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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Precursor ligands dmap, dmamp, emamp etc. are used in para 0016, but are not defined until para 0071. These abbreviations should be defined at their first use.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haukka et al. (US 2015/0299848 A1).
As to claim 1, 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).
As to claims 2-3, the metal is a transition metal of those claimed in para 0328, for example.
As to claim 6, a metal aminoalkoxide precursor will have at least one aminoalkoxide ligand by definition.
As to claims 11-13, the material deposited is a transition metal of those claimed and a material deposited of elemental metal in paras 0325-0328.
As to claim 14, the noble metal is of that claimed in para 0012.
As to claim 15, the second surface comprises that claimed in para 0014.
As to claim 16, the deposition temperature is as claimed in 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 paras 0008, claim 25.
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) 4-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka et al. in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0171890 A1).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140220733 teaches a similar precursor with a selective deposition process.
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