectric constant of 10 or more is not adequately taught by the specification such that a person skilled in the art could reasonably make the product without undue experimentation. As further disclosed below, the provided variable ranges for temperature, pressure, flow rate of the first gas, flow rate of the second gas, and plasma intensity of the reactor, are extremely broad, covering multiple orders of magnitude. Additionally, the claimed dielectric constant of 10 falls at the lower end of a projected range of dielectric constants up to 150, “preferably 30 to 150”, see paragraph [13]. Given the context of the broad ranges of claimed variables in the product by process claim 4 and their related paragraphs in the specification, undue experimentation would be necessary to arrive at a specific dielectric constant of 10, like claims 1 and 4 disclose. Additionally, Claim 1 purports ownership of all amorphous hydrocarbon films with a dielectric constant of 10 or more. However, applicants only list variations of plasma enhanced CVD as a growth mechanism and provide only vague instructions, if any, regarding the factors and variables that go into film layer growth.
Regarding Wands factor (C), the state of the prior art, see documents cited below. Hydrocarbon films (HCs) in the cited documents have been studied and utilized for the low-k (low dielectric constant) characteristic, ~2.5 depending on industry use.
Low dielectric constant polymers for microelectronics – Maier et al – ScienceDirect Volume 26, Issue 1 - February 2001:
CH 4.14: “These polymers are hydrocarbons without any polar groups, and consequently, the dielectric constant of the polyindan from 1,3-diisopropenyl benzene was found to be 2.6.”
CH 5.1 “However, the hydrocarbon content should be rather low in order to obtain films with dielectric constants below 2.6.”
CH 5.5: “Poly(1,4-naphthalene) 102 is prepared from 1,2-bisethinylbenzene 100, and a fluorinated derivative 104 can be obtained from 3,4,5,6-tetrafluoro-1,2-bisethinylbenzene 103 The presence of fluorine reduces the dielectric constant from 2.4 for the hydrocarbon film to 2.3 for the fluorinated derivative”
Low Dielectric Constant Materials – Volksen et al - Chemical Reviews Vol 110/Issue 1 - December 2009
Ch 3.1.1, see table 2, “Lower hydrogen content DLC compositions exhibit properties closer to graphite and diamond (higher hardness and high k), while higher hydrogen content DLC compositions would display properties more in line with polymeric hydrocarbons (lower k and softer). For these reasons, higher CH content DLC compositions would appear to be of greater interest for low-k dielectric applications.”
High-k Gate Dielectrics for Emerging Flexible and Stretchable Electronics – Wang et al - Chemical Reviews Vol 118/Issue 11 – May 2018
Ch 4.1.1 “Self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) are thin films consisting of one molecular layer achieved by a self-limiting chemistry… In these systems the phenoxy end groups promote far greater densification via π–π intermolecular interactions compared with monolayers based on linear hydrocarbons. The SAM dielectric (∼2.5 nm thick) on an O2 plasma-treated and doped silicon substrate has an areal capacitance as high as 900 nF cm–2 (k = 2.5) and the current density is only ∼8 × 10–8 A cm–2 at 1 V (4 MV cm–1).”
Regarding Wands factors (F and G), the amount of direction provided by the inventor and working examples, the specification does not provide sufficient guidance for forming the hydrocarbon film. The claimed steps disclosed in claim 4 recite “…wherein any one of a temperature, a pressure, a flow rate of the first gas, a flow rate of the second gas, and plasma intensity of the reactor is controlled in order that the hydrocarbon thin film is the hydrocarbon thin film having a dielectric constant of 10 or more.” These claimed steps correspond to paragraphs [24]-[27] of the original specification filed 12/07/2022, which provide the following ranges:
Temperature: 200°C ~ 600°C (1 order of magnitude, however a 200% increase in temperature with respect to smaller end of the range to the larger end of the range), see [24].
Pressure: 0.1 Torr ~ 10 Torr (3 orders of magnitude), see [25].
Flow Rate (volume ratio between hydrocarbon gas vs. hydrogen gas): 100:1 ~ 1:50 (ratio between the two gasses encompasses orders of magnitude, as well as interchangeable), see [26].
Plasma Intensity: 100W ~ 1000W (2 orders of magnitude), see [27].
The cited ranges provided by the specification do not support the formation of a hydrocarbon film with the claimed property of having a dielectric constant of 10 or more, as the ranges provided are too broad for a person skilled in the art to reasonably be able to form the claimed device, due to multiple variables with ranges stretching across multiple orders of magnitude. Undue experimentation would be necessary to arrive at the completed device with the claimed properties, thus claims 1-18 are not enabled.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 12-14, and 19-23 are not enabled and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as a person skilled in the art must perform undue experimentation given the context of the specification to form the claimed elements/methods. See MPEP 2164 The Enablement Requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) Written Description
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 1-6, 12-14, and 19-23 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 claims contain 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.
Claims 1-6, 12-14, and 19-23 are directed to a hydrocarbon film with a dielectric constant of 10-150. Specifically claims 1-3, 12-14, and 19-23 and are drawn to a product (the hydrocarbon film), and claims 4-6 are drawn to a method of making the hydrocarbon film. The claimed elements in combination with the originally filed specification do not make clear the possession of a hydrocarbon film with a dielectric constant of 10 or more.
The steps of forming the device as recited in the product by process claims 4-6, specifically in independent claim 4, which correspond to paragraphs [24]-[27] of the specification, have ranges of variables that do not specifically disclose how to achieve the targeted dielectric constant (10), see also Wands Factor (F) above. Additionally, although narrowed further in the recited claims, the dielectric constant in the specification (see paragraph [13]) is preferably between 30 and 150.
Table 1 lists deposition temperatures on various substrates over a wide range and the resulting dielectric constants, but do not correlate to any other variables. Additionally, looking at the figures, Figs. 8 and 10 gives an example of a film grown under specific conditions, but lacks correlation with other claims variables, thus it does not assert possession of the broader subject matter claimed.
Looking at the specification, among other examples, paragraph [75] discusses the effect of temperature, but again does not correlate to the remaining variables, and does not assert possession of the broader subject matter claimed.
As a result, the recited product by process steps do not define to a reasonable degree that the applicant had possession of the claimed product at the time of filing, given the broad ranges of variables presented in the original disclosure, therefore claims 1-6, 12-14, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is (571) 272-2686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p.
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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /EVREN SEVEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights