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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 1/21/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claims 2-3, 18-23, and the addition of new claims 24-28. Claims 1, 4-17, 24-28 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that USPP 790 makes a single reference to tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine in relation to GaP or InP phosphine layers and therefore the Applicant argues that the examiner has used hindsight in the combination. 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).
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness and the Applicant’s have failed to provide persuasive evidence or arguments to rebut the examiner’s proffered prima facie case of obviousness and thus has failed to meet their burden. If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
As set forth previously, USPP 300 discloses the second precursor can include phosphorus compounds such as phosphines, including PH3 and alkylphosphines as the phosphine source for cobalt phosphide film deposition via ALD. While the examiner notes that the reference fails to disclose the claimed phosphine precursors, USPP 790, also in the art of forming phosphide films on substrates via ALD process (0113) and discloses depositing phosphides using phosphorus precursors that include PH3 and alkylphosphines and also discloses a known phosphorus alternative to those precursors includes tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine (Table 1). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified USPP 300 to use the known and suitable ALD phosphide precursor, including tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Here both cited references discloses forming phosphide films on substrates via ALD process using phosphine sources, each explicitly discloses PH3 and alkylphosphines and USPP 300 discloses using phosphorus sources that include phosphorus and hydrogen (0065) and discloses tris(trimethylsilyl) are known ligands for ALD deposition (0065) and therefore using the tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine would have led to predictable results in the process of USPP 300 as a known alternative for PH3 and alkylphosphines as well as a known precursor for phosphide deposition via ALD. The applicant’s have failed to provide any factual evidence that would rebut this prima facie case of obviousness and therefore the examiner maintains the prima facie case of obviousness of record.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-17, 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20190249300 by Hatanpӓӓ et al., hereinafter USPP 300 taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20130202790 by Li et al., hereinafter USPP 790.
Claim 1: USPP 300 discloses a method for forming a layer comprising metal phosphide on a substrate, the method comprising providing a substrate into a reaction chamber; executing at least one deposition cycle, wherein the deposition cycle comprises: providing a metal halide precursor in vapor phase into a reaction chamber (0034-0035, see ALD delivery); and providing a second precursor in vapor phase into a reaction chamber to form a layer comprising metal phosphide on a substrate (0065,0034, 0029, “cobalt phosphides”, 0055 related to transitional metal phosphide),
USPP 300 discloses the second precursor can include phosphorus compounds such as phosphines, including PH3 and alkylphosphines; however, fails to discloses the second precursor comprises alkyl silyl phosphine or silyl phosphine. However, USPP 790, also in the art of forming phosphide films on substrates via ALD process (0113) and discloses depositing phosphides using phosphorus precursors that include PH3 and alkylphosphines and also discloses a known phosphorus alternative to those precursors includes tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine (Table 1). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified USPP 300 to use the known and suitable ALD phosphide precursor, including tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claims 2-9: US 300 discloses cobalt dichloride tetramethylethylenediamine (0090).
Claims 10-12: US 790 makes obvious using tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 13: US 300 discloses the precursors are provided into the reaction chamber in an alternate and sequential manner (0034-0035, 0055).
Claims 14-15: US 300 discloses the deposition is performed at a temperature that overlaps and makes obvious in the range of 180-320° C or below 300° C (0092).
Claim 16: US 300 discloses the precursors are provided into the reaction chamber in pulses and the reaction chamber is purged between consecutive precursor pulses (0034-0035).
Claim 17: US 300 discloses cobalt phosphide (0029), which would meet this claim as drafted. At the very least, the prior art discloses and makes obvious the claimed process steps and the instant claim is merely a result of those process steps and therefore the prior art would necessarily have the same results unless the applicant is performing different process steps that are undisclosed or unclaimed as being required to achieve the claimed M2P structure.
Claim 24: USPP 300 discloses a method for forming a layer comprising metal phosphide on a substrate, the method comprising providing a substrate into a reaction chamber; executing at least one deposition cycle, wherein the deposition cycle comprises: providing a metal halide precursor in vapor phase into a reaction chamber (0034-0035, see ALD delivery); and providing a second precursor in vapor phase into a reaction chamber to form a layer comprising metal phosphide on a substrate (0065,0034, 0029, “cobalt phosphides”, 0055 related to transitional metal phosphide). US 300 discloses cobalt dichloride tetramethylethylenediamine (0090).
USPP 300 discloses the second precursor can include phosphorus compounds such as phosphines, including PH3 and alkylphosphines; however, fails to discloses the second precursor comprises alkyl silyl phosphine or silyl phosphine. However, USPP 790, also in the art of forming phosphide films on substrates via ALD process (0113) and discloses depositing phosphides using phosphorus precursors that include PH3 and alkylphosphines and also discloses a known phosphorus alternative to those precursors includes tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine (Table 1). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified USPP 300 to use the known and suitable ALD phosphide precursor, including tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claim 25: US 300 discloses the precursors are provided into the reaction chamber in an alternate and sequential manner (0034-0035, 0055).
Claims 26-27: US 300 discloses the deposition is performed at a temperature that overlaps and makes obvious in the range of 180-320° C or below 300° C (0092).
Claim 28: US 300 discloses the precursors are provided into the reaction chamber in pulses and the reaction chamber is purged between consecutive precursor pulses (0034-0035).
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights