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 – 12 in the reply filed on September 2, 2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 13 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Arkles et al. US 20200318236 A1 (hereinafter “Arkles”).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 11:
Arkles is directed to a thin film deposition process that are a type of atomic layer deposition (ALD), including ruthenium based thin films onto substrates (Abstract; [0023], [0036], [0054]). Arkles discloses that their process is executed to form a ruthenium based thin film comprising inter alia Ru with O [RuO] and mixtures of Ru with O with other phases such as RuO2 [known electrically conductive oxide/phase, meeting claim 11] ([0036]). The resultant thin film is also conformal as an ALD process ([0008]).
Regarding claims 2, 3:
Arkles discloses that examples of precursors used in the process of Arkles
include inter alia (DMBD)Ru(CO)3 [(diene)Ru(CO)3] ([0035], [0054]).
Regarding claims 4, 5:
Arkles discloses that the substrate can be e.g. silicon, silicon dioxide, titanium nitride or a metal such as copper or platinum ([0039]).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 – 8, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Thenappan et al. US 20110198756 A1 (hereinafter “Thenappen”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11:
Thenappan is directed to vapor deposition precursors that can deposit conformal thin ruthenium films on substrates and incidental species, including ruthenium films comprising RuO [one-to-one] alongside RuO2 Ru2O3, e.g. ALD (Abstract; [0003]; Claims 41, 43, 45, 47). Thenappan discloses a vapor deposition process comprising (Claims 19, 21, 23, 24, 26):
heating the vapor deposition precursor to form a vapor of the precursor;
exposing a substrate surface to the vapor [pulsing a vapor] to form a layer of the precursor on the surface;
removing [purging] any excess precursor that is not adsorbed on the substrate;
reacting a reactant (e.g. oxygen, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide [oxidizing gases]) with the layer [pulsing a reactant] to form a thin film on the surface and a by-product; and
removing excess of the reactant and the by-product [purging of the oxidizing gas], wherein the precursor may be a ruthenium substituted-metallocene [meeting claim 2].
The disclosed steps may be repeated in a cycle as part of a thermal ALD process or a plasma-enhanced ALD process (claims 34, 26; [0042], [0083]). The execution of the process results in a coated structure or a thin film comprising ruthenium, ruthenium dioxide, ruthenium monoxide [conductive oxide] and combinations thereof (claims 40, 41, 46, 47).
Regarding claim 4:
Thenappan discloses that the substrate may be e.g. crystalline or amorphous
silicon, silicon oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium nitride, ruthenium ([0047]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thenappan as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 8, 10, 11 above.
Regarding claim 9:
Thenappan does not expressly teach an embodiment of their method where the target coating thickness is between approximately 25 Angstroms and 100 Angstroms.
However, Thenappan does disclose that their processes can deposit coatings of 5 to 50nm depending on the desired number of cycles performed ([0042], [0083]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thenappan as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 8, 10, 11 above, and further in view of Basol US 20080023059 A1 (hereinafter “Basol”).
Regarding claim 12:
Thenappan does not expressly teach that the coating forms a substantially transparent electrode on the surface of the substrate.
Basol is directed to tandem solar cell structures and methods of manufacturing them. Basol discloses that a semi-transparent or transparent top-cell-bottom-contact layers are made of e.g. ruthenium oxide (Abstract; [0019], [0028]). The ruthenium oxide layer may be deposited by metalorganic CVD over a transparent conductive oxide layer as part of the manufacturing process for the tandem solar cell structure at a thickness between 2nm to 200nm ([0030]). Such films are desired because in addition to allowing light toward a bottom cell, ruthenium oxide films are highly conductive and thus allow for reasonably low sheet resistance at film thicknesses that enable transparency ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the method of Thenappan by performing the method of Thenappan onto a substrate such as that taught by Basol because Basol teaches that thin ruthenium oxide films are useful as top-cell-bottom-contact layers due to their low sheet resistance at very low thicknesses; and because Thenappan teaches a known and predictable method for making such low thickness films with excellent conformality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717