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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeon (KR102138149).
Regarding claim 1, instant claim is limited by the claim language of “for a molybdenum-based thin film, wherein the molybdenum-based thin film comprises molybdenum metal, molybdenum oxide or molybdenum nitride on a substrate". The limitation is intended use of the “film quality improver” with the chemical formular. The recitation of purpose or intended use must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. (see MPEP 2111.02, II). In the instant claims, Yeon teaches a method of forming a metal containing thin film (paragraph 0001), wherein the metal is molybdenum and can be nitride or oxide (paragraphs 0004, 0051-0053). Yeon teaches to inject an inhibitor to the deposition chamber to be adsorbed on the surface of the substate (paragraphs 0017, 0046 and 0090), wherein the inhibitor facilitates to improve step coverage and thickness uniformity of the thin film being formed on a substate having complex structure (paragraph 0001), which reads on the limitation of film quality improver for the molybdenum based thin film. Yeon teaches the inhibitor comprises the structure of AnBmXo, wherein A is carbon or silicon, X is halogen (F, Cl, Br or I), B is hydrogen or alkyl having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, n is an integer of 1, o is an integer 1, and m is 2n+1 (paragraphs 0015-0016), which reads on the claimed chemical formula 1. Thus, Yeon teaches the film quality improver with the saturated compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, instant claim is limited by the claim language of “the film quality improver does not remain in the molybdenum based thin film". The limitation is intended use of the “film quality improver” with the chemical formular. The recitation of purpose or intended use must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. (see MPEP 2111.02, II). Nevertheless, Yeon teaches the film quality improver is removed during the deposition process (paragraphs 0103-0104, figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, instant claim is limited by the claim language of “the molybdenum based thin film is used as a diffusion barrier or an electrode". The limitation is intended use of the “film quality improver” with the chemical formular. The recitation of purpose or intended use must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. (see MPEP 2111.02, II). Nevertheless, Yeon teaches the metal nitride deposition is intended to used a diffusion barrier (paragraphs 0004 and 0051-0053).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon (KR102138149) as applied to claims 1 and 4-5 above.
Regarding claim 2, Yeon teach the same film quality improver with the chemical formular as claimed which reads on the specific quality improver in the instant claimed invention example, such as tert-butyl iodide, diiodomethane etc (paragraph 0061 and table 1 of the instant application publication), which has the claimed refractive index. Thus, Yeon’s chemical formula 1 includes some of the compounds with the same refractive index and considered to have overlapping range with the claimed range of refractive index. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Yeon teach the same film quality improver with the chemical formular as claimed which reads on the specific quality improver in the instant claimed invention example, such as tert-butyl iodide, diiodomethane etc (paragraph 0061 and table 1 of the instant application publication), which has the claimed integral value of newly created peak. Thus, Yeon’s chemical formula 1 includes some of the compounds with the same integral value of newly created peak and considered to have overlapping range with the claimed range of integral value of newly created peak. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Yeon teaches the metal precursor is in liquid form in the ambient atmosphere (paragraphs 0058-0064).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4 of copending Application No. 18014452. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the two claimed formular completely overlap in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11746411 in view of Yeon (KR102138149). Claims 1-5 overlaps with claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11746411, including the two claimed formular completely overlap in scope. Thus, the two sets of claim completely overlap except the film is Ti based film. However, titanium and molybdenum in forming ALD thin film using inhibitor are considered as functionally equivalent as evidenced thin film material by Yeon (paragraph 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute molybdenum for titanium as the thin film material in claims 1-5.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No.12252788. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5 and claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No.12252788 completely overlap in scope; the two claimed formular completely overlap in scope
Claims 1-5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12421599 in view of Yeon (KR102138149). Claims 1-5 overlaps with claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12421599 (tert-butyl bromide reads on chemical formula 1).
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 9 and 11-13 of copending Application No. 17512724. Claims 6-10 overlaps with claims 7, 9 and 11-13 of Applicant No. 17512724 (at least tert-butyl chloride reads on chemical formula 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18691435. Claims 1-5 overlaps with claims 7-15 of copending Application No. 18691435.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-13 and 16 of copending Application No. 18910856. Claims 1-5 overlaps with claims 7-13 and 16 of copending Application No.18910856.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-13 and 16-18 of copending Application No. 18950715. Claims 6-10 overlaps with claims 7-13 and 16-18 of copending Application No. 18950715.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights