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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 13 are pending.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected.
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.
Claims 5 and 7 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 5 specifies that a hafnium-containing thin film formed by using the hafnium compound of claim 1. In view of the description in paragraphs [19], [34] and [47] of the description of the instant application, it is recognized that the ligand portion of the raw material hafnium does not remain in the formed hafnium thin film. Thus, it is recognized that the formed hafnium thin film becomes a thin film similar to the case where hafnium having another ligand is used. Thus, it is recognized that there is no feature due to the production using the compound of claim 1. As such, the above-mentioned specific intent of claim 5 cannot be grasped. For this reason claim 5 lack clarity.
Claims 7, 8 and 9 recites the limitation "the hafnium-containing precursor composition " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 – 13 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. by (US 2022/0205099; Effectively filing date of Dec. 29, 2020).
Rejected claim 1 covers, inter alia, a compound of Formula I,
PNG
media_image1.png
126
164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,wherein R1 is an amino group, a silyl group, an alkoxy group, or a C2- C5 alkyl group, and R2 and R3 are each independently an amino group, a silyl group, an alkoxy group, or a C1-C5 alkyl group.
Rejected claim 2 covers, inter alia, compounds:
PNG
media_image2.png
84
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
88
138
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rejected claim 3, is a hafnium-containing precursor comprised of the compound of claim 1.
Rejected claim 5, is hafnium-containing thin film formed by using the hafnium compound of claim 1.
Rejected claim 6, is a method of forming the hafnium-containing thin film by using the hafnium compound of claim 1.
Rejected claim 7, covers inter alia, the method of claim 6, wherein the thin film is formed by depositing the hafnium compound or the hafnium-containing precursor composition on a substrate.
Rejected clam 12, covers the method of claim 7 wherein the substrate has a temperature in a range of 100°C to 800°C during the deposition.
However, Kim relates to Group IV-containing film-forming compositions comprising Group IV-containing precursors, methods of synthesizing them and methods of using them to deposit the Group IV-containing films, in particular, to the Group IV-containing precursors containing cyclopentadiene (Cp) based ligands suitable for vapor phase depositions (e.g., ALD, CVD) of the Group IV-containing films. (pp. 1, [0001] & [0008] – [0015]). The precursor of Kim being Hf(Me(Me)Cp)(NMe2); the precursor being Hf(Me(Et)Cp)(NMe2)3; the precursor being Hf(Me(nPr)Cp)(NMe2)3; the precursor being Hf(Me(nBu)Cp)(NMe2)3. (pp. 1, [0022] – [0025]). The vapor deposition process being atomic layer deposition (ALD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD), both of which can be plasma enhanced. (pp., [0033] – [0038])). The deposition temperature ranging from approximately 100°C and approximately 600°C.
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 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2021032708: KR 10-2020-0072407 PUB 6 22, 2020).
Rejected claim 1 covers, inter alia, a compound of Formula I,
PNG
media_image1.png
126
164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,wherein R1 is an amino group, a silyl group, an alkoxy group, or a C2- C5 alkyl group, and R2 and R3 are each independently an amino group, a silyl group, an alkoxy group, or a C1-C5 alkyl group.
Rejected claim 3, is a hafnium-containing precursor comprised of the compound of claim 1.
Rejected claim 5, is hafnium-containing thin film formed by using the hafnium compound of claim 1.
Rejected claim 6, is a method of forming the hafnium-containing thin film by using the hafnium compound of claim 1.
Rejected clam 4 further limits the precursor composition. Dependent claims 7 – 13 further limit the thin film and process for depositing.
However, Hong discloses a hafnium compound represented by the chemical formula 4
PNG
media_image4.png
102
138
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1 – R5 are each independently H, or a C1 – C6 alkyl group. Further Hong discloses a precursor composition for forming a metal film, comprising the hafnium compound; a metal film manufactured by using the precursor composition; and a method for forming the metal film manufactured by using the composition (pp.2, [0011], [0014] &claims 1, 6 and 15). Also, Hong discloses [(Me)(Et)Cp]Hf(NMe2)3 as a specific compound of chemical formula 4 (pp. 4, [0047]), and the compound corresponds to the compound of chemical formula 1 of claims 1, 3, 5 and 6. When R1 is C2 alkyl group and R2 and R3 are a C1 Alkyl Group, Hong discloses the first compound of claim 2.
The difference between Hong and the instantly claimed invention is that in chemical formula 1, a methyl group and substituent R1 are bonded to positions 1 and 3 of a cyclopentadienyl group; and a hafnium compound of formula 1 is a steroisomers.
However, regarding that in chemical formula 1, a methyl group and substituent R1 are bonded to positions 1 and 3 of a cyclopentadienyl group, this difference can be derived by a person skilled in the art from substituents R1 and R3 in chemical formula 4 and compound [(Me)(Et)Cp]Hf(NMe2)3, as disclosed in Kim. (claim 1 & [0047]).
With regard to a hafnium compound of formula 1 is a steroisomers, this can be derived by a person skilled in the art from chemical formula 4 of Hong.
The difference between Hong. and the claimed invention is that they do not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
However, based on the above, Hong. teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (see M.P.E.P. § 2143).
With respect to claim 4, Hong indicates that a solvent is included in an amount of 0.1 to 99 wt% on the basis of the total weight of the precursor composition for forming a metal film (pp. 5, [0053], [0056] & claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, Hong discloses a step of depositing metal film on a substrate by using the precursor composition for forming a metal film and indicates that the metal film can be deposited through any one method of atomic layer deposition and chemical vapor deposition. (pp. 6, [0061]; pp. 7, [0074 & claims 6 & 9).
With regards to claims 8 and 9, each method could be derived by a person skilled in the art from the feature disclosed in D1 wherein as a second metal precursor, a metal precursor comprising one or more metals selected from among silicon (Si), titanium (Ti), germanium (Ge), strontium (Sr), niobium (Nb), barium (Ba), tantalum (Ta), and lanthanide atoms, can be further supplied in accordance with circumstances (pp. 7, [0068], [0069])..
With respect to claim 10, Hong discloses chemical formula 7 (M1-aM”a)Ob, wherein a is 0≤a<1, b is 0<b≤2, M can be Hf, and M” can be silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), niobium (Nb), or tantalum (Ta), and ZrxHfyOz thin films. (pp. 7, [0077], [0078], [0082], [0085]).
With respect to claim 11, Hong indicates that a titanium nitride (TiN) substrate, a tungsten (W) substrate, and the like can be used as a substrate for forming a metal film. (pp. 6, [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Hong discloses that the deposition temperature is 250 to 400°C. (pp. 6, [0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Hong discloses using , as a reactive gas, at least one selected from among water vapor (H.sub.2O), oxygen (O.sub.2), ozone (O.sub.3), hydrogen peroxide (H.sub.2O.sub.2), hydrogen (H.sub.2), ammonia (NH.sub.3), nitrogen monoxide (NO), nitrous oxide (N.sub.2O), nitrogen dioxide (NO.sub.2), hydrazine (N.sub.2H.sub.4), and silane (SiH.sub.4), and the plasma of the reactive gas may be any one selected from among RF plasma, DC plasma, and remote plasma. (pp. 2, [0019] & pp. 7, [0073]).
Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 5,434324 (Lee et al.) and US 2009/0081385 (KR10-2015-0139628 (Heys et al.))
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 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, Scarlett Y. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights