DETAILED ACTION
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 I, claims 1-8, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23, in the reply filed on December 15, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 9-12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “XII. The Structure and Reactions of Some Mono-Organo-Tin(IV) Compounds”, 39, (1972), Journal of Organometallic Chemistry (Davies et al., hereinafter referred to as Davies) in view of “Tricyclic tin(iv) cages: synthetic aspects and intriguing features of stannatranes and pseudostannatranes, Royal Society of Chemistry (Srivastav et al., hereinafter referred to as Srivastav).
Davies, in the introduction discloses monoorganic tin compounds such as stannatranes, and on pages 284-285, and page 286, Davies discloses the same claimed stannatrane, wherein the R1 can be alkyl or branched alkyl up to about C8H17 and includes the R1 groups recited in claims 2, and 4, and discloses the following general structure for the stannatrane, see below,
PNG
media_image1.png
154
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and Davies, in Table 4, discloses producing the stannatrane that has a purity of at least 99% and does not disclose any content of the dialkyl tin compound in the organic stannatranes (claims 1-6). Davies on page 284, paragraph nos. 1-2, and on page 286, in Method 2, discloses that the sodium methoxide is reacted with alkanolamines and alkyl tin trichlorides to produce the organostannatrane (claim 7). Davies, on page 283, last paragraph and on page 284, first paragraph , discloses the alcoholysis of RSn(NR’2)3 to produce stannatranes and Davies, on page 284, discloses the use of alkanolamines (ethanolamine) to enable the alcoholysis to produce the stannatranes wherein R and R’ includes alkyl groups such as methyl (claim 8).
The difference between the claims and Davies is that Davies does not disclose that at least one R2 is not hydrogen (i.e., substituted) or the substitutions in the R1 groups (the R group bonded to the Sn) as recited. Davies does not disclose that the alkanolamine is the claimed triisopropanolamine.
Srivastav, on page 4, right column, last paragraph, and on page 5, discloses the substitution in the nitriloethanolate cages of the stannatranes and Srivastav, on page 2, right column, 2nd paragraph discloses organic groups bonded to the Sn that include the claimed alkyl or branched alkyl groups wherein the substitution in the alkyl group includes halides so as to obtain halide derivatives of stannatranes (includes the claimed fluorinated alkyl substituents in the R group bonded to Sn). Srivastav, on page 5, left column , in the last two paragraphs discloses the formation of stannatranes that includes reactants such as tris(2-hydroxypropyl)amine with RSnCl3 and on page 6, right column, 1st paragraph, Srivastav discloses reacting organoamine alcohol with organo trisdimethylamino stannanes to produce stannatranes.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a modify Davies by including substitution in the nitriloethanolate cages as taught by Srivastav because Srivastav, on page 5, last paragraph, discloses that substitution in the tricyclic cages generate steric constraints and thereby prevent oligomerization of molecular units and can be used as synthons to obtain stannatranes with new exocyclic groups. It would be obvious to modify Davies by using the alkanolamine taught by Srivastav because Davies teaches the use of alkanol amines and Srivastav uses the tris(2-hydroxypropyl)amine so as to synthesize successfully substitution in the tricyclic Sn(iv) cages.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “XII. The Structure and Reactions of Some Mono-Organo-Tin(IV) Compounds”, 39, (1972), Journal of Organometallic Chemistry (Davies et al., hereinafter referred to as Davies) in view of “Tricyclic tin(iv) cages: synthetic aspects and intriguing features of stannatranes and pseudostannatranes, Royal Society of Chemistry (Srivastav et al., hereinafter referred to as Srivastav) as applied to claims 1-8, above, and further in view of U. S. Patent No. 5,464,656 (hereinafter referred to as Verkade).
Davies in view of Srivastav is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claims and Davies in view of Srivastav is that Davies in view of Srivastav does not disclose coating the stannatrane onto a substrate as recited in claim 13 or claim 15, or subjecting the coated stannatrane to heating or exposure or oxidation and irradiation processes. Davies in view of Srivastav does not disclose performing exposure to a resulting tin oxide as recited in claim 17 or claim 19, or claim 21 or claim 23.
Verkade in the abstract, and in col 3, lines 1-31, discloses an organometallic precursor that comprise tripodal tetradentate ligands wherein the metal can be Sn, and Verkade in col 2, lines 48-67, in col 10, lines 25-39, and in col 17, lines 63-64, and in col 20, discloses coating the organometallic precursors (metalatranes) onto a substrate by any coating process (includes spin coating processes that uses a solution to coat the substrate), and Verkade also teaches a chemical vapor deposition process for coating the metalatrane precursor that includes vaporizing the precursor (providing the vapor of the precursor) and coating the vapors onto the surface of the substrate (physisorbed or chemisorbed) and heating the coated film (see col 1, lines 49-51 or col 18, lines 30-33, and lines 50-60, and includes using hot stages or induction heating). Verkade, in col 9, lines 58-67, and in col 10, lines 1-47, discloses metalatrane precursor that includes stannatrane and discloses in col 18, that the precursor coating can be subjected to irradiation to light including laser irradiation resulting in photolysis (rastering with laser) and teaches that the coating of the organometallic precursor can be subjected to exposure to carrier gases and vapors and that the carrier gas includes air and oxygen (air includes moisture, col 19, lines 21-27) and is the same as the claimed hydrolytic exposure. Verkade, in col 18, lines 61-67, and in col 19, lines 1-5, discloses that the coated substrate is masked with a resist (lithographic mask) and exposed to irradiation (claimed blanket exposure) thereby patterning the CVD coated precursor (metalatrane precursor). Verkade teaches the same claimed film composition and subjects the metalatrane precursor coated substrate to the same claimed processes of vaporization, physisorption or chemisorption, exposure to the claimed gases, irradiation with laser or light and will inherently and necessarily form the oxostannate film and result in the formation of an optically clear tin oxide film.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Davies in view of Srivastav by employing the process of coating the stannatrane onto a substrate and performing the processes taught by Verkade on the coated film because Davies does not prohibit the use of the stannatrane composition in the claimed manner and Srivastav, in the Conclusion paragraph, discloses that the stannatrane possess interesting optical properties and Verkade in col 1, lines 30-32, and lines 60-64, discloses that the metal-oxide-nitride films can be used to protect against corrosion and abrasion at high temperatures and using the claimed vapor deposition process enables the process of the forming the metal precursor film without contamination and/or damage to the substrate, and Verkade, in col 21, lines 10-24, discloses that the formed metalatrane films possess high temperature semiconduction, and light emission capabilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark F. Huff can be reached on (571) 272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 February 21, 2026.