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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “system” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a precursor injector system” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a precursor injector system configured to provide, in a vapor phase, a transition metal precursor and a second precursor” which is not considered “a means plus function” limitation since the term “injector” is a structural term. Paragraph [0041] indicates that “a precursor injector system” is a gas distribution device. Hence, for purposes of examination, “a precursor injector system” (a gas distribution device) is simply a structure that provide gases to the chamber such as a gas inlet or a showerhead.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transition metal precursor vessel” and “second precursor vessel” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraphs [0091],[0093] indicate that “transition metal precursor vessel” is a gas source vessel 204 that contains one or more claimed transition metal precursors and “second precursor vessel” is gas source vessel 206 that contains a claimed second precursor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, a precursor injector system 201. However, Figure 2 simply shows a box and not the structure of a precursor injector system and hence one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) at least due to dependency to rejected claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Figure 2 and paragraph [0091], “a precursor injector system” has no specific structure associated with the “a precursor injector system” and thus it is unclear what the structure of “a precursor injector system” is.
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least due to dependency to rejected claim 1.
Hence, for purposes of examination, “a precursor injector system” (a gas distribution device) is simply a structure that provides gases to the chamber such as a gas inlet or a showerhead.
First Art Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatanpaa et al. (U.S. 2019/0249300).
Referring to Figure 4 below and paragraphs [0113]-[0125], Hatanpaa et al. disclose a deposition assembly for depositing transition metal-containing material on a substrate comprising: a reaction chamber 402 configured to hold the substrate (par. [0113]); and a precursor injector system 408 (i.e. showerhead gas distributor) configured to provide, in a vapor phase, a transition metal precursor 410A and a second precursor 410B into the reaction chamber to deposit the transition metal-containing material on the substrate (pars.[0066], [0088] [0113]-[0114], [0120] ), wherein the transition metal precursor comprises a transition metal halide compound comprising an organic phosphine adduct ligand (par.[0049]), and wherein the second precursor comprises at least one of: borane dimethylamine, 1,4-bis(trimethylgermyl)-1,4-dihydropyrazine, or 1,4-bis(trimethylsilyl)-1,4-dihydropyrazine.
With regards to the wherein the transition metal precursor comprises a transition metal halide compound comprising an organic phosphine adduct ligand, and wherein the second precursor comprises at least one of: borane dimethylamine, 1,4-bis(trimethylgermyl)-1,4-dihydropyrazine, or 1,4-bis(trimethylsilyl)-1,4-dihydropyrazine, it should noted that the limitation is considered intended use in an apparatus claims and therefore are of no significance in determining patentability. Hence, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Furthermore, “the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). Therefore, the prior art structure of the precursor injector system 408 is capable of providing the desired gases.
PNG
media_image1.png
594
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further comprising: an exhaust system (i.e. pumping system) connected to the reaction chamber, wherein the exhaust system is configured to: after the precursor injector system provides the transition metal precursor into the reaction chamber and before the precursor injector system provides the second precursor into the reaction chamber, purging excess transition metal precursor from the reaction chamber; or after the precursor injector system provides the second precursor into the reaction chamber and before the precursor injector system provides the transition metal precursor into the reaction chamber, purging excess transition second precursor from the reaction chamber (par. [0054]).
With respect to claim 7, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the organic phosphine adduct ligand comprises at least one of: a monophosphine ligand; a trimethyl phosphine ligand; or a triethyl phosphine ligand (par.[0049]).
With respect to claim 8, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein a phosphorus atom of the organic phosphine adduct ligand is bonded to at least one organic group (par.[0046]).
With respect to claim 9, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the at least one organic group is a C1 to C4 alkyl group (par.[0049]).
With respect to claim 10, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the alkyl group is selected from methyl, ethyl, n-propyl and isopropyl (par.[0049]).
With respect to claim 11, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes, wherein a halogen of the transition metal halide compound is selected from a group consisting of chlorine and bromine (par.[0043]).
With respect to claim 12, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the transition metal halide compound comprises two organic phosphine adduct ligands (par.[0049]- triethylphosphine).
With respect to claim 13, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein a transition metal of the transition metal halide compound has an oxidation state of +2 (par.[0045]- Ni +2 or Co+2).
With respect to claim 14, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein a transition metal of the transition metal halide compound is a row 4 transition metal(par.[0045]- Ni +2 or Co+2).
With respect to claim 15, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the transition metal halide compound comprises one organic phosphine adduct ligand (par.[0049]- triethylphosphine).
With respect to claim 16, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein a transition metal of the transition metal halide compound is a noble metal (As stated above, Hatanpaa et al. discloses a transition metal and the type of gas used in apparatus claims is considered intended use. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07)).
With respect to claim 17, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein a transition metal of the transition metal halide compound is a group 11 transition metal (As stated above, Hatanpaa et al. discloses a transition metal and the type of gas used in apparatus claims is considered intended use. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07)).
With respect to claim 18, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the group 11 transition metal is gold (As stated above, Hatanpaa et al. discloses a transition metal and the type of gas used in apparatus claims is considered intended use. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07)).
With respect to claim 19, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the second precursor comprises a reducing agent (pars.[0066], ]0088],[0120]).
With respect to claim 20, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the reaction chamber is configured to, during the depositing of the transition metal-containing material on the substrate, a temperature inside the reaction chamber to be below 200oC (par.[0092]).
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.
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanpaa et al. (U.S. 2019/0249300) in view of Winter et al. (U.S. 2015/0004314).
The teachings of Hatanpaa et al. have been discussed above.
Hatanpaa et al. disclose wherein the precursor injector system comprises: a transition metal precursor vessel configured to contain the transition metal precursor (par.[0049]); however, Hatanpaa et al. is silent on a second precursor vessel configured to contain the second precursor.
Referring to paragraph [0160], Winter et al. teach a deposition assembly wherein a second precursor vessel configured to contain the second precursor (i.e. 1,4-bis(trimethylsilyl)-1,4-dihydropyrazine) to be used as a reducing agent to achieve the desired reactants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Hatanpaa et al. with a second precursor vessel configured to contain the second precursor (i.e. 1,4-bis(trimethylsilyl)-1,4-dihydropyrazine) as taught by Winter et al. since it is a conventionally known reducing agent used to achieve the desired reactants for substrate processing. The resulting apparatus of Hatanpaa et al. in view of Winter et al. would yield a second precursor vessel configured to contain the second precursor.
With respect to claim 3, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. in view of Winter et al. further includes wherein the precursor injector system 408 further comprises one or more heaters 414 configured to heat the transition metal precursor, in the transition metal precursor vessel 410A, or the second precursor, in the second precursor vessel 410B (Hatanpaa et al.-Fig. 4, pars.[0115],[0120]).
With respect to claim 4, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. in view of Winter et al. further includes wherein the one or more heaters 414 is configured to heat the transition metal precursor or the second precursor to a temperature between 30oC and 150oC (Hatanpaa et al.-Fig. 4, pars.[0115]-[0116]).
With respect to claim 5, the deposition assembly of Hatanpaa et al. in view of Winter et al. further includes wherein the one or more heaters 414 is configured to heat the transition metal precursor to a first temperature and the second precursor to a second temperature different than the first temperature (Hatanpaa et al.-Fig. 4, pars.[0115]-[0116]).
Second Art Rejection
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winter et al. (U.S. 2015/0004314)
Referring to Figure 2D below and paragraphs [0158]-[0204], Winter et al. disclose a deposition assembly for depositing transition metal-containing material on a substrate comprising: a reaction chamber 22 configured to hold the substrate (par. [0174]); and a precursor injector system (i.e. gas inlet) configured to provide, in a vapor phase, a transition metal precursor 32 and a second precursor 40 into the reaction chamber to deposit the transition metal-containing material on the substrate (pars.[0197]-[0199]), wherein the transition metal precursor comprises a transition metal halide compound comprising an organic phosphine adduct ligand (par.[0165]), and wherein the second precursor comprises at least one of: borane dimethylamine, 1,4-bis(trimethylgermyl)-1,4-dihydropyrazine, or 1,4-bis(trimethylsilyl)-1,4-dihydropyrazine (par[0160]).
With respect to claim 2, wherein the precursor injector system comprises: a transition metal precursor vessel configured to contain the transition metal precursor (par.[0165]); and a second precursor vessel configured to contain the second precursor (par.[0160]).
With respect to claim 6, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further comprising: an exhaust system 26 connected to the reaction chamber, wherein the exhaust system is configured to: after the precursor injector system provides the transition metal precursor into the reaction chamber and before the precursor injector system provides the second precursor into the reaction chamber, purging excess transition metal precursor from the reaction chamber; or after the precursor injector system provides the second precursor into the reaction chamber and before the precursor injector system provides the transition metal precursor into the reaction chamber, purging excess transition second precursor from the reaction chamber (par. [0194]).
With respect to claim 7, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein the organic phosphine adduct ligand comprises at least one of: a monophosphine ligand; a trimethyl phosphine ligand; or a triethyl phosphine ligand (par.[0165]).
With respect to claim 8, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein a phosphorus atom of the organic phosphine adduct ligand is bonded to at least one organic group (par.[0165]).
With respect to claim 9, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein the at least one organic group is a C1 to C4 alkyl group (par.[0165]).
With respect to claim 10, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein the alkyl group is selected from methyl, ethyl, n-propyl and isopropyl (par.[0165]).
With respect to claim 11, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes, wherein a halogen of the transition metal halide compound is selected from a group consisting of chlorine and bromine (par.[0165]).
With respect to claim 12, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein the transition metal halide compound comprises two organic phosphine adduct ligands (par.[0165]).
With respect to claim 13, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein a transition metal of the transition metal halide compound has an oxidation state of +2 (par.[0165]).
With respect to claim 14, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein a transition metal of the transition metal halide compound is a row 4 transition metal(par.[0165]).
With respect to claim 15, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein the transition metal halide compound comprises one organic phosphine adduct ligand (par.[0165]).
With respect to claim 16, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein a transition metal of the transition metal halide compound is a noble metal (As stated above, Winter et al. discloses a transition metal and the type of gas used in apparatus claims is considered intended use. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07)).
With respect to claim 17, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein a transition metal of the transition metal halide compound is a group 11 transition metal (As stated above, Winter et al. discloses a transition metal and the type of gas used in apparatus claims is considered intended use. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07)).
With respect to claim 18, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein the group 11 transition metal is gold (As stated above, Winter et al. discloses a transition metal and the type of gas used in apparatus claims is considered intended use. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07)).
With respect to claim 19, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein the second precursor comprises a reducing agent (pars.[0160]).
With respect to claim 20, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. further includes wherein the reaction chamber is configured to, during the depositing of the transition metal-containing material on the substrate, a temperature inside the reaction chamber to be below 200oC (par.[0174]).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al. (U.S. 2015/0004314) in view of Hatanpaa et al. (U.S. 2019/0249300).
The teachings of Winter et al. have been discussed above.
Winter et al. is silent on wherein the precursor injector system further comprises one or more heaters configured to heat the transition metal precursor, in the transition metal precursor vessel, or the second precursor, in the second precursor vessel.
Referring to Figure 4 and paragraphs [0115]-[0116], [0120], Hatanpaa et al. teach a deposition assembly wherein the precursor injector system 408 further comprises one or more heaters 414 configured to heat the transition metal precursor, in the transition metal precursor vessel 410A, or the second precursor, in the second precursor vessel 410B in order to control the viscosity or vapor pressure of the precursors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the precursor injector system of Winter et al. with one or more heaters configured to heat the transition metal precursor, in the transition metal precursor vessel, or the second precursor, in the second precursor vessel as taught by Hatanpaa et al. in order to control the viscosity or vapor pressure of the precursors. The resulting apparatus of Winter et al. in view of Hatanpaa et al. would yield wherein the precursor injector system further comprises one or more heaters configured to heat the transition metal precursor, in the transition metal precursor vessel, or the second precursor, in the second precursor vessel.
With respect to claim 4, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. in view of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the one or more heaters 414 is configured to heat the transition metal precursor or the second precursor to a temperature between 30oC and 150oC (Hatanpaa et al.-Fig. 4, pars.[0115]-[0116]).
With respect to claim 5, the deposition assembly of Winter et al. in view of Hatanpaa et al. further includes wherein the one or more heaters 414 is configured to heat the transition metal precursor to a first temperature and the second precursor to a second temperature different than the first temperature (Hatanpaa et al.-Fig. 4, par
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/818298 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application render the claims of the instant application obvious.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of copending Application No. 18/438765 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application render the claims of the instant application obvious.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/314021 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application render the claims of the instant application obvious.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/060981 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application render the claims of the instant application obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Elers’204, Farm et al.’919, Hatanpaa et al.’113, and Mattinen et al.’701 disclose a precursor injector system configured to provide, in a vapor phase, a transition metal precursor and a second precursor into the reaction chamber. Lopatin et al.’031 and Manna et al.’483 teach a reducing agent of dimethylamine borane complex.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights