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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 2/2/2026, are noted and the addition of new claim 24-25 is noted. Claims 1, 4-8, 13, 15, 19, 20-25 are pending. Claims 1, 4-8, 13, 20, 23 and 25 are withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Claim 25 is withdrawn as dependent on a withdrawn claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
WO 618 discloses, in the section related to DAD precursors (page 22-23) an explicit statement therein, “in some embodiments the precursor does not contain CO ligands as the only second ligands” (emphasis added by examiner). Here, the natural inference from this explicit statement is that in other embodiments the precursor does contain CO ligands as the only second ligand. The applicant has failed to appreciate this disclosure and thus the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that WO 618 discloses using halides or alkoxides is noted and while WO 618 may disclose such as examples, the reference itself does not require those to be present and discloses compounds that are free of Mo-halide and Mo-O bonds as claimed. See Mo(DAD 8)(CO)3, see page 23, lines 16-18.
Applicants argue that WO 618 discloses that CO cannot be the only second ligand and thus teaches away from using CO as the sole ligand. The examiner disagrees due to the explicit teaching of WO 618 as it relates to the DAD comprising precursors. Specifically, while WO 618 discloses embodiments with the proviso that the compound does not include CO as the only second ligand in the summary, a review of the specification and detailed disclosure illustrates that WO 618 discloses “in some embodiments the precursors does not contain CO ligands as the only second ligands” (page 23 at lines 7-9). Initially an inference from such a disclosure would be that is some other embodiment the precursors can and do contain CO ligands as the only second ligands. This inference is further confirmed by the reference in the immediate next paragraph, which explicitly discloses precursor that includes CO ligand as the only second ligand - Mo(DAD 8)(CO)3, see page 23, lines 16-18. Here, the examiner does not agree that this embodiment is a direct teaching away from CO as the only ligand as WO 618 explicitly discloses embodiments with CO as the only ligand or as CO as not the only second ligand.
The examiner notes the disclosed prior art fully encompasses the claimed genus and the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness that reasonable expectation of Mo deposition would follow from following the explicit direction of WO 618. As such, the examiner maintains that a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth. The applicants have not proffered any factual evidence that would rebut the examiner’s position and merely relied on the arguments that the prior art does not encompass the claimed structure. Additionally, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Applicant’s have not provided any factual evidence or other secondary considerations that the claimed compounds result in any more than predictable results and therefore fail to rebut the examiner’s position set forth hereinafter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Blackwell is noted, but unpersuasive as the broadly drafted claims do not specifically disclose the reducing or oxidizing agent. The examiner disagrees and noted Blackwell specifically discloses such at 0048 “embodiments may be implemented to fabricate thin metal films of high purity having a thickness approximately equal to or less than 3 nanometers, at relatively low temperatures approximately in the range of 25-200 degrees Celsius, and using light having a wavelength approximately in the range of 150-800 nanometers. Coreactants could range from H.sub.2 to NH.sub.3, TMA, hydrazine, hydrosilanes, boranes, O.sub.2, O.sub.3, H.sub.2O etc., where they react faster with precursor in excited state.” Therefore, using coreactants as claimed would have been obvious in view of the specific disclosure of Blackwell.
Applicant’s arguments against Anthis, stating the reference discloses using halides or alkoxides as options for the ligand X. While Anthis may disclose such as examples or certain embodiments, the reference itself does not require those to be present and discloses compounds that are free of Mo-halide and Mo-O bonds as claimed. See the general formula M(DAD)a(X)-b(Y)c, wherein DAD is diazabutadiene with R ligands (0009), where m is 1-4 (overlaps and makes obvious “x is 1 or 2”), Y is a CO group and b is 0-8 and c is 0-8 (0027-0032). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of Thompson and Anthis are noted, but unpersuasive as while Thompson discloses Mn coordination complexes, it is Anthis that discloses the Mn or Mo are alternatives for DAD precursors for vapor deposition. Thompson discloses a Mn complex and therefore fails to disclose Mo. However, Anthis, also in the art for forming a CVD/ALD layer using a DAD precursors with neutral ligands and such precursors including a coordinate metal including Mo or Mn (0026). As such, Anthis discloses the central metal in the coordinate complex can selected from a finite group, and that Mo is a known substitute for Mn for such DAD metal coordinate complexes and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Thompson to include the Mo for deposition of Mo layers as Anthis discloses that Mo and Mn are known substituted for the DAD metal coordinate complexes. The predictability of the modification rests with Anthis, which disclose that these compounds can include either Mo or Mn as central metal atoms for deposition of film.
The examiner has proffered prima facie case of obviousness as it relates to the claimed compounds and reactants and the applicant’s mere spurious arguments are unsupported by factual evidence to rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, the examiner has offered evidence that suggests the claimed compound would be obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for CVD/ALD deposition using a reducing/oxidizing reactant and predictable results will follow using such a process and the applicant’s have failed to provide rebuttal evidence or does not provide commensurate scope of evidence that the instant claim compound is unpredictable or unexpected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 includes an improper group “wherein the reactant is selected from one or more of . . . peroxides, and plasmas thereof, . . . or polyhalosilanes”; however, the requirements of “and plasmas thereof” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if that is limiting only peroxides or other reactants. Additionally, the listing or reactants is in the alternative (“or”), but also include “and plasmas thereof” and thus the full breadth of the list and compounds/reactants contained therein is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 15, 18, 19, 21-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020185618 by Blakeney, hereinafter WO 618.
WO 618 discloses a method of depositing a Mo film on a semiconductor substrate (abstract, page 1, lines 12-15) and discloses exposing the substrate to a Mo complex having the general formula Mo(DAD)m(L)-n(X)p, wherein DAD is diazabutadiene with R ligands and m is 1-3 (reads on “x is at least 1”), L is a CO group and n is 0-4 and p is 0-4 (page 22-page 24). WO 618 discloses exposing the semiconductor substrate to a reactant to form the Mo containing film on the semiconductor (page 26-32).
As for the selection of L as CO, WO 618 explicitly discloses the selection of such and exemplifies compounds with CO and therefore using this would have been obvious as predictable based on the full disclosure of WO 618.
WO 618 discloses using halides or alkoxides are options and while WO 618 may disclose such as examples, the reference itself does not require those to be present and discloses compounds that are free of Mo-halide and Mo-O bonds as claimed. See Mo(DAD 8)(CO)3, see page 23, lines 16-18, and using compounds that include no halide or oxygen Mo bonds would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e. one would expect such compounds to predictably and successfully deposit a Mo film as claimed.
WO 618 discloses R group selected from methyl, ethyl, isopropyl (i.e. C1-C4 alkyls as claimed) and therefore selecting a specifically designated R group from finite number of selections would have been obvious as predictable (Page 15, lines 6-18).
Additionally, while the reference fails to explicitly disclose the claimed compounds, the discloses fully encompasses the claimed genus and therefore makes obvious the claims as drafted. Additionally, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Claim 19: Mo(DAD)m(L)-n(X)p, wherein DAD is diazabutadiene with R ligands and m is 1-3 (reads on “x is 1” and thus makes obvious this requirement), L is a CO group. As for selecting n as 4 and p as 0, the prior art discloses a range that overlaps and thus makes obvious these selection. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie” inside ranges disclosed by prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 191 USPQ 90. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 21-22: WO 618 discloses Mo film by exposing the surface of the semiconductor substrate to the Mo complex by sequential application (ALD) or simultaneous exposure (CVD), see page 26-32.
Claim(s) 15, 19, 21-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20170058401 by Blackwell et al.
Claim 15, 19 and 21-22: Blackwell discloses Mo films deposited from Mo precursors, including MoCO4DAZB (see 0049) using ALD or CVD and using a co-reactant (0048) to deposit a film on a semiconductor substrate (0048-0050). MoCO4DAZB specifically reads on the claim metal coordinate claim as drafted. Blackwell fails to explicitly disclose the claimed Mo precursor with the co-reactant; however, the prior art discloses using a co-reactant with the ALD/CVD film and therefore using such with the MoCO4DAZB would have been obvious as predictable in view of the full disclosure of Blackwell.
Claims 24: Blackwell specifically discloses such at 0048 “embodiments may be implemented to fabricate thin metal films of high purity having a thickness approximately equal to or less than 3 nanometers, at relatively low temperatures approximately in the range of 25-200 degrees Celsius, and using light having a wavelength approximately in the range of 150-800 nanometers. Coreactants could range from H.sub.2 to NH.sub.3, TMA, hydrazine, hydrosilanes, boranes, O.sub.2, O.sub.3, H.sub.2O etc., where they react faster with precursor in excited state.” Therefore, using coreactants as claimed would have been obvious in view of the specific disclosure of Blackwell.
Claim(s) 15, 19, 21-22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180291052 by Anthis et al.
Anthis discloses a method of depositing a metal film on a semiconductor substrate (0003-0004) and discloses exposing the substrate to a Mo complex having the general formula M(DAD)a(X)-b(Y)c, wherein DAD is diazabutadiene with R ligands (0009), where m is 1-4 (overlaps and makes obvious “x is 1 or 2”), Y is a CO group and n is 0-8 and p is 0-8. Anthis discloses exposing the semiconductor substrate to a reactant to form the Mo containing film on the semiconductor (0014, 0026).
As for the selection of Y as CO, Anthis explicitly discloses the selection of such at 0031 and therefore using this would have been obvious as predictable based on the full disclosure of Anthis.
Anthis discloses using halides or alkoxides are options and while Anthis may disclose such as examples, the reference itself does not require those to be present and discloses compounds that are free of Mo-halide and Mo-O bonds as claimed (see e.g. 0027-0031) and using compounds that include no halide or oxygen Mo bonds would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e. one would expect such compounds to predictably and successfully deposit a Mo film as claimed.
Anthis discloses R3 and R4 group selected from C4 alkyls (0021) and R1 and R2 are C1 or C2 Alkyls (see 0019) and therefore selecting a specifically designated R group from finite number of selections would have been obvious as predictable (0021-0023).
Anthis, also in the art for forming a CVD layer using a DAD precursor and such precursors including Mo (0026) and disclose including neutral ligands, such as CO. Anthis discloses the number of DAD ligands, anionic ligands and neutral ligands can vary and including e.g. embodiments that there are no anionic ligands (b is 0 and c is in the range of 1-8, see e.g. 0028-0029) and therefore discloses the compounds that read on and make obvious the claimed compounds as drafted. Therefore, taking the reference for its entire teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified provided the claimed Mo CVD precursors for vapor deposition as such is specifically within the discloses and embodied genus of the prior art compound.
Additionally, while the reference fails to explicitly disclose the claimed compounds, the discloses fully encompasses the claimed genus and therefore makes obvious the claims as drafted. Additionally, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Anthis discloses the using a second reactant to deposit the film, either sequentially or simultaneously, (0034), including reducing and oxidizing gases (see 0034, stating “In some embodiments, the second reactive gas comprises one or more of H.sub.2, NH.sub.3, hydrazine, hydrazine derivatives, O.sub.2, O.sub.3, H.sub.2O, NO.sub.2, N.sub.2O or plasmas thereof.”)
Claim 19: Anthis discloses m is 1-4, which include 1, which reads on and makes obvious the claim as drafted.
Claim 21-22: Anthis deposits the film by exposing the surface of the semiconductor substrate to the metal film complex by sequential application or simultaneous exposure (0015-0016).
Claim 24: Anthis discloses the using a second reactant to deposit the film, either sequentially or simultaneously, (0034), including reducing and oxidizing gases as claimed (see 0034, stating “In some embodiments, the second reactive gas comprises one or more of H.sub.2, NH.sub.3, hydrazine, hydrazine derivatives, O.sub.2, O.sub.3, H.sub.2O, NO.sub.2, N.sub.2O or plasmas thereof.”)
Claim(s) 15, 19, 21-22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 9328415 by Thompson taken with Anthis et al.
Thompson discloses a method of depositing a metal film on a semiconductor substrate (column 1, lines 20-35) and discloses exposing the substrate to a Mn complex having the general formula Mn(DAD) (L), wherein DAD is diazabutadiene with R ligands (column 2, lines 25-45) and L is one or more neutral ligands. Thompson discloses exposing the semiconductor substrate to a reactant to form the metal containing film on the semiconductor (0014, 0026).
As for the selection of L as CO, Thompson explicitly discloses the selection of such at column 4, lines 30-33 and therefore using this would have been obvious as predictable based on the full disclosure of Thompson. The number of CO neutral ligands is made obvious by Thompsons (“one or more”, see column 2, lines 42-43).
Thompson those to be present and discloses compounds that are free of M-halide and M-O bonds as claimed (see e.g. column 4).
Thompson discloses each R is alkyls and therefore selecting a specifically designated R group from finite number of selections would have been obvious as predictable (see column 4), including C1-C4 selections as those are the simplest alkyls.
Thompson discloses a Mn complex and therefore fails to disclose Mo. However, Anthis, also in the art for forming a CVD/ALD layer using a DAD precursors with neutral ligands and such precursors including a coordinate metal including Mo or Mn (0026). As such, Anthis discloses the central metal in the coordinate complex can selected from a finite group, and that Mo is a known substitute for Mn for such DAD metal coordinate complexes and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Thompson to include the Mo for deposition of Mo layers as Anthis discloses that Mo and Mn are known substituted for the DAD metal coordinate complexes.
Thompson discloses exposing to a reducing agent within the scope of the claims as drafted (see 0024 related to NH3 -or alkyl amines at 0025)
Claim 19: Thompson discloses x is 1 (see column 2, lines 30-40) which reads on and makes obvious the claim as drafted.
Claim 21-22: Thompson deposits the film by exposing the surface of the semiconductor substrate to the metal film complex by sequential application or simultaneous exposure (column 11, lines 4-25).
Claim 24: Thompson discloses exposing to a reducing agent within the scope of the claims as drafted (see 0024 related to NH3 -or alkyl amines at 0025). Anthis discloses the using a second reactant to deposit the film, either sequentially or simultaneously, (0034), including reducing and oxidizing gases as claimed (see 0034, stating “In some embodiments, the second reactive gas comprises one or more of H.sub.2, NH.sub.3, hydrazine, hydrazine derivatives, O.sub.2, O.sub.3, H.sub.2O, NO.sub.2, N.sub.2O or plasmas thereof.”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718