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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5, and 7-14 of W. Koh et al., App. No. 18/365,258 (Aug. 4, 2023) are pending. Claims 10-14, drawn to non-elected Group (II), are withdrawn as not directed to the elected invention. Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 are under examination on the merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant previously elected Group I, (now claims 1, 5, and 7-9, drawn the compound of formula (1a), without traverse, in the reply filed on November 18, 2024. Claims 10-14 drawn to non-elected Group (II) are maintained as withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). The restriction requirement is maintained as FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that it would have similar (useful) properties to a prior art compound. MPEP § 2144.09 (discussing the close structural relationship between homologs and that between position isomers). Compounds which are position isomers or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. MPEP § 2144.09(II); In re Shetty, 195 USPQ 753, 756 (CCPA 1977) (involving the factual situation of an ethylene versus methylene linkage noting that “a person skilled in chemical and/or pharmaceutical arts would not hesitate to extend the alkylene linkage of the prior art compound”); see also In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314 (C.C.P.A. 1979) (noting that the closeness of the structural relationship is indicative of the obviousness or unobviousness of a new compound).
Obviousness of a claimed compound can also be supported where there is motivation to substitute particular chemical moieties in a prior art compound for others so as to arrive at a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B). For example, in the pharmaceutical arts, the rational is stated as motivation to select a known compound and also motivation to structurally modify the selected compound in a particular way to achieve a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) (see for example, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) Example 9, citing Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 87 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 1
§ 103 Rejection over S. Meiere et al., US 2008/0081922 (2008) (“Meiere”)
Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S. Meiere et al., US 2008/0081922 (2008) (“Meiere”)
Meiere teaches a method for producing a film, coating or powder by decomposing an organometallic precursor compound represented by the formula (L1)xM(L2)x, wherein M is a metal or metalloid, and L1 and L2 each a hydrocarbon group or a heteroatom-containing group. Meiere at page 2, [0012]. Meiere teaches the more specific Markush genus of formula (R4R3N)xM(NR1R2)y, where R1 to R4 are the same or different and are a hydrocarbon group or a heteroatom containing group. Meiere at page 3, [0021].
Meiere teaches the following relevant hafnium amides of formula (R4R3N)xM(NR1R2)y. Meiere at pages 3-4, [0026],
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
That differ from the claimed compounds in the nature of the alkyl groups. Meiere further teaches that:
[0054] Deposition can be conducted in the presence of other gas phase components. In an embodiment of the invention, film deposition is conducted in the presence of at least one non-reactive carrier gas. Examples of non-reactive gases include inert gases, e.g., nitrogen, argon, helium, as well as other gases that do not react with the organometallic compound precursor under process conditions. In other embodiments, film deposition is conducted in the presence of at least one reactive gas. Some of the reactive gases that can be employed include but are not limited to hydrazine, oxygen, hydrogen, air, oxygen-enriched air, ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (N2O), water vapor, organic vapors, ammonia and others. As known in the art, the presence of an oxidizing gas. Such as, for example, air, oxygen, oxygen-enriched air, O3, N2O or a vapor of an oxidizing organic compound, favors the formation of a metal oxide film.
Meiere at page 7, [0054] (emphasis added).
Differences between Meiere and the Claims
Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 are directed to precursor compounds that differ from the Meiere compounds in the carbon number of the alkyl groups. MPEP § 2144.09(II). The claims are Meiere are directed to the same field of endeavor. MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Obviousness Rational
Claims 1 and 5-9 are obvious over Meiere because one of ordinary skill is motivated to select and structurally modify the alkyl hafnium compounds disclosed by Meiere by adjusting the alkyl chain length (or swapping dialkylamino groups) of the Meiere species so as to arrive at the claimed compounds. For example, one of ordinary skill is motivated to select and structurally modify either of Meiere’s disclosed compounds RN 1016558-48-7 or RN 1016558-43-2, as shown below, so as to arrive at the following proposed compounds falling within claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill has a reasonable expectation that the proposed compounds would possess similar film forming properties to RN 1016558-48-7, due to the structural similarity. MPEP 2144.09. Note that Meiere teaches preferred organometallic compounds include, for example, bis(diisopropylamino)bis(dimethylamino)hafnium (i.e., RN 1016558-43-2). Meiere at page 4, [0026].
One of ordinary skill is further motivated for the following reasons. Meiere teaches that in compounds of the formula (R4R3N)xM(NR1R2)y:
[0024] . . . R1, R2, R3, and R4, are the same or different (as long as NR1R2 and NR3R4 are different) and are independently hydrogen, methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl, butyl, isobutyl, sec-butyl, tert-butyl, tert-amyl, cyclohexyl, adamantyl, phenyl, benzyl, silyl, dimethylsilyl, diethylsilyl, trimethylsilyl, triethylsilyl, dimethylethylsilyl, diethylmethylsilyl, and the like.
Meiere at page 3, [0024] (emphasis added). Thus, Meiere specifically teaches that in compounds of the formula (R4R3N)xM(NR1R2)y (for example, the cited compound RN 1016558-48-7) ethyl and isopropyl are functional equivalents. Thus, one of ordinary skill is motivated to structurally modify the selected compound, as proposed above (replacing one alkyl group for another), to achieve a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) (see for example, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) Example 9, citing Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 87 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Respecting claim 5 (and its dependents 7-9), the preamble recitation of “[a] precursor composition for forming a hafnium-containing film” does not distinguish over Meiere’s disclosure of the above prior art compounds. This preamble does not impose any structural limitations on the claimed composition and therefore is interpreted as a statement of suggested use that cannot distinguish over the art. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Further, the claim 5 preamble language “[a] composition” does not distinguish over Meiere. Neither claim 5 nor the specification require that a “composition” comprise materials or components in addition to the claimed compound. See for example, specification at page 9, [0051]; Id. at page 12, [0062]-[0063]. Thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, a “composition” encompasses a one-component composition (i.e., a composition that consists only of the claimed compound). MPEP § 2111.
Still further, the claim 7 limitation of (a ‘wherein clause’):
claim 7 . . . wherein the film includes at least one selected from a hafnium metal film, a hafnium-containing oxide film, a hafnium-containing nitride film, a hafnium-containing carbide film, a hafnium-containing oxynitride film, and a hafnium-containing carbonitride film.
which only modifies the intended use of the claimed precursor composition cannot distinguish over Meiere’s disclosure of the compound itself. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. MPEP § 2111.04 (discussion claim interpretation of ‘wherein clauses’; citing In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claims 8 and 9 are obvious over Meiere because one of ordinary skill is motivated to form a composition of the above proposed compound and a non-reactive gas (e.g., nitrogen, per claim 8, as taught by Meiere) and a reactive gas (e.g., oxygen, per claim 9, as taught by Meiere) so as to arrive at the compositions of claims 8 and 9. One of ordinary skill is so motivated because this is the specific method of use and utility taught by Meiere. Meiere at page 7, [0054] (emphasis added).
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that that Meiere describes a chemical formula represented as (R4R3N)xM(NR1R2)y and merely lists a very broad range of possible substituents for R1 to R4 (see paragraphs [0021]-[0025] of Meiere) without describing the specific Hafnium precursors as recited in amended claim 1. This argument is not persuasive because Meiere specification describes structurally similar compounds as listed above.
Applicant further argues that first, the claimed and prior art Meiere compounds are not homologs. Applicant argues that per MPEP 2144.09 (II), homologs are "compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by-CH2- groups."
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that rather, the difference between the cited claimed compound and the cited Meiere compound is not a linear CH2-based change, but it's a change in steric bulk, and the ligand identities are changing more fundamentally, not just growing in chain length.
This argument is not persuasive because the cited Meiere and claimed compounds are indeed homologs because they differ by a methyl group at two instances. Further, per In re Payne, it is not whether a compound is labelled as a homolog that controls, rather the rule is that "structural similarity" is sufficient to trigger the common-properties presumption. In re Payne, 606 F.3d 303, 314 (C.C.P.A. 1979) ('[T]he name used to designate the relationship between related compound[ s] is not necessarily controlling; it is the closeness of that relationship, which is indicative of the obviousness or unobviousness.') (quoting In re Druey, 319 F.2d 237,240 (C.C.P.A. 1963)).
Applicant further cites the MPEP for the proposition that homology and isomerism involve close structural similarity which must be considered with all other relevant facts in determining the issue of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.09(II).
In this regard, Applicant further argues that as shown in the instant specification Example 1, and Examples 2-6, even assuming arguendo that compounds appear to have an overall similar structure, minor variations such as the steric structure of substituents or the number of carbon atoms can significantly affect the resulting properties and performance of the compounds. Therefore, in the context of field of chemical compounds technology, whether a certain structure is merely similar enough to be substituted or modified should be evaluated based on the function and effect of the resulting compound. As evidence, Applicant cites the specification teaching “using the hafnium precursors prepared by the methods of Examples 2, 3, and 6 was lower than the carbon content in the HfO2 thin film formed by using CpHf(NMe2)3”. Reply at page 9.
This argument is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill did not have access to the cited specification teaching that “using the hafnium precursors prepared by the methods of Examples 2, 3, and 6 was lower than the carbon content in the HfO2 thin film formed by using CpHf(NMe2)3” before the instant effective filing date. The teachings of the specification itself cannot be used, for example, to teach away from the claimed invention because they are not prior art. MPEP § 2145(X)(D). Further, the cited specification teaching is not a proper comparison because CpHf(NMe2)3 comprises three amide groups and carbon-hafnium η⁵-bonds linking the hafnium to a cyclopentadiene group, whereas the claimed and prior art compounds are structurally different hafnium tetraamides. Even if one of ordinary skill had access to the cited specification teachings, they do not appear relevant to the instant § 103 rejection because of the structural differences between CpHf(NMe2)3 and the cited prior art compounds.
Applicant argues that the claimed compounds (as taught by the specification) achieves the ALD window at a relatively low temperature and deposition rate at low temperatures (Applicant cites FIGS. 1 and 3 of the instant specification). Applicant argues that in contrast to the compounds of amended claim 1, Meiere is silent regarding these specification properties. Applicant concludes that thus there is no reasonable expectation of similar properties in compounds as described by Meiere and a claimed compound.
This argument is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill is not motivated to achieve the properties disclosed in the specification, but rather is more broadly motivated to develop hafnium tetraalkylamides for use in preparation of hafnium thin films as taught be Meiere. The § 103 expectation of similar properties by one of ordinary skill is based on compound properties taught by the prior art, not properties taught by the application under examination. MPEP § 2144.09. And due to the structural similarity, one of ordinary skill has motivation to investigate the claimed compounds (differing from the Meiere compounds by only a two -CH2- groups) with a reasonably expectation that they would function similarly to the Meiere compounds to form hafnium thin films in chemical vapor deposition processes. Applicant may wish to consider a comparison between the claimed and prior art compounds, for example with respect to the ALD window, to proffer as evidence of unexpected results. MPEP § 716.
Applicant further argues that Meiere teaches that an important factor is the steric hindrance of the amine group. Applicant cites Meiere at page 3, [0022].
[0022] For the heteroleptic organometallic compounds of this invention, L preferably has a steric bulk equal to or greater than the steric bulk of diisopropylamide. L preferably has a steric bulk equal to or less than the steric bulk of diisopropylamide.
NR3R4 preferably has a steric bulk equal to or greater than the steric bulk of diisopropylamide.
NR1R2 preferably has a steric bulk equal to or less than the steric bulk of diisopropylamide.
Meiere at page 3, [0022]. The Examiner notes that here, Meiere is referring to “L” within the formula (L1)xM(L2)y, (where x is a value of at least 1; y is a value of at least 1; and x+y is equal to the oxidation state of M) which Meiere also writes as (R4R3N)xM(NR1R2)y. See, Meiere at page 1, [0008]-[0009].
This argument is not persuasive because the first of the above proposed modifications meets Meiere’s preferred steric bulk requirements.
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Argument of Unexpected Properties
Relevant Sections of the MPEP
A greater than expected result and evidence of unobvious or unexpected advantageous properties are evidentiary factors pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness of the claims at issue. MPEP § 716.02(a)(I)/(II). However, the burden is on Applicant to establish that the evidence relied upon demonstrates that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. MPEP § 716.02(b). Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. MPEP § 716.02(b)(III).
The Proffered Results
Applicant proffers the following evidence of unexpected properties to rebut the § 103 rejection:
Referring to Examples of the present application, it is confirmed that depending on the specific combination of substituents as claimed, a hafnium film exhibiting the desired low-temperature ALD deposition properties and low carbon content in the HfO2 thin films can be achieved (see FIGS. 1 and 3 of the present application). That is, the hafnium precursor compound as recited in amended Claim 1 is not only structurally different from the compounds in Meiere but also provides unexpectedly advantageous effects such as improved low temperature deposition, suppression of oxidation of the underlying electrode, and reduction of carbon content in the HfO2 thin films formed by using the claimed hafnium precursors.
Reply at page 14. Applicant thus cites specification Test Example. Specification at pages 25-27. The specification Test Example, an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process was performed by using the hafnium precursor compounds prepared by the methods of Examples 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, where O3, which is an oxygen source, was used as the reaction gas. Specification at page 25, [00124]. Specification compounds 2-6 are the compounds of claim 1. Specification compound 1 is not claimed.
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to the results of the specification Test Example, the specification teaches that:
[00125] As shown in FIG. 1, the ALD window can be seen from the deposition results of the hafnium precursors prepared by the methods of Examples 1, 3, and 5 among the prepared hafnium precursor compounds. This characteristic of showing ALD window at a relatively low temperatures can improve electrical characteristics by suppressing oxidation of a lower electrode when the process is performed at a low temperature. The hafnium precursor compounds prepared by the methods of Examples 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are excellent precursors satisfying the above-described characteristics and can be used in various fields of semiconductor technology.
Specification at page 26, [00125].
The proffered results are not persuasive to overcome the § 103 rejection because the specification teaches that unclaimed compound 1 performed similarly to the claimed compounds with respect to the ALD window; that is there do not appear to be any significant differences between the claimed and prior art compounds. Rather, unclaimed compound 1 has a lower temperature ALD window indicating that it is a better performer. As such, Applicant has not met its burden to establish that the evidence relied upon demonstrates that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. MPEP § 716.02(b). Further, specification compound 1 is not cited in the § 103 rejection. Thus, Applicant has not made a comparison with the closest prior art. MPEP 716.02(e).
§ 103 Rejection over R. Fujimoto et al., JP 2006182709 (2006) (“Fujimoto”)
Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al., JP 2006182709 (2006) (“Fujimoto”). An English-language machine translation is attached as the second half of reference Fujimoto. Fujimoto thus consists of 42 total pages (including the non-numbered English-language portion). Accordingly, this Office action references Fujimoto page numbers in the following format “xx of 42”.
Fujimoto teaches a thin film-forming raw material containing a titanium, zirconium, or hafnium precursor that has properties such as thermal and/or oxidative decomposition characteristics, thermal stability, and vapor pressure that are particularly suitable as a CVD raw material of the formula (I):
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the two R groups represent an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, and M represents titanium, zirconium or represents a hafnium atom, and m represents 1, 2, or 3. Fujimoto at page 22 of 42.
Fujimoto taches that in the above general formula (1) representing the metal compound, examples of the alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms represented by R include methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl, butyl, sec-butyl, tert-butyl, and isobutyl. Fujimoto at page 25 of 42, [0013].
Fujimoto teaches that chemical vapor deposition (hereinafter sometimes simply referred to as CVD), including ALD (Atomic Layer Deposition), is the optimal manufacturing process for thin film formation because it has many advantages such as excellent controllability and step coverage, suitability for mass production, and the ability to achieve hybrid integration. Fujimoto at page 3 of 42, [0003].
Fujimoto teaches that specific examples of the metal compound represented by the above general formula (I) according to the present invention include the following compounds No. 1 to No. 54. Fujimoto at page 25 of 42, [0015]. Fujimoto’s disclosed hafnium species 31-54 are homologs and next-adjacent homologs of the instantly claimed compounds. Fujimoto at pages 6-7 of 42. For Example, Fujimoto hafnium compounds 40, 42, 46 and 47 are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fujimoto at pages 6-7. Significantly Fujimoto formula (I) and all the disclosed hafnium species of Formula (I) include at least one (methyl)(ethyl) amino group (i.e. at least one -N(ME)(Et) group).
Fujimoto teaches that the thin film-forming raw material of the present invention is made to contain as little impurity metal elements, impurity halogens such as impurity chlorine, and impurity organic components as possible other than the components that constitute the thin film-forming raw material. Fujimoto at page 35 or 42, [0054].
Fujimoto teaches the following Example 3 preparation of a hafnium thin film using compound 43, which has the following structure.
PNG
media_image9.png
200
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[Example 3]
Using Compound No. 43 obtained in Example 2 above as a CVD source, a hafnium oxide thin film was produced on a silicon wafer using the CVD apparatus shown in Figure 3 under the following conditions and steps. The resulting thin film was measured for thickness using fluorescent X-rays and for particles of 0.1 to 0.3 μm using a night-vision wafer foreign particle inspection system. The results are shown in Table 5.
(conditions)
Reaction temperature (substrate temperature): 200°C, reactive gas: oxygen/ozone (mol) = 1/1 (Process) The following series of steps (1) to (4) constitute one cycle, and the cycle is repeated 80 times. Annealing was carried out at 500°C for 3 minutes.
(1) C vaporized under the conditions of vaporization chamber temperature: 150 °C, vaporization chamber pressure: 2000-2200 Pa The vapor of the VD raw material is introduced and deposited at a system pressure of 2000 to 2200 Pa for 2 seconds.
(2) Unreacted raw materials are removed by purging with argon for 3 seconds.
(3) A reactive gas is introduced and reacted at a system pressure of 1300 Pa for 2 seconds.
(4) Unreacted raw materials are removed by argon purging for 2 seconds.
Fujimoto at page 39 or 42, [0076], Example 3. Fujimoto teaches that from Table 5 above, it was confirmed that when a thin film was produced using a thin film-forming raw material consisting of Compound No. 43, which is a metal compound of the present invention, good film formation efficiency was achieved and the thin film was also little contaminated by particles.
Differences between Fujimoto and the Claims
Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 are directed to precursor compounds that differ from the Fujimoto compounds in the nature of the alkyl groups. MPEP § 2144.09(II). The claims and Fujimoto are directed to the same field of endeavor, i.e., hafnium thin film formation by vapor deposition of hafnium precursors. MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Obviousness Rational
Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 are obvious over Fujimoto because one of ordinary skill is motivated to select and structurally modify the alkyl hafnium species disclosed by Fujimoto by swapping alkyl groups of the Fujimoto species so as to arrive at the claimed compounds. For example, one of ordinary skill is motivated to select and structurally modify any of Fujimoto’s disclosed compounds 43, 46 or 47, by swapping alkyl groups as follows, so as to arrive at the following compounds falling within claim 1.
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
200
400
media_image11.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill has a reasonable expectation that the above proposed compounds would possess similar film forming properties to Fujimoto’s disclosed compounds 43, 46 or 47 due to the homologous relationship. MPEP 2144.09. One of ordinary skill also has a reasonable expectation that the above proposed compounds would possess similar film forming properties to Fujimoto’s disclosed compounds because Fujimoto directly teaches that such alkyl groups are equivalents. MPEP § 2143(I)(B); see above footnote 1. That is, Fujimoto teaches that in the above general formula (I):
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the two R groups represent an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, examples the two R alkyl groups having 1 to 4 carbon atoms include methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl, butyl, sec-butyl, tert-butyl, and isobutyl. Fujimoto at page 25 of 42, [0013].
Respecting claim 5 (and its dependents 7-9), the preamble recitation of “[a] precursor composition for forming a hafnium-containing film” does not distinguish over Fujimoto’s disclosure of the above prior art compounds. This preamble does not impose any structural limitations on the claimed composition and therefore is interpreted as a statement of suggested use that cannot distinguish over the art. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Further, the claim 5 preamble language “[a] composition” does not distinguish over Fujimoto. Neither claim 5 nor the specification require that a “composition” comprise materials or components in addition to the claimed compound. See for example, specification at page 9, [0051]; Id. at page 12, [0062]-[0063]. Thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, a “composition” encompasses a one-component composition (i.e., a composition that consists only of the claimed compound). MPEP § 2111.
Still further, the claim 7 limitation of (a ‘wherein clause’):
claim 7 . . . wherein the film includes at least one selected from a hafnium metal film, a hafnium-containing oxide film, a hafnium-containing nitride film, a hafnium-containing carbide film, a hafnium-containing oxynitride film, and a hafnium-containing carbonitride film.
which only modifies the intended use of the claimed precursor composition cannot distinguish over Fujimoto’s disclosure of the compound itself. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. MPEP § 2111.04 (discussion claim interpretation of ‘wherein clauses’; citing In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claims 8 and 9 are obvious over Fujimoto for the following reasons. Fujimoto teaches that:
[0056] The method for producing a thin film of the present invention uses the thin film-forming raw material of the present invention, and is a CVD method in which the vapor obtained by vaporizing the metal compound represented by the general formula (I) according to the present invention and other precursors used as needed, and a reactive gas used as needed, are introduced onto a substrate, and then the precursors are decomposed and/or reacted on the substrate to grow and deposit a thin film on the substrate. There are no particular limitations on the method for transporting and supplying the raw materials, the deposition method, the production conditions, the production equipment, etc., and well-known conditions, methods, etc. can be used.
[0057] Examples of the reactive gases used as needed include oxidizing gases such as oxygen, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, water vapor, hydrogen peroxide, formic acid, acetic acid, and acetic anhydride; reducing gases such as hydrogen; and nitride-producing gases such as organic amine compounds such as monoalkylamines, dialkylamines, trialkylamines, and alkylenediamines, hydrazine, ammonia, and nitrogen.
Fujimoto at page 36 of 42, [0056]-[0057]. One of ordinary skill is motivated to form a composition of any of the above proposed compounds of the § 103 rational and a gas (e.g., nitrogen, per claim 8, as taught by Fujimoto) and a reactive gas (e.g., oxygen, per claim 9, as taught by Fujimoto) so as to arrive at the compositions of claims 8 and 9. One of ordinary skill is so motivated because this is the specific method of use and utility taught by Fujimoto. Fujimoto at page 36 of 42, [0056]-[0057].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3764. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM through 5:00 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
ALEXANDER R. PAGANO
Examiner
Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 In the chemical arts, a "lead compound" obviousness analysis is often applied; the “lead compound” analysis requiring initial motivation to select a prior art compound and thereafter still further motivation to make the specific structural modifications thereto so as to arrive at a claimed compound. See MPEP § 2143(B) (discussing “lead compound cases” in Examples 9-11 with respect to pharmaceutical applications). However, the MPEP warns against applying the lead compound analysis rigidly in view of the flexible approach stated in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) see also, MPEP § 2143(B), Example 11 (citing Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 91 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2009) a ‘restrictive view of the lead compound test would present a rigid test similar to the teaching-suggestion-motivation test that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in KSR’).