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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 23-29 are 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.
Claims 23 recites the limitation “further wherein at least one of the first and the second precursor comprises a metal precursor.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to what the phrase “further wherein” makes reference. Also the limitation “wherein at least one of the first and the second precursor comprises a metal precursor” contradicts to the limitation of the parent claim 1 such as “wherein at least one of the first precursor and the second precursor is selected from the group consisting of N,N-diethyl-(1,1, 2,3,3, 3-hexafluoropropyl)amine, N,N-diethyl-(E)- pentafluoropropenylamine and combinations thereof”, and therefore this limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 24-29 are indefinite because of their dependance on indefinite claim 23.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 recited the limitaiton “at least one of the first and the second precursor comprises a metal precursor.” This limitation fails for further limit the subject matter of the parent claim 1 where it is recited that “wherein at least one of the first precursor and the second precursor is selected from the group consisting of N,N-diethyl-(1,1,2,3,3.3-hexafluoropropyl)amine, N,N-diethyl-(E)- pentafluoropropenylamine and combinations thereof.” Thus, claim 1 recites a Markush grouping of a closed group of alternatives, i.e. claim 1 is closed to unrecited element and inclusion of additional elements (such as “a metal precursor” recited in claim 23) is improper.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thadani (US 2016/0093488) in view of Li (US 2021/0288086).
Regarding claim 23, Thadani discloses a method of filling a gap comprising: introducing a substrate in a reaction chamber, the substrate being provided with a gap (Fig.2, numeral 210); introducing a reaction gas in the reaction chamber ([0017]), the reaction gas comprising a noble gas ([0018]), a first precursor (Fig.1, numeral 110) and a second precursor (120), the first precursor being different from the second precursor ([0018]); and, generating a plasma in the reaction chamber (130), thereby forming a gap filling fluid that at least partially fills the gap ([0029]).
Thadani does not disclose that at least one of the first precursor and the second precursor comprises a metal precursor, the metal precursor comprising a metal.
Li however discloses at least one of the first precursor and the second precursor comprises a metal precursor, the metal precursor comprising a metal ([0029]).
It would have therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Thadani with Li to have at least one of the first precursor and the second precursor comprises a metal precursor, the metal precursor comprising a metal for the purpose of forming a tantalum liner (Li, [0029]).
Regarding claim 24, Li discloses wherein the metal precursor comprises titanium, hafnium, zirconium, or tantalum ([0029]).
Regarding claim 25, Li discloses wherein the metal precursor comprises a tantalum precursor ([0029]).
Regarding claim 26, Li discloses wherein the tantalum precursor is selected from a tantalum alkylamine, a tantalum alkylamine comprising at least two different alkylamine ligands, a heteroleptic alkylamine, and a tantalum halide ([0029]).
Regarding claim 27, Li discloses wherein the tantalum precursor is TaCl5 ([0029])
Regarding claim 28, Li discloses wherein the tantalum precursor is a tantalum alkylamine ([0029]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thadani (US 2016/0093488) in view of Li (US 2021/0288086).as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Brogan (US 2023/0260834).
Regarding claim 29, Thadani in view of Li does not disclose wherein the tantalum precursor is tris (diethylamido) (tert-butylimido)tantalum.
Brogan however discloses wherein the tantalum precursor is tris (diethylamido) (tert-butylimido)tantalum ([0110]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Thadani with Brogan to have the tantalum precursor is tris (diethylamido) (tert-butylimido)tantalum because it is typical precursor for forming tantalum containing layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, and 10-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest wherein at least one of the first precursor and the second precursors is a an alkylamine-substituted halogenated alkane or alkene selected from N,N-diethyl-(1,1,2,3,3.3-hexafluoropropyl)amine, N,N-diethyl-(E)- pentafluoropropenylamine as required by amended independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891