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 Arguments
Due to amendments, the 35 USC 102 rejections and objections to the specification have been withdrawn. Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections, Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that there is not a reasonable expectation for success in combining the precursors of Kim with the method of Haukka. However, Haukka teaches general aminoalkoxide compounds in para 0328 that are suitable for selective deposition processes. Kim teaches specific aminoalkoxide compounds including those claimed (Figs. 1-6, Examples) to deposit films with less contaminants and with precursors that are less toxic (para 0004). Because the compounds are both from the same class of compounds, they can be expected to have a reasonable expectation of success in selective deposition, or at least, it would be obvious to try the compounds of Kim in Haukka. Including the precursors of Kim in Haukka is obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, these rejections are maintained. New grounds of rejection are due to amendments.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka et al. (US 2015/0299848 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0171890 A1).
As to claims 1-5 , 7, 9-10 Haukka et al. teaches a method for selectively depositing material comprising metal on a substrate by a cyclic deposition process (abstract, Fig. 2), the method comprising: providing a substrate in a reaction chamber (210 Fig. 2), wherein the substrate comprises a first surface comprising a first material (para 0012), and a second surface comprising a second material (para 0013); and providing a metal aminoalkoxide precursor (para 0328) into the reaction chamber in vapor phase to deposit a material comprising a metal on the first surface relative to the second surface (para 0324),wherein the metal aminoalkoxide precursor comprises an amino group and an alkoxide group (aminoalkoxide, by definition para 0324), and wherein the first material comprises a noble metal (para 0012).
Haukka et al. does not teach the specific precursors but does teach Ni aminoalkoxide in general as discussed above. Kim et al. teaches aminoalkoxide precursors for depositing Ni films (para 0002), including those claimed (Figs. 1-6, Examples) to deposit films with less contaminants and with precursors that are less toxic (para 0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Haukka et al. to include the claimed precursors as taught by Kim et al. in order to deposit films with less contaminants and with precursors that are less toxic.
In addition, including the precursors of Kim in Haukka is obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claims 11-13, the material deposited is a transition metal of those claimed and a material deposited of elemental metal in Haukka paras 0325-0328.
As to claim 14, the noble metal is of that claimed in Haukka para 0012.
As to claim 15, the second surface comprises that claimed in Haukka para 0014.
As to claim 16, the deposition temperature is as claimed in Haukka para 0053.
As to claim 17, the resistivity of a deposited film is a physical property that depends on its method of deposition. As Haukka et al. teaches the claimed method as discussed above, the resistivity as claimed naturally occurs.
As to claim 18, the deposition process is as claimed in Haukka paras 0008, claim 25.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights