DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 05/14/2026. Applicant filed a Response, amended claims 3-5, and added claim 16 on 07/21/2026.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are pending.
Claims 3-6 and 16 are rejected.
Claims 1-2, 7-11 and 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-4, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeon et al, KR 20200112617A (Yeon).
Yeon was cited in the IDS filed 04/23/2025. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Yeon with the Office Action mailed 03/04/2026. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to both the machine translation (Yeon translation) and the original foreign document provided with the IDS (Yeon original).
Regarding claim 3, Yeon discloses forming a thin film with a thin film precursor and an organic solvent, wherein the thin film precursor is a titanium tetrahalide selected from TiF4, TiCl4, TiBr4 and TiI4, and wherein TiCl4 is preferred (Yeon translation; [0007], [0013] and [0021-0023]). These thin film precursors fall within the scope of thin film precursors of Chemical Formula 1 as claimed when M=Ti, x=1, L=F, Cl, Br or I, and y=4.
The organic solvent may be a C1-C10 haloalkane or a C3-C10 halo-cycloalkane, wherein the halo may be F, Cl, Br or I. In this case, it is easier to improve the step coverage because the deposition rate reduction effect is greater (Yeon translation; [0027]).
In Examples 1-12, the thin film precursor TiCl4 was dissolved in an organic solvent to prepare a thin film (Yeon translation; [0062-0069]). The solvents of Examples 7-12 are auxiliary precursors of Chemical Formula 1 as claimed (Yeon original; Table 1, page 10, Examples 7-12):
Example 7 - tert-butyl chloride
Example 8 - dichloroethane
Example 9 - dichloromethane
Example 10 - 2-chloropropane
Example 11- 1-chloro pentane
Example 12 – chloro-cyclopentane.
An example of an auxiliary precursor compound of Chemical Formula 1 as claimed is 1-chloropentane (C5H11Cl) of Example 11. 1-chloropentane is equivalent to the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein A=carbon, n=5, B=hydrogen, m=2n+1=11, X=Cl, o=1, and i=j=0.
Therefore, Yeon anticipates thin film precursor compositions as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Yeon is relied as disclosing the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. The compositions for forming a thin film may comprise 5 to 95% by weight titanium tetrahalide (thin film precursor), and 5 to 95% by weight of organic solvent, most preferably 10 to 30% by weight titanium tetrahalide and 70 to 90% by weight organic solvent (auxiliary precursor) (Yeon; [0032]). These amounts fall completely within the claimed weight ratios.
For example, 5% thin film precursor:95% auxiliary precursor = 1:19 weight ratio.
Alternatively, 95% thin film precursor:5% auxiliary precursor = 19:1 weight ratio.
Yeon, therefore, anticipates weight ratios as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Yeon is relied as disclosing the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Yeon discloses that the deposition may be performed by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process or a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process as claimed (Yeon; [0041]).
Regarding claim 16, Yeon is relied as disclosing the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Yu discloses when an impurity peak generated on the spectrum during NMR measurement is generated, the mixing stability was determined to be unstable (Yu; [0066]).
In Examples 7-12, Yeon discloses the evaluation of mixing stability by mixing the alkanes or cycloalkanes containing at least one halogen element in Table 2 with TiCl4 at a molar ratio of 1:1 to generate an impurity peak on the spectrum during NMR measurement (Yeon; [0069]). It was confirmed that Examples 7-12 resulted in a very stable thin film (Yeon; [0081]).
Given that the organic solvents and thin film precursors of Yeon are identical in structure and composition to the auxiliary precursor and thin film precursors as claimed, it is clear that when the auxiliary precursor (i.e., organic solvent) and the thin film precursor compounds of Yeon are mixed at a molar ratio of 1:1, pressurized, and then an 1H-NMR spectrum thereof is measured, the auxiliary precursor would inherently have an integrated value of newly generated peaks less than 0.1 % based on an 1H-NMR spectrum for the auxiliary precursor.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al, US 2022/0018017 A1 (Kim).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Kim discloses a method of manufacturing a molybdenum-containing thin film using a molybdenum(0)-based hydrocarbon compound and a reaction gas which is iodine, a C1-3 alkyl iodide, an iodo silane, or a mixture thereof (Kim; [0015-0018]).
The molybdenum(0)-based hydrocarbon compounds are of Formula 1, 2 or 3 (Kim; [0021-0023]). These overlap with the thin film precursor compounds of Chemical 2 as claimed. For example, Formula 1 of Kim:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 to R6 are hydrogen, is equivalent to Chemical Formula 2 as claimed when M=Mo, x=1, L is the ligand CO or benzene, and y=4 (Kim; [0021-0022]).
The reaction gas can be I2, CH3I, CH2I2, CHIS, CH3CH2I, CH3CHI2, ICH2CH2I, CH3CH2CH2I, CH3CHICH3, ICH2CH2CH2, or SiH2I2 (Kim; [0024]). These reaction gases fall within the scope of auxiliary precursors of Chemical Formula 1 as claimed. For example, CH2I is equivalent to compounds of Chemical Formula 1 wherein A=carbon, n=1, B=hydrogen, m=2, X=I, o=1 and i=j=0.
In Example 1, “Manufacture of Molybdenum-Containing Thin Film”, Compound 1 was used as a molybdenum-containing precursor compound ([Kim; 0082]):
PNG
media_image2.png
126
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound is equivalent to compounds of Chemical Formula 2 as claimed wherein M=Mo, x=1, and L is a ligand consisting of a combination of C and H (ethyl-benzene), and C and O (-CO).
Diiodomethane (CH2I2) was used as a reaction gas to form the thin film by atomic layer deposition (i.e., ALD of claim 6). Diiodomethane is equivalent to auxiliary precursors of Chemical Formula 1 wherein A=carbon, n=1, B=hydrogen, m=2, X=I, o=2 and i=j=0.
Further, the recitation in the claims that the thin film precursor is used in an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process, a plasma atomic layer deposition (PEALD) process, a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process, or a plasma chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process, is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art, and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Kim discloses thin film precursors as presently claimed, it is clear that the thin film precursors of Kim would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e., for use in the atomic layer deposition (ALD) process, the plasma atomic layer deposition (PEALD) process, the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process, or the plasma chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process presently claimed, as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Kim, therefore, anticipates thin film precursor compositions used in deposition processes as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Kim is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. In Example 1, the reaction gas diiodomethane was used at 22.2 mol, based on 1 mol of the molybdenum-containing precursor (Compound 1) (Kim; [0083]). Using the following molecular weights, the molecular weight of the Compound of Formula 1 (C11H9O3Mo) and diiodomethane (CH2I2) can be calculated:
Carbon = 12 g/mol
Hydrogen = 1 g/mol
Oxygen = 16 g/mol
Mo = 95.95 g/mol
I = 126.9 g/mol
Molecular weight of the Compound of Formula 1 (C11H9O3Mo) = 284.95 g/mol
Molecular weight of diiodomethane (CH2I2) = 267.8 g/mol
Therefore, 22.2 mol diiodomethane x (267.8 g/mol) = 5891.6 g diiodomethane.
1 mole Compound of Formula 1 (C11H9O3Mo) x (284.95 g/mol) = 284.95 g Compound 1.
The weight ratio of diiodomethane (auxiliary precursor) to molybdenum-precursor of Formula 1 (thin film precursor) = 284.95g:5891.6g = 1:20.68, which falls within the claimed range of 1:99 to 99:1.
Regarding claim 16, Kim is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Kim discloses that the methods result in thin films with a minimized content of impurities. The resulting thin film has remarkably excellent purity (Kim; [0032]).
Given that the reaction gases and molybdenum(0)-based hydrocarbon compound precursors of Kim are identical in structure and composition to the auxiliary precursor and thin film precursors as claimed, it is clear that when the reaction gases and molybdenum(0)-based hydrocarbon compound precursors of Kim are mixed at a molar ratio of 1:1, pressurized, and then an 1H-NMR spectrum thereof is measured, the auxiliary precursor (i.e., reaction gas) would inherently have an integrated value of newly generated peaks less than 0.1 % based on an 1H-NMR spectrum for the auxiliary precursor.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon.
Regarding claim 5, Yeon is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above, wherein the organic solvent may be a C1-10 haloalkane or a C3-10 cycloalkane, and wherein the halogen may be F, Cl, Br or I (Yeon; [0027]). Such organic solvents include auxiliary precursor compounds of Chemical Formula 3 to 14 as claimed, such as the claimed compound of Chemical formula 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
62
90
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is an iodo-C4 alkane, which falls within the organic solvents as taught by Yeon.
Given that Yeon discloses organic solvents that overlap the presently claimed auxiliary precursors, including those of Chemical Formula 3 to 14, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an auxiliary precursor of Chemical Formula 3 to 14, which is both disclosed by Yeon and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, Yeon exemplifies the organic solvent chloro-cyclopentane in Example 12 (Yeon original; Table 1, page 10, Example 12). This compound differs from the claimed compounds of Chemical Formula 8 and Chemical Formula 14 only in that it comprises a chlorine substituent rather than iodine or bromine respectively. However, as discussed above, Yeon teaches the equivalence between Br, I and Cl as the halogen substituent on the C3-10 cycloalkane (Yeon; [0027]).
In light of the disclosure of Yeon of the equivalence and interchangeability of using a chlorine-substituted cycloalkane as exemplified by Yeon with using a bromide- or iodide-substituent cycloalkane as presently claimed, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an iodine- or bromine-substituted cycloalkane of Chemical formula 8 or 14, such as by substituting the Cl on chloro-cyclopentane with bromine or iodine, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
1) The Amendments filed 07/21/2026, have overcome the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously of record.
2) Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Yeon et al, KR 20200112617A (Yeon), Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yeon fails to teach or suggest all the elements of claims 3-4 and 6, and thus cannot anticipate these claims. Applicant further compares the purpose, composition, and effects of claim 3 with those of Yeon (Remarks, Table on pages 7-8).
3). Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections over Kim et al, US 2022/0018017 A1 (Kim), Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim fails to teach or suggest the thin film precursor composition of claim 3 (Remarks, page 9). Applicant further explains the purpose, composition, and effects of claim 3 as compared with those of Kim (Remarks, Table on pages 9-10).
4) Purpose
Applicant argues the purpose of the claimed invention is as follows:
By using an auxiliary precursor of a specific structure that does not decompose when mixed with a thin film precursor, side effects are suppressed and impurities are reduced.
Significantly improved step coverage, thickness uniformity, and resistivity characteristics in the microstructure.
Remarks, Tables on pages 7-10.
4a) Regarding Yeon, this argument is not deemed persuasive because:
(i) Yeon discloses using compounds of the specific structure of Chemical Formula I as claimed. The solvents of Examples 7-12 are auxiliary precursors of Chemical Formula 1 as claimed (Yeon original; Table 1, page 10, Examples 7-12) (see above rejection, page 4). Yeon further discloses when using the above compounds of Examples 7-12, it was confirmed that a very stable thin film with TiCl4 was formed (Yeon; [0081]). When an impurity peak generated on the spectrum during NMR measurement is generated, the mixing stability was determined to be unstable (Yeon; [0066]). Thus, Yeon discloses reduced impurities resulting in a stable thin film.
(ii) Yeon discloses improving step coverage (Yeon; [0033] and [0038]). Yeon discloses uniformity and precise thickness control (Yeon; [0041]). Yeon discloses a resistivity value range that results in an excellent effect in thin film properties (Yeon; [0036]).
4b) Regarding Kim, this argument is not deemed persuasive because:
(i) Kim discloses the reaction gases I2, CH3I, CH2I2, CHIS, CH3CH2I, CH3CHI2, ICH2CH2I, CH3CH2CH2I, CH3CHICH3, ICH2CH2CH2, or SiH2I2 (Kim; [0024]). These reaction gases have the specific structure of the auxiliary precursors of Chemical Formula 1 as claimed (see above rejection, page 6). Kim discloses that the thin film production minimizes a content of impurities, and thus, the thin film has remarkably excellent purity (Kim; [0032]).
(ii) Kim discloses thin films having high and excellent step coverage and gap fill (Kim; [0031] and [0034]); a uniform surface and a thickness of 2 nm or less (Kim; [0031]); and improved crystal quality with a specific resistance range (Kim; [0077]).
5) For the reasons in 4a) and 4b) above, both Yeon and Kim teach the purposes recited in the Tables.
6) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show purposes of the claimed invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., suppressed side effects, reduced impurities, improved step coverage, thickness uniformity and resistivity characteristics in the microstructure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, even if such limitations were recited in the composition claims, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 IV.
7) Composition
Applicant argues the composition of the claimed invention is as follows:
Auxiliary Precursor: Halogen-substituted hydrocarbon or silicon compound of Formula 1
Thin film precursor: Various metal/non-metal compounds of Formula 2
Configuration in which the precursor and auxiliary precursor are supplied by pre-mixing or simultaneously injected (Remarks, Tables on pages 7-10).
7a) Regarding Yeon, this argument is not deemed persuasive because:
(iii)-(iv) Yeon discloses the use of compounds of Chemical Formula 1 and 2 as claimed, i.e., auxiliary precursors (iii) and think film precursors (iv) as claimed (Yeon translation: [0007], [0013] and [0021-0023]; and Yeon original: Table 1, page 10, Examples 7-12) (see above rejection, pages 3-4).
7b) Regarding Kim, this argument is not deemed persuasive because:
(iii)-(iv) Kim discloses the use of compounds of Chemical Formula 1 and 2 as claimed, i.e., auxiliary precursors (iii) and think film precursors (iv) as claimed (Kim; [0021-0022], [0024]) and [0082]) (see above rejection, pages 5-7).
8) For the reasons in 7a) and 7b) above, both Yeon and Kim disclose compositions as claimed.
9) The argument regarding (v) “configuration in which the precursor and auxiliary precursor are supplied by pre-mixing or simultaneously injected,” Examiner notes the claims are directed to a composition, not a method of making requiring a pre-mixing or simultaneous injection step.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., configuration in which the precursor and auxiliary precursor are supplied by pre-mixing or simultaneously injected) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
10) Effect
Applicant argues the effect of the claimed invention is as follows:
Excellent mixing stability between the auxiliary precursor and the precursor (new 1H-NMR peak less than 0.1%) prevents interference with each other’s properties.
Increases thin film crystallinity to significantly lower resistivity values compared to simple control (-51% to -10% reduction).
10a) Regarding Yeon, this argument is not deemed persuasive because:
(vi) Yeon discloses when using compounds of Examples 7-12 (i.e., auxiliary precursors as claimed), it was confirmed that a very stable thin film with TiCl4 (i.e., a thin firm precursor as claimed) was formed (Yu; [0081]). Yu further discloses when an impurity peak generated on the spectrum during NMR measurement is generated, the mixing stability was determined to be unstable (Yeon translation; [0066]). Therefore, Yeon discloses excellent mixing stability.
(vii) Yeon also discloses reduced resistivity of the thin film (Yeon translation; Abstract; [0001] and [0040]) .
10b) Regarding Kim, this argument is not deemed persuasive because:
(vi) Kim discloses that by using an iodide-containing reactive gas instead of oxygen, a high purity thin film can be produced. Therefore, Kim teaches mixing stability between the auxiliary precursor and the precursor without interference (i.e., the formation of impurities) with each other’s properties.
(vii) Kim also discloses improved crystal quality with a specific resistance range (Kim; [0077]).
11) For the reasons in 10a) and 10b) above, both Yeon and Kim teach effects as claimed.
12) Further, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., excellent mixing stability and increased thin film crystallinity in order to significantly lower resistivity values), are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Even if such limitations were recited in the claims, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 IV.
13) Regarding Yeon, Applicant further argues:
“The haloalkanes in Yeon were used merely as organic solvents to dissolve TiCl4.Therefore, mechanisms as so-called auxiliary precursors-actively controlling thin film growth rates or enhancing crystallinity through unique non-reactive interactions with the precursor- were not considered.”
Remarks, page 8.
This argument is not deemed persuasive because the only difference between the solvents of Yeon and auxiliary precursors as claimed is in name. Yeon discloses stability associated with not forming an impurity peak generated on the spectrum during NMR measurement (Yeon translation; [066] and [0069]). Yeon discloses by using the organic solvent, a deposition rate reduction effect occurs (Yeon; [0027]). Applicant has not explained how the organic solvents of Yeon differ chemically or structurally from the auxiliary precursors as claimed, other than in name.
14). Applicant argues:
“According to the present invention, the auxiliary precursor exhibits an effective effect only when it maintains extreme ‘reaction stability,’ such that the generation of new peaks is less than 0.1% even when pressurized and mixed with the precursor compound in a 1:1 molar ratio.
Based on this stability, the precursor and the auxiliary precursor act jointly on the substrate surface to reduce impurities (C, Cl, etc.) below theoretical limits and maximize crystallinity, thereby realizing a critical effect that significantly reduces resistivity.
This is not an effect that can be induced simply by changing the solvent of Yeon.”
Remarks, page 9.
Examiner respectfully traverses because critical results or effects cannot be used to overcome a 35 USC 102 rejection. Further, no “changing the solvent” in Yeon is required because Yeon discloses combinations of Compounds of Chemical Formula 1 and 2 as claimed.
Lastly, given that compositions of Yeon are substantially identical to the claimed think film precursor compositions, as set forth above, it is clear that the compositions of Yeon would inherently maintain reaction stability, such that the generation of new peaks is less than 0.1% even when pressurized and mixed with the precursor compound in a 1:1 molar ratio.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
15) Regarding Kim, Applicant further argues:
“Diiodomethane (CH2I2) in Kim is a reaction gas injected in a separate step after precursor adsorption during the ALD cycle. Claim 3 of the present invention relates to a thin film precursor composition that includes these in a single space in the form of a mixture or allows them to interact upon surface adsorption; therefore, the composition of the present invention is fundamentally different from the process of Kim, in which gases are injected in separate portions at different times.
Accordingly, the examiner's calculation of the weight ratio based on the total gas mass of the Kim process and the pointing out of a lack of novelty in the present invention is an unjust rejection based on a misunderstanding of the discontinuous mechanism of the ALD process.”
Remarks, page 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims are directed to a composition, not a process. When the reaction gas is injected, Examiner maintains that the molybdenum(0)-based hydrocarbon compound and reaction gas react as a mixture in a single space to form a thin film. Kim discloses that that methods of manufacturing the molybdenum-containing thin films are not limited as long as the method includes reacting a molybdenum(0)-based hydrocarbon compound precursor with a reaction gas which is iodine, (C1-3)alkyl iodide, iodo-silane or a mixture thereof, to form a thin film (Kim; [0048]). Therefore, it is clear that the molybdenum(0)-based hydrocarbon compound precursor and reaction gas mixture of Kim is equivalent to the mixture of compounds of Chemical Formula 1 and 2 as claimed. The fact that they are added sequentially in Kim is not a patentable distinction.
16) Applicant argues:
“According to the present invention, the auxiliary precursor exhibits an effective effect only when it maintains extreme "reaction stability," such that the generation of new peaks is less than 0.1% even when pressurized and mixed with the precursor compound in a 1:1 molar ratio.
Based on this stability, the precursor and the auxiliary precursor act jointly on the substrate surface to reduce impurities (C, Cl, etc.) below theoretical limits and maximize crystallinity, thereby realizing a critical effect that significantly reduces resistivity.
This is not an effect that can be induced simply by accidentally matching the reaction gas of Kim.”
Remarks, page 11.
Examiner respectfully traverses because critical results or effects cannot be used to overcome a 35 USC 102 rejection. Further, no accidental matching in Kim is required because Kim discloses a combination of Compounds of Chemical Formula 1 and 2 as claimed (Kim; [0082]).
Lastly, given that compositions of Kim are substantially identical to the claimed thin film precursor compositions, as set forth above, it is clear that the compositions of Kim would inherently maintain reaction stability, such that the generation of new peaks is less than 0.1% even when pressurized and mixed with the precursor compound in a 1:1 molar ratio.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
17) Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Yeon, Applicant lastly argues:
“To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the elements of the claim must be taught or suggested by the prior art. Yeon fails to teach or suggest all the elements of claim 5, and thus cannot render claim 5 obvious.
Claim 5 depends from claim 3, and incorporates all the elements of claim 3. As discussed above, Yeon fails to teach or suggest the above-recited elements of claim 3, …”
Remarks, page 11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Yeon does not disclose the limitations of claim 3 for the reasons discussed in 4a, 6, 7a, 9, 10a and 12-14 above. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection over Yeon remains.
18) For the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not deemed persuasive.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/21/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of any patent granted on pending reference Application Number 18/277,075, has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Therefore, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims 1-8, 11-12 and 14-16 of copending Application No. 18/277,057 has been withdrawn.
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 CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
