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 of Group I in the reply filed on May 27, 206 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 27, 2026.
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed May 27, 2026, claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 5, 6, 10, 15 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1 through 4, 7 through 9, 11 through 14 and 17 through 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 27, 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive because none of the cited prior art taught a second precursor comprising tellurium dichloride (TeCl2). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previously cited prior art and new prior art necessitated by the amendments made to the claim. As was discussed in the previous Office Action, Xiao and Marsh taught forming metalloid-containing material using a tellurium precursor. However, neither reference taught a precursor comprising tellurium dichloride. Stender (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0215225) teaches tellurium-containing precursors used to form tellurium-containing films by vapor deposition (Abstract) wherein the precursor comprised tellurium dichloride (Page 3 Paragraphs 0073-0078). Therefore, the claims are still obvious in view of the prior art of record.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17-19 are indefinite because it is not clear if the second and third precursors are supposed to be the same material. Claim 17 requires that the second and third precursors are mutually different an that either the second precursor or the third precursor comprises tellurium dichloride. However, dependent claim 19 requires that both the second and third precursor are selected from the disclosed groups indicating that the second and third precursor are the same.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al (U.S. Patent # 9,214,630) in view of Stender et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0215225).
In the case of claim 1, Xiao teaches a method for depositing metalloid-containing material in the form of germanium, tellurium and/or antimony on a substrate by a cyclic deposition process in the form of atomic layer deposition (Abstract). Xiao teaches a method for forming a multicomponent film wherein a substrate was provided into a reaction chamber/reactor (Column 6 Lines 1-9). Xiao further teaches having provided/introduced into the reaction chamber a first precursor in the form of a germanium (Ge) precursor or an antimony (Sb) precursor, provided/introduced into the chamber a second precursor in the form of a tellurium (Te) precursor and having repeated the introduction of each precursor until a desired film thickness was achieved (Column 5 Lines 14-45). Furthermore, as was discussed previously, both the first and second precursors comprised metalloids in the form of germanium or antimony and tellurium.
Though Xiao teaches having provided a second precursor comprising tellurium Xiao does not teach that the second precursor comprised tellurium dichloride (TeCl2). Xiao does teach that the tellurium precursors included silyl comprising compound and those with halogen atoms (Column 7 Lines 22-46).
Stender teaches tellurium-containing precursors used to form tellurium-containing films by atomic layer deposition (Abstract) wherein the precursor comprised silyl comprising tellurium compounds (Page 1 Paragraphs 0006-0008) and tellurium dichloride (Page 3 Paragraphs 0073-0078).
Based on the teachings of Stender, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the tellurium dichloride comprising compounds of Stander as the tellurium precursors of Xiao because these were known tellurium precursors in the art for forming tellurium containing films by atomic layer deposition therefore one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the substitution.
As for claim 2, Xiao teaches that the deposition process formed an elemental metalloid coating comprised of only germanium and tellurium (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 9).
As for claims 3, 4, and 11, Xiao teaches an embodiment wherein the first precursor was an antimony precursor comprising tris(triethylsilyl)antimony [(Et3Si)3Sb] (Column 8 Lines 42-46).
As for claims 7 and 8, as was discussed previously, Xiao taught an embodiment wherein the first precursor comprised germanium.
In the case of claims 17-19, Xiao teaches a method for depositing a metalloid-containing material on a substrate by a cyclic deposition process/super cycle comprising sub-cycle wherein a first precursor/Sb precursor was provided into a reaction chamber, a second precursor in the form of a Te precursor was provided into the chamber and a third precursor comprising a Ge precursor was provided into the chamber and that this sub-cycle was repeated (Column 11 Claim 1). This this sub-cycle of Xiao was repeated Xiao teaches a first sub-cycle comprising providing a first precursor and a second precursor and a second sub-cycle comprising providing the first precursor and a third precursor.
As was discussed previously in the rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious for the Te precursor to comprise tellurium dichloride. Furthermore, as was discussed in the rejection of claim 3, 4 and 11, Xiao taught that the first/Sb precursor comprised tris(triethylsilyl)antimony. Furthermore, teaches that the Ge precursor comprised HGeCl3 (Column 11 Claim 1).
Claim 1-4, 7-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh (U.S. Patent # 8,148,197) in view of Stender et al.
In the case of claims 1 and 2, Marsh teaches a method for forming an elemental metalloid film by a cyclic deposition process by forming a GeSbTe film by atomic layer deposition (Abstract, Column 1 Lines 9-12 and Column 2 Lines 3-20). The method of Marsh comprised providing a substrate in a rection chamber and providing a first precursor in the form of a co-reactive tellurium precursor and a second precursor in the form of a reactive tellurium precursor (Column 11 Claim 1).
However, Marsh does not teach that the second precursor comprised tellurium dichloride. Marsh does teach that the second precursor/reactive tellurium precursor comprised a halide group (Column 3 Lines 39-47 and Column 12 Claim 13).
Stender teaches tellurium-containing precursors used to form tellurium-containing films by atomic layer deposition (Abstract) wherein the precursors comprised tellurium dichloride (Page 3 Paragraphs 0073-0078).
Based on the teachings of Stender, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the tellurium dichloride comprising compounds of Stander as the second/reactive precursors of Marsh because these were known tellurium precursors in the art for forming tellurium containing films by atomic layer deposition therefore one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the substitution.
As for claims 3, 4, 7-9, 11 and 12, Marsh teaches that the first precursor/co-reactive tellurium precursor comprised an alkyl silyl in the form of bis(trimethylsilyl)tellurium which is listed as Te(II)(trimethylsilyl)2 (Column 12 Clam 15. Furthermore, Marsh teaches that the second/reactive precursor comprised a tellurium halide (Column 12 Claim 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have formed a metalloid-containing material on a substrate by a cyclic deposition process wherein a second precursor comprised tellurium dichloride. However, none of the prior art of record teach or suggest having also provided a first precursor having any of the disclosed formula of claim 13.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 4, 7 through 9, 11, 12 and 17 through 17 have been rejected and claims 13 and 14 have been objected. Claims 20 is withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
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 MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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 WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights