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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 5/11/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims. Claims 1, 4-17, 24-28 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments relative to combination of references is noted.
Applicant assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a phopshine ligands to be interchangeable with silyl phosphines for metal phosphide deposition. Applicant cites here Zazpe, which is using alkyl tin precursors. Applicant’s assertion that “an artisan would understand would react via similar mechanism to silicon compounds given group and bonding similarity” is mere attorney speculation that has no support in the factual evidence. Applicant’s assertion that “an artisan would appreciate that, as in the highly similar tin ligands, any use of a silyl-alkyl phosphine material would require a ligand exchange reaction with the silicon atom itself. This requires a fundamentally different reaction than what would occur with the other cited phosphine compounds with hydrogen and/or alkyl substituents alone.” As noted above, since the nexus between the tin precursor and the claimed precursor is not established by factual evidence, but mere attorney speculation, this assertion also lacks support and is unpersuasive. There is nothing on the record that would support this position, that the tin precursor utilized in Zazpe functions or reacts the same as the silicon precursor of claims or the prior art. Here, because USPP 790 discloses that for a phosphide film, and the using known phosphorus containing precursors, including the same used by USPP 300, it would rebut the Applicant’s position that they function differently (i.e. because USPP 300 discloses the PH3, alkylphosphines and tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphine all deposit phosphide films).
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).
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.
Regardless of the above position, the examiner cites here newly uncovered prior art reference Blackman, which discloses a vapor deposition of a Titanium phosphide layer and discloses “Tristrimethylsilylphosphine (TTMSP) is a functional equivalent of phosphine (PH3)” and also discloses such is an alternative to known alkyl phosphine “TiCl4 and PH2R(R = cyclohexyl or t-butyl) have been investigated.” As such, with respect to Tristrimethylsilylphosphine as it relates to PH3 and alkylphosphines, the collection of prior art reasonably discloses that these are known and suitable phosphine precursors for vapor deposition of a metal phosphide.
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Independent Claim 24 requires the metal precursor comprises cobalt dichloride tetramethylenediamine and claim 27 requires an intermediate compound MX on the surface based on supplying a first precursor comprising cobalt and a halide precursor to the chamber; however, a full review of the specification fails to provide sufficient support for the use of cobalt dichloride tetramethylenediamine as claimed or its use in a process as embodied by claim 27. As such, full scope of the claim of 27 as drafted is not supported by the original disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blackman (Dual-source chemical vapour deposition of titanium(III) phosphide from titanium tetrachloride and tristrimethylsilylphosphine)
Claim 1: Blackmon discloses Titanium phosphide deposition on a substrate in a reaction chamber by using a cycle that includes vapor of TiCl4 and Tristrimethylsilylphosphine for vapor deposition of TiP (see entire reference).
Claim 5-6: Blackman discloses TiCl4.
Claim 12: Blackman discloses tristrimethylsilylphosphine (title).
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 Or Blackman (Dual-source chemical vapour deposition of titanium(III) phosphide from titanium tetrachloride and tristrimethylsilylphosphine)
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).
Alternatively Blackman, which discloses a vapor deposition of a Titanium phosphide layer and discloses “Tristrimethylsilylphosphine (TTMSP) is a functional equivalent of phosphine (PH3)” and also discloses such is an alternative to known alkyl phosphine “TiCl4 and PH2R(R = cyclohexyl or t-butyl) have been investigated.” As such, with respect to Tristrimethylsilylphosphine as it relates to PH3 and alkylphosphines, Blackman reasonably discloses that these are known and suitable phosphine precursors for vapor deposition of a metal phosphide.
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 and Blackman 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: The prior art discloses and makes obvious the claimed process steps (supplying metal halide precursor and then the claimed halide) 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 intermediary MX on the substrate surface.
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).
Additionally, Blackman, which discloses a vapor deposition of a Titanium phosphide layer and discloses “Tristrimethylsilylphosphine (TTMSP) is a functional equivalent of phosphine (PH3)” and also discloses such is an alternative to known alkyl phosphine “TiCl4 and PH2R(R = cyclohexyl or t-butyl) have been investigated.” As such, with respect to Tristrimethylsilylphosphine as it relates to PH3 and alkylphosphines, the collection of prior art reasonably discloses that these are known and suitable phosphine precursors for vapor deposition of a metal phosphide.
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: 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 27: The prior art discloses and makes obvious the claimed process steps (supplying metal halide precursor and then the claimed halide) 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 intermediary MX on the substrate surface.
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).
Claim(s) 17 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPP 300 taken collectively with USPP 790 Or Blackman as applied above and further in view of US Patent 5227195 by Sanjurjo.
USPP 300 taken collectively with USPP 790 Or Blackman as applied above and while the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here Sanjurjo, also in the art of forming a coating by using a metal halide precursor and discloses supplying a metal gas and a halide gas and forming a intermediary that is more reactive for the CVD process (see Figure 2) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify USPP 300 taken collectively with USPP 790 Or Blackman to use the reaction intermediary as such is taught by Sanjurjo to provide a metal coating on a substrate.
Conclusion
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