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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/5/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed temperature range of 300 to 600°C differentiates the claimed method from the method taught by Pena et al. (“Atomic Layer Deposition of Silicon Dioxide Using Aminosilanes Di-sec-butylaminosilane and Bis(tert-butylamino)silane with Ozone”, hereafter Pena), and argues that the Examples of the specification exemplify this range. This is not found persuasive because the Examples do not show that the claimed temperature range provides new or unexpected results. While the Examples show data from within the claimed temperature range, there is no data to compare it to values outside the claimed range to show that the claimed range provides unexpected results.
Applicant argues that Pena does not teach that the composition that includes the silicon precursor is substantially free of impurities that include halides. This is not found persuasive because Pena teaches that the silicon precursor can be free of halide impurities, as discussed in the previous action and below.
It is further noted that the claimed composition only comprises the at least one silicon precursor. Therefore, if Pena teaches a silicon precursor with the claimed structure that is substantially free of halides, then Pena meets the requirements of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain the limitation “the at least one silicon precursor” in line 10 of claim 1, and lines 1-2 of claim 2, which should be “the silicon precursor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14-16 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 14-16 recite “the process of claim 11” in line 1. However, claim 11 is “a composition”. Therefore, “the process of claim 11” should instead be “the composition of claim 11”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pena et al. (“Atomic Layer Deposition of Silicon Dioxide Using Aminosilanes Di-sec-butylaminosilane and Bis(tert-butylamino)silane with Ozone”, hereafter Pena).
Claim 11: Pena teaches a composition for depositing a silicon oxide film (abstract, title) comprising:
a silicon precursor comprising di-sec-butylaminosilane (abstract, pg. 10928 Materials and Methods, pg. 10931 ALD Process with DSBAS and O3), which corresponds to the claimed structure where R1 and R2 are each C4 branched alkyl groups, where the silicon precursor can be free of halide impurities (pg. 10927 Introduction).
Claim 12: Pena teaches that the silicon precursor can be di-sec-butylaminosilane (abstract, pg. 10928 Materials and Methods, pg. 10931 ALD Process with DSBAS and O3).
Claims 14-16: Pena teaches that the silicon precursor can be free of halide impurities (pg. 10927 Introduction) and, therefore, have 0 ppm chloride.
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.
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 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pena et al.
Claim 1: Pena teaches a method for depositing a silicon oxide film (abstract, title) comprising:
providing a substrate in a reactor (pg. 10928 Materials and Methods);
introducing into the reactor a silicon precursor comprising di-sec-butylaminosilane (abstract, pg. 10928 Materials and Methods, pg. 10931 ALD Process with DSBAS and O3), which corresponds to the claimed structure where R1 and R2 are each C4 branched alkyl groups, where the silicon precursor can be free of halide impurities (pg. 10927 Introduction);
purging the reactor with a purge gas (pg. 10928 Materials and Methods);
introducing an oxygen source into the reactor (abstract, pg. 10928 Materials and Methods, pg. 10931 ALD Process with DSBAS and O3); and
purging the reactor with a purge gas (pg. 10928 Materials and Methods),
wherein a cycle comprising the introducing and purging steps are repeated resulting in a desired thickness being deposited (Fig. 1, Table 3, pg. 10931 ALD Process with DSBAS and O3), wherein the pressure in the reactor can be 1.2 to 7.5 Torr (Table 3).
With respect to claim 1, Pena does not explicitly teach that the process temperature is from 300 to 600°C.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by Pena only in the process temperature, and it has been held that, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior at unless there is evidence indicating that said temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 2: Pena teaches that the silicon precursor can be di-sec-butylaminosilane (abstract, pg. 10928 Materials and Methods, pg. 10931 ALD Process with DSBAS and O3).
Claims 4-6: Pena teaches that the silicon precursor can be free of halide impurities (pg. 10927 Introduction) and, therefore, have 0 ppm chloride.
Claim 7: Pena teaches that the purge gas can be nitrogen (pg. 10928 Materials and Methods).
Claim 8: Pena teaches that the oxygen source can be ozone (abstract, pg. 10928 Materials and Methods, pg. 10931 ALD Process with DSBAS and O3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713