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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited prior art does not teach the unifying technical feature of the inventions, the feature being a heteroleptic triazenide lanthanide metal complex according to claim 1. This is found to be persuasive, since the art cited, US 12221456 B2, does not appear to provide evidence that each component of the metal complex as recited in claim 1 would together create a heteroleptic metal complex that could reasonably be obtained as a stable product by one skilled in the art.
The restriction requirement and the species election requirement are therefore withdrawn. Claims 1-8 and 10 are examined in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10 recites “an electronic component,” which is interpreted broadly to include a substrate coated with the metal complex of the invention, since this would be a component of electronic devices such as semiconductors. The instant specification lists exemplary embodiments of an electronic component (p. 30); it is noted that these examples are not limiting definitions of the term.
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 1-8 and 10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “unequal hydrogen;” it is unclear what this term should indicate, and further the word “unequal” may potentially be a relative term depending on the use of the term. Therefore the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-8 and 10 depend upon or otherwise require all the limitations of claim 1, and do not rectify the issue, so are similarly rejected.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al. 1999, “Synthesis, structure, and characterization of lanthanide complexes bearing 1,3-diphenyltriazenido ligands,” Journal of Organometallic Chemistry 588 (1999) 167–175, referred to herein as Pfeiffer, in view of Sundermeyer et al. 2019, EP 3498721 A1; the domestic application, filed in 2018 with document ID of US 12221456 B2, is cited herein, which was provided by the examiner on 12/01/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Pfeiffer teaches a metal complex according to the general formula [M(Lc)(Lt)(Lz)], wherein
M is a metal central atom selected from the group consisting of scandium, yttrium, lanthanides, and titanium (erbium, lutetium, Structures 2 and 3, p. 169 column 1),
Lc is a monoanionic pi-donor ligand being an unsubstituted cyclopentadienide anion (Structures 2 and 3, p. 169 column 1),
Lt is a triazenide anion according to the general formula (R’-N3-R’’) wherein the radicals R’ and R’’ are C6H5 (Structures 2 and 3, p. 169 column 1), and
Lz is a monoanionic pi-donor ligand which is, independently of the monoanionic pi-donor ligand Lc, an unsubstituted cyclopentadienide anion (Structures 2 and 3, p. 169 column 1).
Pfeiffer does not teach that the R’ and R’’ radicals on the triazenide anion Lt are alkyl groups with 1 to 10 carbon atoms, either linear or branched. However, Sundermeyer teaches analogous metal-organic complexes of the general formula M[(L1)a(L2)b(L3)cXd] wherein the ligands are triazenides (C5/L9) wherein the metal atom may be a lanthanide (lanthanoid, C7/L37) and the metal complex containing triazenide ligands have tert-butyl groups (C13-14).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Pfeiffer by substituting the phenyl groups taught by Pfeiffer with tert-butyl groups as taught by Sundermeyer. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve the volatility of the compounds, for application as precursors in CVD processes, as Pfeiffer teaches (Section 2.3). While Pfeiffer teaches that the disclosed compounds 2-5 are not suitable for CVD processes (p. 172 column 1) and that the substitution of alkyl groups for phenyl groups would likely not lead to volatile complexes for CVD applications (p. 172 column 2), this language does not amount to a teaching that the alkyl substitutions would determinately not create volatile complexes, and rather suggests that the substitution of alkyl substituents directly affects the thermal stability of the low-stability triazenide. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attempt such a modification, motivated to create triazenide-based complexes that would be suitable for use as precursors in CVD applications. Sundermeyer further teaches that the use of tert-butyl groups on the triazenide has advantageously lower molecular weights, which improves the vaporizability or sublimatability of the metal complex for application in MOCVD (C13/L65). One would therefore be motivated to modify the metal complex taught by Pfeiffer with the tert-butyl triazenides taught by Sundermeyer and arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Pfeiffer modified by Sundermeyer teaches the metal complex according to claim 1, and further teaches that the lanthanide is erbium or lutetium (Structures 2 and 3); these elements have the chemical symbols of Er and Lu respectively, which are listed in the groups recited in the instant claim, thus anticipating the claimed groups.
Regarding claim 3, Pfeiffer modified by Sundermeyer teaches the metal complex according to claim 1, and further teaches (i) the monoanionic pi-donor ligand Lc being unsubstituted Cp (Structures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Pfeiffer modified by Sundermeyer teaches the metal complex according to claim 1, and further teaches that the ligand Lz is a monoanionic pi-donor ligand, being an unsubstituted cyclopentadienide anion (Structures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Pfeiffer modified by Sundermeyer teaches the metal complex according to claim 1, and further teaches (ii) the radical R’ and R’’ of the triazenide anion Lt are identical (C6H5, Structures 2 and 3) and (iii) Lz is a monoanionic pi-donor ligand where Lz and Lc are identical (Cp, Structures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Pfeiffer modified by Sundermeyer teaches the metal complex according to claim 1. Pfeiffer further teaches the metal central atom is erbium or lutetium (Structures 2 and 3) and (A)(i) and (A)(ii) the ligands Lc and Lz is a monoanionic pi-donor ligand, being cyclopentadienide; AND Sundermeyer, teaching the modification of tert-butyl radicals R’ and R’’ as discussed above for claim 1, therefore teaches the radicals R’ and R’’ of the triazenide anion Lt being selected from the group recited in the instant claim. For clarity, it is noted that the limitations listed in claim 6 under section (B) have been recited as optional limitations, given the word “or” directly preceding the section, and are therefore met by the embodiment of Pfeiffer modified by Sundermeyer.
Regarding claim 7, Pfeiffer modified by Sundermeyer teaches the metal complex according to claim 1, and Pfeiffer further teaches (ii) the metal complex with erbium (Structure 2) which has a molecular weight of 628 g/mol (given by 3*14 + 2(6*12+5) + 167 + 2(5*12+5) + 5*12 + 14 + 4*1 + 12 +3(12+3*1)) with phenyl substituents on the triazenide ligands. The substitution of tert-butyl groups for phenyl groups as suggested by Sundermeyer (discussed for claim 1 above) would result in a molecular weight of 3*14 + 2(4*12+3*3) + 167 + 2(5*12+5) + 5*12 + 14 + 4*1 + 12 +3(12+3*1) = 588 g/mol.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundermeyer, in view of Pfeiffer and in further view of Sundermeyer (as applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Sundermeyer teaches a method for producing a layer (ii) containing at least one metal M on a surface of a substrate (C10/L16-21), using at least one metal complex according to the formula M[(L1)a(L2)b(L3)cXd] (C5/L9), comprising: (A) provision of the complex and (B) deposition of the layer which (ii) contains the at least one metal M on the surface of the substrate using the at least one metal complex provided in step (A) as the precursor compound (C10/L16-21).
Sundermeyer does not teach that the formula of the metal complex as the formula [M(Lc)(Lt)(Lz)] according to claim 1. However, Pfeiffer modified by Sundermeyer teaches the metal complex as discussed for claim 1 above, having the recited formula. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method taught by Sundermeyer by using the metal complex taught by Pfeiffer and modified by Sundermeyer, as applied to claim 1; one would be motivated to do so because Pfeiffer teaches that the goal of the invention is to find new lanthanide complexes for use as source compounds in CVD processes (Section 2.3) and Sundermeyer teaches that the preferred method of coating is MOCVD (C10/L23-24). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 10, Sundermeyer teaches a method for producing an electronic component (a coated substrate (C10/L17) using at least one metal complex according to the formula M[(L1)a(L2)b(L3)cXd] (C5/L9), comprising: (A) provision of the complex and (B) deposition of the layer which (ii) contains the at least one metal M on the surface of the substrate using the at least one metal complex provided in step (A) as the precursor compound (C10/L16-21). This method satisfies the limitation (C) recited, of “completion of the electronic component,” since the coated substrate can be an electronic component.
Sundermeyer does not teach that the formula of the metal complex as the formula [M(Lc)(Lt)(Lz)] according to claim 1. However, Pfeiffer modified by Sundermeyer teaches the metal complex as discussed for claim 1 above, having the recited formula. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method taught by Sundermeyer by using the metal complex taught by Pfeiffer and modified by Sundermeyer, as applied to claim 1; one would be motivated to do so because Pfeiffer teaches that the goal of the invention is to find new lanthanide complexes for use as source compounds in CVD processes (Section 2.3) and Sundermeyer teaches that the preferred method of coating is MOCVD (C10/L23-24). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights