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 § 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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference (or combination of references), but are disclosed or rendered obvious by secondary references or remarks.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pore (US 20090297696 A1) in view of Lim (US 20170152277 A1, claiming priority to KR 20170063092 A) and Raaijmakers (US 20010024387 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pore discloses a method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising:
providing the substrate in a reaction chamber ([0011]: “a substrate in a reaction chamber by atomic layer deposition”);
performing a deposition cycle ([0086]: “a particular deposition cycle”) to form a substantially continuous transition metal niobium nitride film ([0083]: “a film of the desired composition… Ti1-xNbxNy”), the deposition cycle comprising:
first, contacting the substrate with a first reactant ([0069]) comprising a transition metal precursor ([0073]: “TiCl4”) comprising at least one transition metal ([0073]: “titanium”) thereby forming chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal on a surface of the substrate ([0069]: “a titanium precursor…on the substrate”),
purging excess first reactant from the reaction chamber ([0070]: “removing excess first reactant”),
second, after purging excess first reactant, contacting the substrate with a second reactant ([0077]) comprising a niobium precursor ([0050]: “NbCl5, NbF5”; [0104]: “the niobium precursor… TaCl5, TaF5, and TaBr5” erroneously using Ta instead of Nb, as evidenced by [0103] only describing Ta), wherein the second reactant chemisorbs on the surface by one or more of insertion or displacement of the chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal thereby forming a layer comprising chemisorbed species of niobium and chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal on the surface,
purging excess second reactant from the reaction chamber ([0080]: “removing excess first reactant”),
third, after purging excess second reactant, contacting the layer with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor (the nitrogen precursor selected from the finite selection of [0074]; the sequence of [0081]: “such that the nitrogen precursor reacts with”) to form the transition metal niobium nitride film; and
heating the substrate to a temperature of between 350 °C and approximately 450 °C during the step of performing the deposition cycle ([0063]: “less than about 300° C”),
wherein the at least one of the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
Pore teaches “heating the substrate to a temperature” lower than the claimed range. Thus, Pore fails to teach “heating the substrate to a temperature of between 350 °C and approximately 450 °C”.
Lim discloses a method in the same field of endeavor ([0095]: “ALD of CVD deposition processes”), wherein temperature values may be deliberately varied according to a method parameter ([0099]: “heated to a temperature suitable for depositing a desired-quality film which has a desired physical state and composition”), and these temperature values include a range wholly encompassing the claimed range “between 350 °C and approximately 450 °C” ([0099]: “about 100° C. to about 500° C”). Lim provides a teaching to motivate one to modify the temperature range of Pore to include greater values in that it would enable a method capable of producing enhanced film quality ([0099]: “for depositing a desired-quality film”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed temperature range because Pore teaches: 1) temperature values may be deliberately varied according to a plurality of method parameters (Pore: [0063]: “may vary depending on a number of factors”); 2) teaches doing so would be a matter of routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art ([0063]: “routine experimentation”); and 3) the temperature ranges found in the prior art overlap (Pore: [0063]: “less than about 300° C”; Lim: [0099]: “about 100° C. to about 500° C”). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of forming a film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition to determine the workable or optimal value for the claimed temperature through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired film properties because the claimed temperature is a result–effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. MPEP 2143 (I)(G), MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Pore in view of Lim as applied above teaches a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride, however, fails to teach
“wherein the at least one of the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg)”.
Lim discloses a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride ([0104]: “additional element”),
wherein the at least one of the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn) ([0104]: “manganese”), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
Modifying the transition metal of Pore in view of Lim by choosing an element from the group disclosed by Lim would arrive at the claimed transition metal method configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success choosing an alternative element (from Lim) because both Pore and Lim teach the transition metal niobium nitride film performs the function of an electrode (Pore: [0103]: “electrode”; Lim: [0097]: “niobium nitride film…capacitors”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to do so because Lim teaches the electrode is deliberately varied as a design choice according to the required material composition and electrical performance of the resultant device ([0104]: “Depending upon desired properties…provide an additional element to the niobium nitride film”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed transition metal method configuration because it is a configuration chosen from a finite selection of suitable metals chosen according to required composition and electrical performance. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Pore teaches performing a 4-step “deposition cycle”. Thus, Pore in view of Lim fails to teach “wherein the second reactant chemisorbs on the surface by one or more of insertion or displacement of the chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal thereby forming a layer comprising chemisorbed species of niobium and chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal on the surface”.
Raaijmakers describes a 4-step deposition cycle may be modified by adjusting the provision of a precursor ([0066]: “both contribute the same element…either the second phase of the fourth phase can be omitted”), thus effecting the resultant amount of the precursor available for reaction ([0066]: “depending on the desired oxygen content”). Modifying the 4-step “deposition cycle” of Pore in view of Lim, by omitting the third reactant between the steps of contacting the substrate with the first and second reactants would arrive at the claimed reactant configuration, and therefore the claimed “chemisorbed” configuration. Doing so would have the effective result of varying the resultant amount of the third reactant available for reaction, and thus adjusting the resultant film composition. It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed deposition cycle because Pore teaches the amount of third reactant is varied to produce a desired resultant film composition ([0066]: “atomic ratio of dopant”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed deposition cycle because: 1) it is routine optimization within a prior art condition; and 2) Raaijmakers describes the “deposition cycle” in a similar field of endeavor for a material useful as an electrode ([0041]: “The preferred embodiments provide exemplary processes for depositing…dielectrics formed by combinations of the above. Similarly, methods are provided for depositing electrode materials…” and [0133]: “The process is similar to that of FIGS. 4A and 5, except that the oxygen source gas is substituted with a nitrogen source gas”).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of manufacturing semiconductor devices before the effective filing date to determine the workable or optimal “deposition cycle” for the claimed film through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired film composition because the claimed “deposition cycle” is a result–effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results, and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation (the range being the duration or a lacking duration of the intervening third reactant). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 2, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the deposition cycle consists of first contacting the substrate with the first reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), purging excess first reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), second contacting the substrate with the second reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), purging excess second reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), third contacting the substrate with the third reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), and purging excess third reactant (Pore: [0082]: “removing excess second reactant”).
Regarding claim 3, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the deposition cycle is repeated two or more times (Pore: [0087]: “pattern”) and wherein a reaction with the third reactant leaves a termination on the substrate surface ([0007]: “self-limiting process”) that is further reactive with the first reactant ([0087]: “alternating layers”).
Regarding claim 4, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: after contacting the substrate with the third reactant, purging any unreacted third reactant (Pore: [0082]: “removing excess second reactant”).
Regarding claim 7, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is a thermal atomic layer deposition process (Lim: [0089]: “thermal ALD”).
Regarding claim 8, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the nitrogen precursor reacts with the chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal and the chemisorbed species of niobium on the substrate surface during contacting the layer with the third reactant (Pore: [0081]: “a second vapor phase reactant”).
Regarding claim 9, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transition metal niobium nitride film is not a nanolaminate film (Pore: [0083]: “a film of the desired composition… Ti1-xNbxNy” is directed to a ternary composition rather than a combination of multiple binary compositions).
Regarding claim 20, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y) (Lim: [0104]: “yttrium”), chromium (Cr), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), osmium (Os), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg).
Regarding independent claim 16, Pore discloses a method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising:
performing a deposition cycle ([0086]: “a particular deposition cycle”), the deposition cycle consisting of:
contacting the substrate with a first reactant ([0069]) comprising a transition metal precursor ([0073]: “TiCl4”),
purging excess first reactant ([0070]: “removing excess first reactant”),
contacting the substrate with a second reactant ([0077]) comprising a niobium precursor ([0050]: “NbCl5, NbF5”; [0104]: “the niobium precursor… TaCl5, TaF5, and TaBr5” erroneously using Ta instead of Nb, as evidenced by [0103] only describing Ta),
purging excess second reactant ([0080]: “removing excess first reactant”),
after contacting the substrate with the first reactant and the second reactant, contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor (the nitrogen precursor selected from the finite selection of [0074]; the sequence of [0081]: “such that the nitrogen precursor reacts with”), and
purging excess third reactant ([0082]: “removing excess second reactant”),
wherein contacting the substrate with the third reactant further comprises contacting the substrate with a plasma-excited species of nitrogen ([0089]: “plasma”), and
wherein the transition metal precursor comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
Pore teaches a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride, however, fails to teach
“wherein the transition metal precursor comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg)”.
Lim discloses a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride ([0104]: “additional element”),
wherein the transition metal precursor comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn) ([0104]: “manganese”), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
Modifying the transition metal of Pore by choosing an element from the group disclosed by Lim would arrive at the claimed transition metal method configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success choosing an alternative element (from Lim) because both Pore and Lim teach the transition metal niobium nitride film performs the function of an electrode (Pore: [0103]: “electrode”; Lim: [0097]: “niobium nitride film…capacitors”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to do so because Lim teaches the electrode is deliberately varied as a design choice according to the required material composition and electrical performance of the resultant device ([0104]: “Depending upon desired properties…provide an additional element to the niobium nitride film”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed transition metal method configuration because it is a configuration chosen from a finite selection of suitable metals chosen according to required composition and electrical performance. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Pore teaches performing a 4-step “deposition cycle”. Thus, Pore in view of Lim fails to teach “the deposition cycle consisting of…” the 3-step “deposition cycle”.
Raaijmakers describes a 4-step deposition cycle may be modified by adjusting the provision of a precursor ([0066]: “both contribute the same element…either the second phase of the fourth phase can be omitted”), thus effecting the resultant amount of the precursor available for reaction ([0066]: “depending on the desired oxygen content”). Modifying the 4-step “deposition cycle” of Pore in view of Lim, by omitting the third reactant between the steps of contacting the substrate with the first and second reactants would arrive at the claimed reactant configuration, and therefore the claimed “consisting of” configuration. Doing so would have the effective result of varying the resultant amount of the third reactant available for reaction, and thus adjusting the resultant film composition. It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed deposition cycle because Pore teaches the amount of third reactant is varied to produce a desired resultant film composition ([0066]: “atomic ratio of dopant”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed deposition cycle because: 1) it is routine optimization within a prior art condition; and 2) Raaijmakers describes the “deposition cycle” in a similar field of endeavor for a material useful as an electrode ([0041]: “The preferred embodiments provide exemplary processes for depositing…dielectrics formed by combinations of the above. Similarly, methods are provided for depositing electrode materials…” and [0133]: “The process is similar to that of FIGS. 4A and 5, except that the oxygen source gas is substituted with a nitrogen source gas”).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of manufacturing semiconductor devices before the effective filing date to determine the workable or optimal “deposition cycle” for the claimed film through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired film composition because the claimed “deposition cycle” is a result–effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results, and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation (the range being the duration or a lacking duration of the intervening third reactant). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 17, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising heating the substrate to a temperature of between approximately 250 °C and approximately 400 °C (Pore: [0063]: “less than about 300° C”).
Regarding claim 18, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the transition metal niobium nitride film is not a nanolaminate film (Pore: [0083]: “a film of the desired composition… Ti1-xNbxNy” is directed to a ternary composition rather than a combination of multiple binary compositions).
Regarding claim 19, Pore in view of Lim discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the transition metal precursor comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn) (Lim: [0104]: “manganese”), technetium (Tc), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Milligan (US 20080274617 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers discloses the method of claim 1, however, fails to teach “the nitrogen precursor is selected from the list consisting of ammonia salts, hydrogen azide (HN3), alkyl derivatives of hydrogen azide, hydrazine salts, and nitrogen fluoride (NF3)”.
Milligan discloses a nitrogen precursor in the same field of endeavor ([0050]: “nitrogen source material”), and discloses the nitrogen precursor is selected from an alternative list overlapping the Pore list at least by hydrazine, and further expanding it by disclosing hydrogen azide (Milligan: [0050]: “hydrogen azide…hydrazine” overlaps with Pore: [0074]: “hydrazine”).
Since Milligan and Pore (in view of Lim and Raaijmakers) are in the same field of endeavor, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have readily recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for nitrogen precursors. These predictable solutions include hydrogen azide as these may be chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (Milligan: [0050]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because Pore teaches: 1) the nitrogen precursor is not limit to the disclosed list (Pore: [0074]: “but are not limited to”); and 2) discloses the nitrogen precursor may be varied as a design choice according to reaction requirements ([0074]: “can be selected by the skilled artisan such that it reacts”). Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try using a different nitrogen precursor in the method of Pore in view of Lim and Raaijmakers. Thus, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technique grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. __, 82USPQ2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). MPEP 2143 (1)(E).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claims 10-15 and 21 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the first reactant comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), osmium (Os), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg)” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed limitations “second reactant comprising…”, “third reactant comprising…”, and “the first reactant comprises…” in combination with all other limitations in claim 10. The composition claimed was not found in the prior art of record and teachings elsewhere in the prior art did not teach, suggest, or render obvious the composition claimed. MPEP 2144.09 (IV).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to amended claim 1 that “Pore discloses two distinct sub-cycles”. Remarks at pg. 8.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner agrees with Applicant’s remarks for reasons consistent with Applicant’s arguments. Raaijmakers is relied upon to teach the contended limitation.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to amended claim 1 that “First, Raaijmakers is directed to a different reactant…Second, Raaijmakers is directed to forming an entirely different material, a dielectric metal or silicon oxide, than Pore…There is no teaching by Raaijmakers that one could remove an intervening nitrogen step in a 4-step deposition process based on the removal of an oxygen step from an entirely different 4-step deposition process merely because both deposition processes are 4 steps”. Remarks at pg. 9.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Raaijmakers teaches the methods of Figs. 4A and 4B (corresponding to figures 5 and 6, respectively) having an oxygen reactant, and being used to form a dielectric: this aligns with Applicant’s remarks regarding “oxygen”. The methods of Fig. 4A and 4B both teach forming a dielectric in a similar way, though they differ by having a different number of metal reactants (i.e., a 2-step or 4-step process). Raaijmakers further teaches an embodiment where the method of Fig. 4A is used to form a barrier by merely substituting a nitrogen reactant in place of the oxygen reactant ([0133]: “oxygen…is substituted with…nitrogen”). More specifically, Raaijmakers teaches the “third reactant” limitation by describing the nitrogen with the following descriptors: source gas, reactant species, nitrogen phase; and reciting specific resultant materials having a composition including nitrogen. Performing the aforementioned oxygen/nitrogen substitution (of [0133]) in the same way to the Fig. 4B oxygen method for the same reason (i.e., to have a composition including nitrogen) would arrive at the claimed third reactant being used in the same way as the claimed invention. Thus, Raaijmakers teaches the claimed third reactant.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to amended claim 1 that “Raaijmakers, by contrast, is directed to forming a dielectric layer, not an electrode”. Remarks at pg. 10.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Raaijmakers is relied upon to teach a combination of teachings usable together: the deposition cycle, combined with alternative materials usable with the cycle (i.e., nitrogen); and Raaijmakers teaches this alternative material useful as an electrode ([0041]: “The preferred embodiments provide exemplary processes for depositing…dielectrics formed by combinations of the above. Similarly, methods are provided for depositing electrode materials…” and [0133]: “The process is similar to that of FIGS. 4A and 5, except that the oxygen source gas is substituted with a nitrogen source gas”). Thus, “electrode” provides an overlap in scope among Raaijmakers and the other references made of record.
Applicant argues:
Applicant asserts “it is only through hindsight reconstruction…to reject the pending claims as being obvious”. Remarks at pg. 10.
Examiner’s reply:
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to amended claim 10 that “Claim 10 as amended does not recite Ni, Co, Pt, or Pd”. Remarks at pg. 11.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 8/31/2026, with respect to amended claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn. MPEP 2144.09 (IV).
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to amended claim 16 that “the same reasoning set forth above with respect to claim 1 regarding incorporating Raaijmakers into the combination of references would similarly apply to claim 16”. Remarks at pg. 11.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Raaijmakers is relied upon to teach a combination of teachings usable together: the deposition cycle, combined with alternative materials usable with the cycle (i.e., nitrogen); and Raaijmakers teaches this alternative material useful as an electrode ([0041]: “The preferred embodiments provide exemplary processes for depositing…dielectrics formed by combinations of the above. Similarly, methods are provided for depositing electrode materials…” and [0133]: “The process is similar to that of FIGS. 4A and 5, except that the oxygen source gas is substituted with a nitrogen source gas”). Thus, “electrode” provides an overlap in scope among Raaijmakers and the other references made of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights