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
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/6/26.
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 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) 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barmak (US 2005/0070097 A1) in view of Chen (US 5457069).
Claims 15, 20:
Barmak teaches a method for forming a diffusion barrier having a laminate structure (Fig. 3) which does not contain grain boundaries [0009]. This is achieved by depositing each metal-containing layer having a thickness no more than 2-5 atomic layers thick (0.4-1.5 nm) resulting in an amorphous structure [0023]. The deposition of layers having a small thickness that forms an amorphous structure is the same as forming a film having a thickness less than a crystal nucleation critical diameter. It is further noted that the thicknesses taught by Barmak (0.4-1.5 nm) are less than the calculated crystal nucleation critical diameter illustrated in Fig. 2 of the instant application (with only Mo and Ru having values slightly less than 1.5 nm). The chosen layers are formed alternately [0025] (Fig. 4).
The previously discussed prior art does not teach including an element that increases a degree of supercooling which also has an interaction parameter of 0 or more with a parent phase material. However, Chen teaches a method for manufacturing a layered diffusion barrier including a layer of TiW (4:42-46).
It is noted that Applicant provides example compositions that meet the claimed criteria in the instant specification at [0034]. One such composition is when the material is W, Ti is a suitable additive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Barmak and include TiW as one of the layers of the laminate structure because Chen establishes that TiW is a suitable diffusion barrier layer. The TiW layer inherently includes an element that increase a degree of supercooling which also has an interaction parameter of 0 or more with a parent phase material based on Applicant’s specification.
Claim 16:
PVD, ALD, or CVD [B 0024].
Claim 17:
Metals, alloys, nitrides, and oxides [B 0032].
Claim 18:
Specific examples of a combination in which both are metal films [B 0031].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Both Barmak and Chen teach methods for forming a diffusion barrier where Chen teaches inclusion of an element that increases a degree of supercooling because it is a known composition for forming a diffusion barrier. This is not reliant on forming layers of the material that would cause crystal nucleation. Rather, the combination suggests forming layers that do not cause crystal nucleation using the materials disclosed by Chen.
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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights