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 Claims 9-12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 U. S. C. 103 rejections made in the previous office action are maintained. With respect to applicant’s argument that Davies and Srivastav does not disclose the claimed stannatrane, Davies teaches the formation of a stannatrane and Srivastav is dependent upon to disclose the possibility of substitution in the tripodal arm to disclose the limitation that at least one R2 is not hydrogen. Davies discloses the same claimed stannatrane with the same claimed tripodal arm, and does not prohibit substitution in the tripodal arm and Srivastav on page 4, last paragraph discloses that introducing substitution in the tripodal arm enables modification of the steric and electronic properties of the metallic complex. With respect to applicant’s argument that Davies does not disclose the purity of the stannatrane, Davies discloses in Table 4, that the yield of the stannatrate is about 99% and suggests at least 99% purity and includes the claimed stannatrane recited in claim 1. Furthermore, Srivastav, in scheme 10, discloses a 100% yield of the same claimed stannatrane as that recited in claim 1, wherein the R1 is a substituted alkyl group. With respect to applicant’s argument that Srivastav distinguishes between conventional stannatranes and those incorporating substituted ligands, Davies does not prohibit the substitution in the tripodal arm and Srivastav , as discussed in the preceding sentences, discloses the benefits of substitution in the tripodal arms. With respect to applicant’s argument that stannatranes with substitution directly bonded to tin are derived from triethanol amine or that stannatrates incorporating substitution in the nitriloethanolate cage are modified alkanolamine ligands, the instant claim recites a stannatrane and Davies is dependent upon to disclose the use of an alkanolamine and an alkali metal alkoxide to form the claimed stannatrane, and Srivastav teaches the use of the same claimed alkanol amine, disclosed on page 5, 4th paragraph, in the forming of the stannatrane with substitution in all three arms. With respect to applicant’s argument that Srivastav does not disclose a methyl substitution on arms of the tricyclic cage, Srivastav, on page 4, last paragraph discloses that the substitution can occur in all of the three arms of tricyclic cages and on page 2, paragraph 2, discloses that the substituents on the cages can be alkyl groups and easily suggests methyl groups and thereby discloses the methyl substitution in all three arms of the tricyclic cages of the stannatrane. With respect to applicant’s argument that none of the references disclose or illustrate the structure of claim 3, Srivastav, teaches on page 4, the alkyl group directly bonded to the tin atom, and Srivastav, in the preceding sentence, discloses alkyl substitution in the three arms of the tricyclic cages, and Srivastav, on page 6, 2nd paragraph discloses halogenated derivatives of stannatranes and such derivatives includes substitution of halogen in the alkyl group directly bonded to the Sn atom and includes the claimed structure recited in claim 3. With respect to applicant’s argument that Verkade does not disclose the specific stannatrane compounds taught by Davies or Srivastav, or any examples of stannatranes forming tin oxide, Verkade is only dependent upon to disclose the coating of a metalatrane that includes a stannatrane onto a substrate that comprise tripodal tetradentate ligands and the performing of the claimed processes on the metalatranes that include stannatranes, and Verkade is not dependent upon to disclose a specific stannatrane structure, and nothing in the Davies and Srivastav prohibits the coating of a stannatrane composition onto a substrate surface or prohibit any of the patterning processes performed on the composition as taught by Verkade, and both Srivastav and Verkade teach the use of stannatrane for its electronic properties, and for its use in electronics.
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 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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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 July 29, 2026.
Prosecution Insights