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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/28/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues that the inventors have surprisingly found that the reaction of metal halide and metal organic precursors can provide unexpectedly pure metal films. This is not persuasive. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. MPEP § 716.02(d). In this case, applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the specific claimed combination of materials yields an unexpectedly pure film.
Applicant argues that Thompson does not teach TEA as a reactant, as required by the amendment to claim 1. This is persuasive and a new rejection is presented below in response to this amendment.
Applicant also argues that Thompson does not teach or suggest a metal halide and metal organic precursor wherein both are the same metal and the metal film is at least 95% metal. This is not persuasive. Thompson teaches using the same metal for both precursors and that doing so yields a film which is at least 95 atomic % metal at ¶ 0018.
Applicant argues that Thompson does not teach or suggest a AlCl3 as the metal halide precursor and TMA as the metal organic precursor. This is not persuasive. Thompson teaches aluminum trichloride at ¶ 0017 and TMA at ¶ 0020.
Applicant argues that Thompson does not teach the claimed temperature. This is persuasive and a new rejection, in light of Bajaj, is presented below in response to this amendment.
Applicant also argues that the cited art does not teach a carbon concentration of less than 2 atomic percent and that this purity is only achieved through a judicial selection of precursors. This is not persuasive. Bajaj teaches carbon contents below 5%, which includes the narrower claimed range of less than 2%. Additionally, even if the cited art did not specify the carbon content, the cited art teaches a process using the same materials and the same steps to form the claimed film. Therefore, the claimed carbon content is considered inherent. If applicant is alleging that the specific precursors selected have the unexpected result of a lower carbon content than other precursors, applicant is encouraged to provide evidence to demonstrate this result.
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, 6-9, 13-14, 16-17 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2015/0004316) in light of Bajaj (US 2022/0049353) and Lim et al. (US 2003/0207529).
Claims 1 and 23: 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 materials include TiCl4 and trimethyl aluminum (¶¶ 0017, 0020).
Thompson teaches trimethyl aluminum and fails to teach triethyl aluminum as the precursor. Lim teaches a process of depositing metal via ALD (¶ 0037) and explains that a suitable alternative to trimethyl aluminum as a metal precursor is triethyl aluminum (¶ 0042). 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 triethyl aluminum as the metal organic precursor in Thompson with the predictable expectation of success.
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. 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 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 1 at% with the predictable expectation of success.
Thompson also fails to teach a particular temperature. Bajaj, however, explains that a suitable temperature for forming a bimetal film via ALD is 100-500˚C (¶ 0046). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Thompson is silent regarding the temperature and because Bajaj teaches that 100-500˚C is a suitable temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a temperature of 100-500˚C with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 2: 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).
Claim 6: Thompson teaches that the metal film is at least 95 at% pure metal (¶ 0018).
Claims 7 and 8: Thompson teaches that the process further comprises exposing the substrate to an additional silane reactant (¶ 0024).
Claims 9 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 are the same (¶¶ 0016, 0018) and that the formed film has a purity of at least 95 atomic percent of the selected metal (¶ 0018). Thompson further teaches that suitable precursor materials include aluminum chloride (i.e. claimed AlCl3) and trimethyl aluminum (¶¶ 0017, 0020).
Claims 13, 14 and 20: Thompson teaches that the process further comprises exposing the substrate to an additional silane reactant (¶ 0024).
Claim 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 21, 22 and 24-25: 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 1 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. 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 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 1 at% with the predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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