DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on January 23, 2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 2-6, 8-19, 21-29, 31-51, 57-64, 66-75, 77-81, 83-88, 90-109, 113-144, 146-219, 221-222 and 224-225 were canceled. No claim was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued January 6, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 20, 30, 52, 54, 65, 76, 82, 89, 112, 145, 220 and 223 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (Wafer-scale, conormal and direct growth of MoS2 thin films by atomic layer deposition) in view of Zope (US20210054500) and Mattinen (US20190109002).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a method of depositing molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) film (Mo-containing films) by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (abstract). Jang teaches the film is deposited on a substrate in an ALD reactor with the supply of pulses of precursor and reactant and a purge with Ar gas after the precursor pulse and reactant pulse, wherein the precursor is Mo(CO)6 vapor and reactant is H2S gas and a purge with (page 161, 2. Experiments) (contacting a substrate with a Mo vapor precursor, purging any unreacted Mo precursor with inert gas, contacting the substrate in the deposition reactor with a chalcogenide precursor of formula R1XR2 with X being S and R1 and R2 being hydrogen). Jang teaches the deposition temperature is controlled to be less than 250ºC (page 161, 3. Results and discussion), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 250ºC to about 600ºC, as “about” is interpreted as ±10% (225ºC to 660 ºC). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Jang further teaches when the temperature is too low, deposition do not occur; when the temperature was too high, the precursor would begin to thermal decompose (page 161, 3. Results and discussion), and it would be expected that different precursors have different thermal decomposition temperature. Jang also teaches the growth rate depends on the temperature (page 162). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize in the deposition and substrate temperature depending on the precursor material in the process to yield desired deposition rate to allow deposition to occur and avoid too much of the precursor being thermal decomposed. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Jang does not explicitly teach the Mo precursor is MoO2Cl2 or MoO2Br2. However, Zope teaches a method for forming a molybdenum film over the surface of a substrate by ALD (paragraphs 0009, 0027 and 0063). Zope teaches the MoO2Cl2 or MoO2Br2 and Mo(CO)6 are functionally equivalent Mo precursor for ALD (paragraphs 0085-0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute MoO2Cl2 or MoO2Br2 for Mo(CO)6 as Mo precursor in the ALD method as disclosed by Jang.
Jang in view of Zope does not explicitly teach the chalcogenide precursor is in gas form when contacting the substrate. However, Mattinen teaches a method for depositing a metal chalcogenide on a substate by cyclical deposition, such as ALD (abstract, paragraph 0031) and discloses chalcogen precursor can be energized (plasma) or non energized (gas) (paragraph 0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute gas chalcogenide precursor for plasma chalcogenide precursor as the reactant for depositing a Mo-containing film as disclosed by Jang in view of Zope.
Regarding claim 7, Jang teaches the pulsing time of the Mo precursor is 15 to 25s, which is inside the claimed range, with the precursor pulse controls the thickness of the film (page 161, 3. Results and discussion, figure 1 and right column). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the precursor pulsing period in the process to yield the desired thickness of the film. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Zope also teaches the pulse is 0.1 to 60 seconds which overlaps the claimed range (paragraph 0089 and 0116). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Jang teaches the temperature in the reactor is 175 to 225ºC (abstract, page 162), which is inside the claimed range. Jang teaches the temperature controls the growth rate of the film (parage 162). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the deposition temperature in the process to yield the desired growth rate of the film. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 30, Zope teaches the flow rate of the Mo precursor for ALD is less than 1000sccm or 1 to 2000sccm (paragraph 0116), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 52, Jang teaches the chalcogenide precursor is a precursor is H2S (page 161 2. Experiments).
Regarding claim 54, Jang teaches X is S (page 161, 2. Experiments).
Regarding claim 65, Jang teaches the chalcogenide precursor is a precursor is H2S (page 161 2. Experiments).
Regarding claim 76, Jang teaches the pulsing time of the chalcogenide reactant is 5 to 30s, which overlaps the claimed range, with the reactant pulse controls the thickness of the film (page 161, 3. Results and discussion, figure 1 and right column). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the reactant pulsing period in the process to yield the desired thickness of the film. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 82, Jang teaches the chalcogenide precursor is a precursor is H2S (page 161 2. Experiments), which is the same chalcogenide precursor as the instant application and intricially has the claimed vapor pressure inside of the claimed range of about 0.3Torr to about 15000Torr.
Regarding claim 89, Jang does not explicitly teach the chalcogenide precursor is pulsing with a carrier gas flow (page 161 2. Experiments), thus Jang teaches the carrier gas flow is 0sccm, which is inside of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 112, Jang teaches the substrate is silicon oxide (page 161 2. Experiments).
Regarding claim 145, Jang teaches reactor pressure is set at 0.5 Torr (page 161 2. Experiments), which is inside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 220, Zope teaches the MoO2Cl2 or MoO2Br2 and Mo(CO)6 are functionally equivalent Mo precursor for ALD (paragraphs 0085-0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute MoO2Cl2 or MoO2Br2 for Mo(CO)6 as Mo precursor in the ALD method as disclosed by Jang.
Regarding claim 223, Zope teaches a method for forming a molybdenum film over the surface of a substrate by ALD (paragraphs 0009, 0027 and 0063). Zope teaches the MoO2Cl2 or MoO2Br2 and Mo(CO)6 are functionally equivalent Mo precursor for ALD (paragraphs 0085-0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute MoO2Cl2 or MoO2Br2 for Mo(CO)6 as Mo precursor in the ALD method as disclosed by Jang.
Claims 53 and 110-111 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (Wafer-scale, conormal and direct growth of MoS2 thin films by atomic layer deposition) in view of Zope (US20210054500) and Mattinen (US20190109002) as applied to claims 1, 7, 20, 30, 52, 54, 65, 76, 82, 89, 112, 145, 220 and 223 above, and further in view of Sarnet (US20180127873).
Regarding claim 53, Jang in view of Zope teaches all limitations of this claim, except the chalcogenide precursor as claimed. However, Sarnet teaches a method of forming MoS2 thin film by ALD (abstract, paragraph 0009) and discloses H2S and (CH3)2S are functionally equivalent chalcogenide precursor (paragraph 0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute (CH3)2S (R1XXR2 with X as S, R1 and R2 as methyl group) for H2S as the chalcogenide (sulfur) precursor in the ALD method as disclosed by Jang in view of Zope.
Regarding claim 110, claim 1 teaches the step V is optional; thus, instant claim limitation is also optional. Nevertheless, Jang teaches the H2S is plasma (page 161 2. Experiments). Sarnet further teaches the chalcogen precursor is first provided to the ALD reactor and then a post treatment the deposited Mo containing layer with H2S plasma is provided either in the reaction chamber or upstream of the reaction chamber (remote) (paragraphs 0063 and 0176). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to post treat the Mo container layer with H2S plasma as suggested by Sarnet in the method of Jang in view of Zope because Sarnet teaches such post treatment can be included to the deposited Mo containing film formed by ALD (paragraphs 0063-0063).
Regarding claim 111, claim 1 teaches the step V is optional; thus, instant claim limitation is also optional. Nevertheless, Jang teaches the H2S is plasma (page 161 2. Experiments). Sarnet further teaches the chalcogen precursor is first provided to the ALD reactor and then a post treatment the deposited Mo containing layer with H2S plasma is provided either in the reaction chamber or upstream of the reaction chamber (remote) (paragraphs 0063 and 0176). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to post treat the Mo container layer with H2S plasma as suggested by Sarnet in the method of Jang in view of Zope because Sarnet teaches such post treatment can be included to the deposited Mo containing film formed by ALD (paragraphs 0063-0063).
Claims 55-56 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (Wafer-scale, conormal and direct growth of MoS2 thin films by atomic layer deposition) in view of Zope (US20210054500) and Mattinen (US20190109002) as applied to claims 1, 7, 20, 30, 52, 54, 65, 76, 82, 89, 112, 145, 220 and 223 above, and further in view of Mane (US20200340119) in view of Sarnet (US20180127873).
Regarding claims 55 and 56, Jang in view of Zope teaches all limitations of this claim, except X is Se chalcogenide precursor as claimed. However, Mane teaches MoS2, MoSe2 and MoTe2 are functionally equivalent transition metal dichalcogenides (TMD) consists of a single layer of metal atoms sandwiched between two layers of chalcogenides, useful to replace graphene (paragraphs 0004 and 0023 and 0025, same as Jang’s MoS2, see page 160 Introduction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute S for Se or Te as X in the chalcogenide precursor to produce MoSe2 and MoTe2 respectively in the method as disclosed by Jang in view of Zope.
Sarnet teaches a method of forming MoS2 thin film by ALD (abstract, paragraph 0009) and discloses H2S, H2Se and H2Te are functionally equivalent chalcogenide precursor (paragraph 0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute H2Se or H2Te for H2S as the chalcogenide precursor (to produce MoSe2 and MoTe2 respectively) in the ALD method as disclosed by Jang in view of Zope and Mane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Jang teaches away from the claimed temperature range.
Jang teaches the substate is contacted with H2S plasma, not a gas.
Modifying Jang as proposed requires the use of improper hindsight analysis.
Zope does not establish the Mo precursors are equivalent.
Zope does not and cannot supply the deficiencies of Jang
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
As discussed above, Jang teaches the deposition temperature is controlled to be less than 250ºC (page 161, 3. Results and discussion), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 250ºC to about 600ºC, as “about” is interpreted as ±10% (225ºC to 660 ºC). Thus, Jang does not teach away from the claimed temperature range. Jang further teaches when the temperature is too low, deposition do not occur; when the temperature was too high, the precursor would begin to thermal decompose (page 161, 3. Results and discussion), and it would be expected that different precursors have different thermal decomposition temperature. Jang also teaches the growth rate depends on the temperature (page 162). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize in the deposition and substrate temperature depending on the precursor material in the process to yield desired deposition rate to allow deposition to occur and avoid too much of the precursor being thermal decomposed. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Examiner agrees that Jang teaches a different precursor, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Jang’s teaching for optimization of the temperature is applicable to different Mo precursor (as disclosed by Zope).
The new limitation regarding the chalcogenide is disclosed by new reference, Mattinen (see rejections above).
As discussed above, Jang teaches the claimed range and further teaches the temperature is optimized based on the growth rate and thermal decomposition of the precursor. Since Jang does teaches a different Mo precursor (claimed Mo precursor is disclosed by Zope), it would be obvious to optimize the temperature based on the Mo precursor to achieve the desired growth rate and minimize thermal decomposition of the precursor. Mattinen teaches chalcogenide precursor in gas and plasma form are functionally equivalent, thus, modifying the temperature or the reactant (gas or plasma) would have reasonably expectation of success based on the teaching or Jang in view of Zope and Mattinen. In addition, “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (MPEP 2144.05 II.). Furthermore, Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range, or by showing that the art teaches away from the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.05 III). It is noted that Applicant has not established criticality of claimed range. 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).
Both Jang and Zope teach forming a molybdenum film over the surface of a substrate by ALD. Zope clearly teaches molybdenium oxyhalide, including molybdenum oxychloride or oxybromide including MoO2Cl-2, and Mo(CO)6 are functionally equivalent Mo precursor for forming Mo containing film by ALD (paragraphs 0085-0086). The rejection dose not based on Zope using of reducing agent, and the reducing agent in Zope is used for post processing the Mo thin film that is already formed by the Mo precursor; thus, the teaching of reducing agent in Zope does not render Zope’s teaching not combinable with Jang’s teaching of ALD process of forming the Mo film.
Jang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except the chalcogenide reactant is in gas phase and the Mo precursor is MoO2Cl2 or MoO2Br2. Chalcogenide reactant is in gas phase is disclosed by Mattinen (see rejections above). Zope teaches molybdenium oxyhalide, including molybdenum oxychloride or oxybromide including MoO2Cl-2, and Mo(CO)6 are functionally equivalent Mo precursor for forming Mo containing film by ALD (paragraphs 0085-0086). As disclosed above, Zope teaches MoO2Cl2 and Mo(CO)6 preform the same function (Mo precursors to form Mo containing film by ALD) specified in the claim and Jang in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results (Mo containing film) as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification and Jang, thus, there is sufficient to support that MoO2Cl2 and Mo(CO)6- are equivalent (MPEP 2183). Thus, it is reasonable to combine Jang with Zope.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/N.V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights