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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 of S-H, Kim, et al., US 18/784,513 (07/25/2024) are pending. Claim 9-13 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected Group, claims 1-8 are under examination on merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-8), without traverse, in the reply filed on 10/03/2025. Claims 9-13 drawn to non-elected Group (II) are withdrawn. The Restriction Requirement is made as FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Examination requires claim terms first be construed in terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. See, MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01. It is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. MPEP § 2111.01 (III).
Interpretation of the Structure of Claimed Formula
The instant claims recites the claimed formula in the follows context.
1. A chemical suitable for use as a vapor phase deposition precursor, the chemical have a formula M[N(R1)Si(R2)(R3)(NR4R5)]a(L1)b(L2)c(L3)d
wherein:
M = a transition metal, . . . .;
L1 is/are -1 anionic ligands, . . .;
L2 is/are -2 anionic ligands, . . .; and
L3 is/are neutral ligands or adducts, . . ..
The specification teaches one working example which has a chemical structure as indicated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification at page 4, Example 2.
Consistent with the working example disclosed by the specification, the claimed formula M[N(R1)Si(R2)(R3)(NR4R5)]a(L1)b(L2)c(L3)d is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a compound represented by the follows chemical structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
487
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein, a, b, c, d are each ≥0. It is noted that any of variables a, b, c, or d may be zero. It is also noted that the claim 1 preamble is not a structural limitation that can distinguish over the art.1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a).
Insufficient Antecedent Basis
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the instant claim recites the limitation of "A = C, Si, Ge" in the follows context:
A chemical suitable for use as a vapor phase deposition precursor, the chemical have a formula
M[N(R1)Si(R2)(R3)(NR4R')]a(L1)b(L2)c(L3)d
Wherein:
. . . .
A = C, Si, Ge
. . . .
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “A” in the claimed formula or anywhere in the instant claim 1.
Improper Preferences/Exemplary Claim Language
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the recitation of exemplary claim languages in claim 1 and claim 8, for example, “typically selected from”, “e.g.” recited in claim 1 and “preferably” recited in claim 8. There are some other improper preferences cited in the claims such as parenthetical, capital letters and the symbol of colon as follows :
imido groups =N-Rc(Rc = C1-C6 linear, cyclic, or branched),
diamines (e.g. Rc-N-C2H4-N-Rc),
Cp linkaged amine (Cp-CxHy-N-Rc),
For example, the claim 1 phrase
Claim 1 . . . L3 is/are . . . 1) Oxygen based ligands: Aliphatic and aromatic - alcohols, diols, ethers, epoxides, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, enols, esters, anhydrides, phenols, substituted phenols . . .
is an improper preference because the broad range of “oxygen based ligands” is first recited and it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range of “Aliphatic and aromatic - alcohols, diols, ethers, epoxides, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, enols, esters, anhydrides, phenols, substituted phenols” is a limitation. MPEP § 2173.05(d). In other words, it is not clear what Applicant intends the colon “:” to mean. Other examples of improper preferences are highlighted below.
L3 is/are neutral ligands or adducts, selected from 1) Oxygen based ligands: Aliphatic and aromatic - alcohols, diols, ethers, epoxides, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, enols, esters, anhydrides, phenols, substituted phenols; 2) Nitrogen based ligands: Aliphatic and aromatic - amines, imines, imides, amides, azides, cyanates, nitrile, nitrate, nitrite, nitrogen containing heterocycles; 3) Sulfur based ligands: aliphatic and aromatic - thiols, sulfides, disulfide, sulfoxide, sulfone, thiocyanates, isothiocyanates, thioesters; 4) Phosphorus based ligands: aliphatic and aromatic phosphines, phosphonic acid, phosphodiesters; 5) Boron based ligands: aliphatic and aromatic - boronic acid, boronic ester, borinic esters; 6) carbon based ligands: aliphatic - alkenes, alkynes and benzene derivatives. 7) Halide containing organic molecules, inorganic halide, e.g. I2, H2O vapor, H2 gas, CO gas, CS gas, NOx gas, any radical form of gases at RT.
These recitations improperly provide for preferences and/or emphasis within a claim and thereby renders confusion over the intended scope. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
To begin to overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 1 using the following standard language in defining a Markush grouping:
“wherein the alternative is selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and D”; or
“wherein the alternative is A, B, C or D”. See MPEP § 2173.05(h),
and delete all occurrences of exemplary claim language/preferences, parentheticals, and colons, and preferably delete all dashes, numerical indicators, and capital letters. For example, the following proposed amendment would be sufficient:
claim 1 . . . L3 is/are neutral ligands or adducts selected from the group consisting of oxygen based ligands [[:]], aliphatic and aromatic [[-]] alcohols, diols, ethers, epoxides, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, enols, esters, anhydrides, phenols, and substituted phenols; or
L3 is selected from the group consisting of nitrogen based ligands, [[:]] aliphatic and aromatic [[-]] amines, imines, imides, amides, azides, cyanates, nitrile, nitrate, nitrite, and nitrogen containing heterocycles . . .
The structure of L2 is not clear:
(i). as mentioned above that the language of “typically selected from” is an improper preferences language;
(ii). the definition for Rc is not clear, one ordinary skill does not know Rc is a C1-C6 linear, cyclic, or branched alkyl group, alkenyl group or other C1-C6 linear, cyclic, or branched groups.
(iii). one ordinary skill does not know what are x and y in the Cp-CxHy-N-Rc because neither claim 1 nor the specification provide a definition for x and y?
(iv). one ordinary skill does not know the =N-Rc is CH2=N-Rc or it is 2-N-Rc bonded to the metal through a double bond. As indicated below in the 102 rejection that Preuss teaches compound RN 255817-33-5 having a structure of
PNG
media_image3.png
551
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One ordinary skill needs to know whether compound RN 255817-33-5 falls within the scope of the claims or not.
Open-Ended Markush Grouping
If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. MPEP § 2173.05(h) (citing In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022). Also, a Markush group, incorporated in a claim, should be 'closed,' i.e. it must be characterized with the transition phrase ‘consisting of’, rather than ‘comprising’ or ‘including’. Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for the recitation of:
. . . further comprising a carrier gas, preferably comprising an inert gas selected from Helium, Nitrogen, Argon, Neon, Xenon and combinations thereof.
The word of “comprising” is open-ended and therefore does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. MPEP § 2111.03(I). The plain language of this claim 8 recitation requires one of skill to select one member from the Markush grouping of “carrier gas”, where “Helium, Nitrogen, Argon, Neon, Xenon or combinations thereof ” are one selectable members. The above recitation at issue clearly recites an open-ended Markush grouping of the alternatives of “carrier gas” and it is not clear what other members of “carrier gas” (other than “Helium, Nitrogen, Argon, Neon, Xenon or combinations thereof”) are intended to be encompassed by the claim. The recitation of “comprising” in this context could also be analyzed as improperly providing for preferences within the subject claims and thereby renders confusion over the intended scope of the claim term. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend on respectively, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Claim 3 is depending on claim 2. According to the Claim interpretation above that ligand L1, L2 and L3 are different single ligands bonded to metal M separately. Herein, claim 3 recites of the limitation of
The chemical of claim 2, wherein the least one of L3 is covalently linked to the at least one of L1 or L2
Extending the scope of claim 2 rather to further limit of claim 2 because once L3 is covalently linked to L1 or L2, a single ligand would be formed between L3 and L1 /L2 and the formed ligand bonded to metal M by two different position of the ligand.
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.
(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.
35 USC § 102 Rejection Over Passarelli
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by V. Passarelli, et al, 22 European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry, 4439-4446 (2004)(“Passarelli”).
Passarelli teaches compound of Zr(NMe2)4. Passarelli at page 4439, left col. line 4 under Scheme 1.
Compound Zr(NMe2)4 maps the formula of M[N(R1)Si(R2)(R3)(NR4R')]a(L1)b(L2)c(L3)d in the instant claims 1as
M is Zr which is a transition metal,
a is 0,
b is 4
each of c and d is 0;
L1 is N(CH3)2 which is a anionic ligand;
Which falls within the chemical genera of instant claims 1, therefore, claims 1 anticipated.
Passarelli also teaches compound Zr(NMe2)3[SiMe2(NiPr)(NMe2)] (21) that is prepared with the same ligand, the same metal reagent and in the same solvent as the only one working example compound prepared in the specification. Passarelli at page 4445, right col. paragraphs 3-4, Zr(NMe2)3[SiMe2(NiPr)(NMe2)] (21), also see Specification at page 4, example 2. Thus, the Passarelli compound Zr(NMe2)3[SiMe2(NiPr)(NMe2)] (21) has a same chemical structural as that of the claimed species in claim 6 which is the only one example compound disclosed in the instant specification.
PNG
media_image4.png
446
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Passarelli compound Zr(NMe2)3[SiMe2(NiPr)(NMe2)] (21) maps the formula of M[N(R1)Si(R2)(R3)(NR4R')]a(L1)b(L2)c(L3)d in the instant claims 1 and 4-6 as:
M is Zr which is a transition metal,
a is 1,
b is 3
each of c and d is 0;
L1 is N(CH3)2 which is a anionic ligand;
R1 is
PNG
media_image5.png
116
123
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;
Each of R2-R5 are methyl groups;
Which falls within the chemical genera of instant claims 1 and 4-6, therefore, claims 1 and 4-6 are anticipated.
35 USC § 102 Rejection Over F. Preuss
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by F. Preuss, et al. 54.11 Zeitschrift für Naturforschung B 1396-1404(1999)(“Preuss”).
CA Abstract indicates that Preuss2 teaches compound RN 255817-33-5 which has the follows structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
551
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See attached CA Abstract.
The Preuss compound RN 255817-33-5 maps the formula of M[N(R1)Si(R2)(R3)(NR4R')]a(L1)b(L2)c(L3)d in the instant claim 1-2, and 4-5 as
M is Nb which is a transition metal,
a is 1,
b is 2
each of c and d is 1;
L1 is Cl- which is a anionic ligand;
L2 is
PNG
media_image6.png
145
192
media_image6.png
Greyscale
which is a -2 anionic ligand;
L3 is pyridine which is an aromatic amine and is a neutral ligand;
R1 is tBu;
both R2 and R3 are methyl groups;
R4 is tBu and
R5 is H;
Which falls within the chemical genera of instant claims 1-2 and 4-5, therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-5 are anticipated.
35 USC § 102 Rejection Over Lei
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by X. Lei, et al, US 7,064,224 B1(2006)(“Lei”).
Lei teaches compound bis(N,N′-di(tert-butyl)-1,1-dimethylsilylamino)cobalt(II) (RN# 890015-84-6). Lei at col. 4, Example 1. CA Abstract indicates that the compound bis(N,N′-di(tert-butyl)-1,1-dimethylsilylamino)cobalt(II) (RN# 890015-84-6) has a structure as below.
PNG
media_image7.png
404
489
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See attached CA Abstract.
The Lei teaches compound bis(N,N′-di(tert-butyl)-1,1-dimethylsilylamino)cobalt(II) maps the formula of M[N(R1)Si(R2)(R3)(NR4R')]a(L1)b(L2)c(L3)d in the instant claim 1 as:
M is Co which is a transition metal,
a is 2,
each of b, c and d is 0;
R1 is tBu;
both R2 and R3 are methyl groups;
R4 is tBu and
R5 is H;
Which meets each and every limitation of the structural limitation of the formula of M[N(R1)Si(R2)(R3)(NR4R')]a(L1)b(L2)c(L3)d in the instant claim 1, therefore, claim 1 is anticipated.
Claims 4-5 are anticipated because the compound comprises of moieties of Si(Me)2.
Regarding claims 7-8, Lei teaches CVD of the bis(N,N′-di(tert-butyl)-1,1-dimethylsilylamino)cobalt(II) as follows:
In this example, bis(N,N'-di(tert-butyl)-1,1-dimethylsilylamino)cobalt(II) was used as the organometallic precursor for the formation of films in a conventional CVD apparatus using known CVD techniques to produce a metal silicide film on silicon substrates.
In this embodiment, bis(N,N'-di(tert-butyl)-1,1-dimethylsilylamino)cobalt(II) was vaporized in a bubbler at 90° C. and transported into a CVD chamber in combination 100 sccm N2 carrier gas. The CVD chamber was a cold-wall system having a heated substrate holder.
Lei at col. 7, Example 5, emphasis added.
Thus, Lei also teaches a composition comprising a vapor phase of the compound of bis(N,N'-di(tert-butyl)-1,1-dimethylsilylamino)cobalt(II) and nitrogen which is an inert gas, which meets each and every limitation of claims 7-8, therefore, claims 7-8 are anticipated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday.
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 Goon can be reached at (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. MPEP § 2112.02(II) (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation")).
2 Reference has been ordered.