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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-12, 18, 20-23 and Chemical formula 1 in the reply filed on 3/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 13 elements, metal oxide and further withdrawing claims 3-10 in the reply filed on 3/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious examination burden and that the elements are not shown to be different. This is not found persuasive because each element has its own oxidation state and makes separate compounds, constituting separate inventions. Likewise, in the case of metal oxides, metal oxides are one product constituting one invention, with the others making up separate inventions. As such, all of these inventions require their own search and do not necessarily overlap, making a serious burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, 18 and 20-23 are pending based upon the above elections.
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 22-23 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.
The claims depend upon ‘any one of claim 1’. This wording is confusing and indefinite as there is one claim 1.
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) 1-2, 11-12, 18 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101965219B1 (hereafter KR with citation taken from the attached Google translate document) in view of Mays et al. (US 2020/0365447 A1)
As to claim 1, KR teaches an ALD method that includes a purge and thin film formation with an adduct precursor using a metal compound and compound of Chemical formula 1 on p 3 (trimethyl aluminum, for example, as an adduct with ‘L’ that may be of claimed formula 1 on p 4) that is mixed in a 1:1 ratio as in the Example. The KR method is applied to semiconductor devices in general but does not explicitly teach gapfill.
Mays et al. teaches using a TMA compound in a gapfill application for semiconductor ALD for non flowable, conformal deposition (para 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify KR to include its process for gapfill as Mays et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would want to use the adduct precursors of KR in the process of Mays et al. because they are more stable (p2).
As to claims 2 and 11-12, the adduct is made from trimethylaluminum and tetrahydrofuran in KR p 4.
As to claim 18, Mays et al. teaches making an oxide for gapfill applications in para 0043.
As to claim 20-21, KR teaches the claimed temperature in its Examples.
As to claims 22-23, the device in Mays et al. may be a memory device in para 0026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights