DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, cancelling claim 15, was entered on 11/18/25.
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 Arguments
Applicant argues that Thompson fails to teach that the second metal is selected from the group of claimed metals and instead limits the second metal to germanium, indium, tin, antimony, thallium, lead, bismuth, zinc, aluminum, gallium and mixtures thereof at ¶ 0019. This is not persuasive. Thompson says that “[s]uitable metals include, but are not limited to, germanium, indium, tin, antimony, thallium, lead, bismuth, zinc, aluminum, gallium and mixtures thereof” (¶ 0019). The phrase “but are not limited to” indicates that other metals can be used as the second metal. Thompson further teaches that “the metal in the metal precursor and the metal in the organometallic reducing agent can be the same metal” (¶ 0016). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any of the metals used as the first metal (i.e. group 3 through group 6 transition metals) could be used as the second metal as well. Group 3 through group 6 transition metals include, e.g., niobium, molybdenum, hafnium and tungsten.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (CN 105164791, with US 2015/0004316 serving as a translation) in light of Bajaj (US 2022/0049353).
Claims 1, 4-5 and 16: Thompson teaches a process of forming a metal film via ALD (Abst.), comprising the steps of: sequentially exposing a substrate to a first metal precursor consisting of a metal halide (¶¶ 0016-0017) and a second metal precursor consisting of a second metal and at least one alkyl group (e.g., a trimethyl metal) (¶¶ 0016, 0020) to form a metal film comprising the first and second metals (¶ 0016). Thompson teaches that the first and second metals can be the same or different (¶ 0016) and that suitable metals include, e.g., tungsten (¶¶ 0017, 0020).
Thompson further teaches that the carbon content of the formed film is less than 20% (¶ 0025), but fails to teach an amount of less than 5 at%. Bajaj teaches a method of forming a bimetal film using ALD (Abst.) and explains that a suitable carbon content can be below 5 at% (¶ 0056). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Thompson teaches that the carbon content should be below 20% and because Bajaj teaches that carbon contents lower than 5 at% can be desirably achieved, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a carbon content of less than 5 at% with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 2, 9, 11 and 17: Thompson teaches that the process is performed without the use of a strong reductant, such as hydrogen or a plasma (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0016-0020).
Claims 6 and 10: Thompson teaches that the metal film is at least 95 at% pure metal (¶ 0018).
Claims 7, 8, 13, 14 and 20: Thompson teaches that the process further comprises exposing the substrate to an additional silane reactant (¶ 0024).
Claim 18: Thompson teaches that the first metal can be any group 3 metal and the second metal is aluminum (¶¶ 0016-0020). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, because lanthanum is a group 3 metal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected lanthanum as the first metal with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson and Bajaj in view of Gordon (WO 2004/046417).
Claim 19: Thompson is silent regarding the specific lanthanum precursor. Gordon a process of depositing lanthanum from a precursor and further discloses that tris(N,N’-diisopropylacetamidinate) lanthanum is a suitable precursor (p. 17). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected tris(N,N’-diisopropylacetamidinate) lanthanum as the lanthanum precursor in Thompson with the predictable expectation of success.
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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights