DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 07 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 October 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 –
(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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
1. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2015/0079301 to Nemani et al. (“Nemani”).
With regard to Claims 1-2, Nemani teaches a method of forming a metal compound thin film comprising providing a semiconductor substrate and performing inkjet printing operations thereon to form a thin film pattern (see Abstract; FIGs. 1-3; ¶¶ [0018]-[0019], [0022], [0028]-[0029]). Nemani teaches depositing a first and second precursors via dedicated inkjet nozzles (see ¶¶ [0019], [0030], [0036]-[0037]). According to Nemani, the deposited precursors react to form the metal compound film (see ¶¶ [0019], [0032]).
Nemani does not particularly limit the types of substrates, and teaches semiconductor wafer substrates (see ¶¶ [0018], [0020], [0022]); however the reference does not expressly teach non-hydrophobic and/or silicon substrates. To the extent that semiconductor wafer substrates do not implicitly contemplate silicon wafer substrates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a silicon wafer as a semiconductor wafer in the method of Nemani since silicon is a common semiconductor substrate.
With regard to Claim 4, Nemani teaches usage of any known precursor chemistries, and expressly teaches redox reactions (see ¶¶ [0024], [0032]-[0033]).
With regard to Claim 5, Nemani teaches more than two printheads each dispensing a different precursor (see ¶ [0030]).
With regard to Claims 6-7, Nemani teaches ozone and hydrogen peroxide (see ¶ [0033]) and otherwise teaches use of any chemical precursors (see ¶ [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used any known precursors within any range of pH, including those claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to Claim 8, Nemani teaches deposition of any pattern via orchestrated printhead and stage movement across multiple axes (see ¶ [0028]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have deposited any desirable pattern in the method of Nemani, including the claimed pattern, with a reasonable expectation of success.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemani as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2004/0118676 to Mizohata et al. (“Mizohata”).
With regard to Claim 3, Nemani does not expressly teach a printhead cleansing operation. To the extent that maintenance of a clean substrate surface for precise operations is not implicitly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, Mizohata is directed to depositing metal films on wafer substrates, and teaches rinsing with deionized water between operations to maintain a clean wafer (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0084]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have rinsed the substrate between printing operations in the method of Nemani, as taught by Mizohata, in order to maintain a clean wafer for further processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights