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 .
Status of the Application
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-10 and 20 in the reply filed on August 8, 2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, claims 11-19, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 8, 2023.
Claims 1-10 and 20 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: compound structures are blurry and difficult to read.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1-9 and 20, the instant specification teaches R1 as a substituted alkyl group with fluorine (para [0160], para [0167], para [0174], and para [0181]). However, the instant specification does not offer sufficient description of the common structural elements or identifying characteristics for other R groups that constitute a substituted alkyl group from other types of substituted alkyl groups. Furthermore, the instant specification does not indicate that the inventors have possession of the details of the structural elements that would comprise these substituted alkyl groups.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that there are many different structural elements that would constitute a substituted alkyl group to facilitate the functions recited in the instant claims. However, the instant specification is silent as to which structural elements the inventor has determined to be sufficient to characterize substituted alkyl group. Therefore, the instant specification does not provide disclosure of corresponding structure in sufficient detail to demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how the inventor intended what features constitute the substituted alkyl group to allow the function recited in the instant claims.
As to claims 1, 8-9, and 20, the instant specification teaches where R2 and R3 are both L-4 (pg 13, chemical formula 55-57). However, the instant specification does not indicate that the inventors have possession of the details of the structural elements that would comprise the case when R2 and R3 are both L-3.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that there are many different structural elements that would constitute the phrase R2 and R3 are each independently a group represented by General formula (L-3) or General formula (L-4) to facilitate the functions recited in the instant claims. However, the instant specification is silent as to which structural elements the inventor has determined to be sufficient to characterize the case where both R2 and R3 are L-3. Therefore, the instant specification does not provide disclosure of corresponding structure in sufficient detail to demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how the inventor intended what features constitute this phrase to allow the function recited in the instant claims.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchanan, W. D.; et al. (US 2009/0291212 A1, cited in the IDS filed on 08/08/2023) and Dussarrat, C. (US 2016/0315168 A1) and Yoshino, T.; et al. (US 2020/0055887 A1).
Buchanan, W. D.; et al. (US 2009/0291212 A1) is drawn to volatile metal complex precursors for metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (title; abstract) including yttrium compounds (abstract, line 4; pg 1, para [0005], line 5; pg 3, para [0051]-[0052]; pg 9, para [0099]; claim 1; claim 7; claim 25, claim 26).
As to claim 1, Buchanan teaches an yttrium compound represented by general formula (I) (pg 1, para [0005], line 5; claim 1, line 8) where R1 is a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 straight-chain or branched alkyl group (pg 1, para [0007]; pg 1, para [0009]; pg 1, para [0012]; claim 7).
Buchanan does not teach either general formula L-1 or L-2.
Dussarrat, C.; et al. (US 2016/0315168 A1) is drawn to precursors for vapor deposition of thin films (abstract) including yttrium compounds (pg 3, para [0115], line 3; claim 8, line 4) with amdinate ligands and formamidinate ligands (pg 3, para [0116]; claims 6-11).
Regarding general formula L-1, R2 and R3, Dussarrat, C.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Dussarrat) teaches general formula L-1 (pg 3, para [0116]; claims 6-11) where R2 and R3 are each independently a C1-C8 unsubstituted straight-chain or branched alkyl group (pg 3, para [0116]; claim 6, lines 10-13). While Dussarrat does not explicitly state C6-C8, this is similar both in structure and use to Dussarrat. In such cases, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made. See MPEP 2144.09(I).
Dussarrat does not teach where R2 and R3 are general formula L-3 or L-4.
A person having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods of Buchanan and Dussarrat, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Yoshino, T.; et al. (US 2020/0055887 A1) is drawn to precursors for thin films (title; abstract; pg 1, para [0002]) using yttrium compounds (pg 9, para [0034], line 3; pg 10, para [0042], line 3) with ligands (abstract; pg 1, para [0007]; pg 1, para [0009]; pg 2-8, compounds 1-54; pg 9, para [0037]; pg 13-17, compounds 55-156; claim 6; claim 9; claim 10).
Yoshino, T.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Yoshino) teaches general formula L-1 where R2 or R3 is L-3 (abstract; pg 1, para [0007]; pg 1, para [0009]; pg 2-8, compounds 1-54; pg 9, para [0037]; pg 13-17, compounds 55-156; claim 6; claim 9; claim 10) and teaches C1-C4 (claim 6; claim 9; claim 10). While Yoshino does not explicitly state C5-C8, this is similar both in structure and use to Yoshino. In such cases, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made. See MPEP 2144.09(I). And Yoshino teaches R9 and R10 are each independently an unsubstituted C1-C5 straight-chain or branched alkyl group (claims 6, 9, and 10).
A person having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods of Yoshino with the teachings of Buchanan and Dussarrat, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding general formula L-1, R4, Dussarrat teaches R4 is a hydrogen or unsubstituted C1-C5 straight-chain or branched alkyl group (claim 6, lines 10-13).
As to claim 2, Buchanan teaches R1 is a C2-C5 fluoroalkyl group (pg 1, para [0007]; pg 1, para [0009]; pg 1, para [0012]; claim 7).
As to claim 3, Dussarrat teaches L is general formula L-1 where R2 is a unsubstituted C3-C5 branched alkyl group branched alkyl group (pg 3, para [0116]; claim 6, lines 10-13).
As to claim 4, Yoshino teaches L is L-1 and R3 is L-3 (abstract; pg 1, para [0007]; pg 1, para [0009]; pg 2-8, compounds 1-54; pg 9, para [0037]; pg 13-17, compounds 55-156; claim 6; claim 9; claim 10).
As to claim 5, Dussarrat teaches L is L-1 and R4 is an unsubstituted methyl group or ethyl group (pg 3, para [0116]; claim 6, lines 10-13).
As to claim 6, Buchanan teaches L is L-2 and R5-R8 are each independently a unsubstituted methyl group (pg 1, para [0015], lines 6-7; claim 14). The yttrium compound may be complexed with N,N,N,’N’,’N”-pentamethyltriethylenediamine (PMTDA) ligand (pg 1, para [0015], lines 6-7; claim 14) which is a similar structural analogue to L-2. In such cases, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made. See MPEP 2144.09(I).
As to claim 7, Buchannan teaches L is L-2 and A1 and A2 are each independently unsubstituted ethylene group (pg 1, para [0015], lines 6-7; claim 14). In this case, PMTDA is a close structural analogue to L-2. In such cases, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made. See MPEP 2144.09(I).
As to claim 10, Buchanan teaches perfluoro-tert-butoxide (claim 7) which may be attached to yttrium (pg 1, para [0005], line 5; claim 1, line 8).
Buchanan does not teach the formamidinate.
Yoshino teaches the formamidinate ligand (pg 14, compound no. 67) to be attached to yttrium (pg 9, para [0034]).
A person of ordinary skill in the at could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods of Yoshino and Buchanan, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
As to claim 20, Yoshino teaches a raw material for forming an yttrium-containing film (pg 11, para [0044]; claims 7-9).
As to the general formula (1), Buchanan teaches an yttrium compound represented by general formula (I) (pg 1, para [0005], line 5; claim 1, line 8) where R1 is a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 straight-chain or branched alkyl group (pg 1, para [0007]; pg 1, para [0009]; pg 1, para [0012]; claim 7).
A person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods of Yoshino and Buchanan and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Buchanan does not teach either general formula L-1 or L-2.
Dussarrat, C.; et al. (US 2016/0315168 A1) is drawn to precursors for vapor deposition of thin films (abstract) including yttrium compounds (pg 3, para [0115], line 3; claim 8, line 4) with amdinate ligands and formamidinate ligands (pg 3, para [0116]; claims 6-11).
Regarding general formula L-1, R2 and R3, Dussarrat, C.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Dussarrat) teaches general formula L-1 (pg 3, para [0116]; claims 6-11) where R2 and R3 are each independently a C1-C8 unsubstituted straight-chain or branched alkyl group (pg 3, para [0116]; claim 6, lines 10-13). While Dussarrat does not explicitly state C6-C8, this is similar both in structure and use to Dussarrat. In such cases, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made. See MPEP 2144.09(I).
Dussarrat does not teach where R2 and R3 are general formula L-3 or L-4.
A person having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods of Buchanan and Dussarrat, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Yoshino, T.; et al. (US 2020/0055887 A1) is drawn to precursors for thin films (title; abstract; pg 1, para [0002]) using yttrium compounds (pg 9, para [0034], line 3; pg 10, para [0042], line 3) with ligands (abstract; pg 1, para [0007]; pg 1, para [0009]; pg 2-8, compounds 1-54; pg 9, para [0037]; pg 13-17, compounds 55-156; claim 6; claim 9; claim 10).
Yoshino, T.; et al. (hereafter referred to as Yoshino) teaches general formula L-1 where R2 or R3 is L-3 (abstract; pg 1, para [0007]; pg 1, para [0009]; pg 2-8, compounds 1-54; pg 9, para [0037]; pg 13-17, compounds 55-156; claim 6; claim 9; claim 10) and teaches C1-C4 (claim 6; claim 9; claim 10). While Yoshino does not explicitly state C5-C8, this is similar both in structure and use to Yoshino. In such cases, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made. See MPEP 2144.09(I). And Yoshino teaches R9 and R10 are each independently an unsubstituted C1-C5 straight-chain or branched alkyl group (claims 6, 9, and 10).
A person having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods of Yoshino with the teachings of Buchanan and Dussarrat, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding general formula L-1, R4, Dussarrat teaches R4 is a hydrogen or unsubstituted C1-C5 straight-chain or branched alkyl group (claim 6, lines 10-13).
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Patent No. 10,329,312
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-7 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,329,312 and the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino presented above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are taught by conflicting claims in issued patent no. 10,329,312.
Instant claim 1 is drawn to an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claims 6-7 and 10-13 teach L-1.
However, the claims of 10,329,312 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 1 of the instant application.
Instant claim 2 is drawn to the yttrium compound where R1 is a C2-C5 fluoroalkyl group.
While the claims of 10,329,312 do not expressly teach claim 2, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 2 of the instant application.
Instant claim 3 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 is C3-C5 branched alkyl group.
Conflicting claims 6-7 and 10-12 teach where L is L-1 and R2 is C3-C5 branched alkyl.
However, the claims of 10,329,312 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 3 of the instant application.
Instant claim 4 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R3 is L-3.
While the claims of 10,329,312 do not expressly teach claim 4, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 4 of the instant application.
Instant claim 5 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R4 is a methyl or ethyl group.
Conflicting claims 6-7 and 10-12 teach where L is L-1 and R4 is is a methyl or ethyl group.
However, the claims of 10,329,312 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 5. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 5 of the instant application.
Instant claim 8 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 and R3 are independently L-3 or L-4.
While the claims of 10,329,312 do not expressly teach claim 8, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 8 of the instant application.
Instant claim 9 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 and R3 are independently L-3 or L-4.
While the claims of 10,329,312 do not expressly teach claim 9, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 9 of the instant application.
Instant claim 10 is drawn to the yttrium compound shown in general formula (2).
While the claims of 10,329,312 do not expressly teach claim 10, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 10 of the instant application.
Instant claim 20 is drawn to a raw material for forming an yttrium-containing film from an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claims 6-7 and 10-13 teach L-1.
However, the claims of 10,329,312 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 20. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 20 of the instant application.
Patent No. 10,259,836
Claims 1-5 and 8-9, and 11-12, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,259,836 and the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino presented above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are taught by conflicting claims in issued patent no. 10,259,836.
Instant claim 1 is drawn to an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claims 1-2 teach an amidinate-type ligand.
However, the claims of 10,259,836 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 1 of the instant application.
Instant claim 2 is drawn to the yttrium compound where R1 is a C2-C5 fluoroalkyl group.
While the claims of 10,259,836 do not expressly teach claim 2, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 2 of the instant application.
Instant claim 3 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 is C3-C5 branched alkyl group.
Conflicting claims 1-2 teach an amidinate-type ligand.
However, the claims of 10,259,836 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 3. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 3 of the instant application.
Instant claim 4 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R3 is L-3.
Conflicting claims 1-2 teach an amidinate-type ligand.
However, the claims of 10,259,836 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 4. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 4 of the instant application.
Instant claim 5 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R4 is a methyl or ethyl group.
Conflicting claims 1-2 teach an amidinate-type ligand.
However, the claims of 10,259,836 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 5. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 5 of the instant application.
Instant claim 8 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 and R3 are independently L-3 or L-4.
Conflicting claims 1-2 teach an amidinate-type ligand.
However, the claims of 10,259,836 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 8. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 8 of the instant application.
Instant claim 9 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 and R3 are independently L-3 or L-4.
Conflicting claims 1-2 teach an amidinate-type ligand.
However, the claims of 10,259,836 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 9. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 9 of the instant application.
Instant claim 20 is drawn to a raw material for forming an yttrium-containing film from an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claims 1-2 teach an amidinate-type ligand.
However, the claims of 10,259,836 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 1 of the instant application.
Patent No. 10,913,754
Claims 1-5 and 8-9, and 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, and 8-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,913,754 and the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino presented above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are taught by conflicting claims in issued patent no. 10,913,754.
Instant claim 1 is drawn to an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claims 1-5 teach the amidinate.
However, the claims of 10,913,754 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 1 of the instant application.
Instant claim 2 is drawn to the yttrium compound where R1 is a C2-C5 fluoroalkyl group.
While the claims of 10,913,754 do not expressly teach claim 2, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 2 of the instant application.
Instant claim 3 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 is C3-C5 branched alkyl group.
Conflicting claims 1-5 teach the amidinate.
However, the claims of 10,913,754 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 3. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 3 of the instant application.
Instant claim 4 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R3 is L-3.
While the claims of 10,913,754 do not expressly teach claim 4, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 4 of the instant application.
Instant claim 5 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R4 is a methyl or ethyl group.
Conflicting claims 1-5 teach the amidinate.
However, the claims of 10,913,754 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 5. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 5 of the instant application.
Instant claim 8 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 and R3 are independently L-3 or L-4.
While the claims of 10,913,754 do not expressly teach claim 8, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 8 of the instant application.
Instant claim 9 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 and R3 are independently L-3 or L-4.
While the claims of 10,913,754 do not expressly teach claim 9, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 9 of the instant application.
Instant claim 20 is drawn to a raw material for forming an yttrium-containing film from an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claims 1-5 teach the amidinate.
However, the claims of 10,913,754 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 20. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 20 of the instant application.
Patent No. 11,161,867
Claims 1-5 and 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,161,867 and the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino presented above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are taught by conflicting claims in issued patent no. 11,161,867.
Instant claim 1 is drawn to an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches the amidinate where L is L-3.
However, the claims of 11,161,867 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 1 of the instant application.
Instant claim 2 is drawn to the yttrium compound where R1 is a C2-C5 fluoroalkyl group.
While the claims of 11,161,867 do not expressly teach claim 2, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 2 of the instant application.
Instant claim 3 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 is C3-C5 branched alkyl group.
While the claims of 11,161,867 do not expressly teach claim 3, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 3 of the instant application.
Instant claim 4 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R3 is L-3.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches L is L-1 and R3 is L-3.
Instant claim 5 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R4 is a methyl or ethyl group.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches R4 is a methyl or ethyl group.
Instant claim 10 is drawn to the yttrium compound shown in general formula (2).
Conflicting claim 1 teaches the amidinate of general formula 2.
However, the claims of 11,161,867 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 10. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 10 of the instant application.
Instant claim 20 is drawn to a raw material for forming an yttrium-containing film from an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claims 1 teaches a compound with the amidinate group where L is L-1 and R3 is L-3.
However, the claims of 11,161,867 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 20. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 20 of the instant application.
Patent No. 12,378,272
Claims 1-5 and 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,378,272 and the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino presented above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are taught by conflicting claims in issued patent no. 12,378,272.
Instant claim 1 is drawn to an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate.
However, the claims of 12,378,272 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 1 of the instant application.
Instant claim 2 is drawn to the yttrium compound where R1 is a C2-C5 fluoroalkyl group.
While the claims of 12,378,272 do not expressly teach claim 2, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 2 of the instant application.
Instant claim 3 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 is C3-C5 branched alkyl group.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate.
However, the claims of 12,378,272 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 3. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 3 of the instant application.
Instant claim 4 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R3 is L-3.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate.
However, the claims of 12,378,272 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 4. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 4 of the instant application.
Instant claim 5 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R4 is a methyl or ethyl group.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate.
However, the claims of 12,378,272 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 5. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 5 of the instant application.
Instant claim 10 is drawn to the yttrium compound shown in general formula (2).
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate.
However, the claims of 12,378,272 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 10. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 10 of the instant application.
Instant claim 20 is drawn to a raw material for forming an yttrium-containing film from an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate compound.
However, the claims of 12,378,272 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 20. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 20 of the instant application.
Patent No. 12,275,748
Claims 1-5 and 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,275,748 and the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino presented above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are taught by conflicting claims in issued patent no. 12,275,748.
Instant claim 1 is drawn to an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate.
However, the claims of 12,275,748 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 1 of the instant application.
Instant claim 2 is drawn to the yttrium compound where R1 is a C2-C5 fluoroalkyl group.
While the claims of 12,275,748 do not expressly teach claim 2, they do teach a part of claim 1. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 2 of the instant application.
Instant claim 3 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R2 is C3-C5 branched alkyl group.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate.
However, the claims of 12,275,748 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 3. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 3 of the instant application.
Instant claim 4 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R3 is L-3.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate.
However, the claims of 12,275,748 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 4. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 4 of the instant application.
Instant claim 5 is drawn to the yttrium compound where L is L-1 and R4 is a methyl or ethyl group.
Conflicting claim 1 teaches R4 is a methyl or ethyl.
Instant claim 10 is drawn to the yttrium compound shown in general formula (2).
Conflicting claim 1 teaches an amidinate.
However, the claims of 12,275,748 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 10. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 10 of the instant application.
Instant claim 20 is drawn to a raw material for forming an yttrium-containing film from an yttrium compound with two alkyl-oxy groups where the alkyl is designated as R1 and a ligand group designated L where the R1 is a C1-C8 alkyl or a fluorine-substituted C1-C8 group, L is either L-1 or L-2 with R groups independently selected from C1-C8 or further defined as L-3 and L-4.
Conflicting claim 2 teaches a raw material comprising the amidinate compound.
However, the claims of 12,275,748 do not expressly teach the rest of claim 20. As noted in the current rejections above, the combined teachings of Buchanan, Dussarrat, and Yoshino render obvious claim 20 of the instant application.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan M Lewoczko whose telephone number is (571)272-9830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571) 272-6897. 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.
/EVAN M LEWOCZKO/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights