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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Dependent claim 15 is not further limiting of independent claim 13 in regards to the concentration range of: “no more than 1 mole% dialkyltin compounds” because said concentration range is outside the scope of independent claim 13. Likewise dependent claim 23 is not further limiting of independent claim 13 in regards to the concentration range of: “no more than 4 mole% dialkyltin compounds” because said concentration range is outside the scope of independent claim 13. Dependent claim 24 is also being rejected here because it is dependent on rejected base claim 23.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meyers et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2016/0116839 A1 optionally in view of Deelman et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2011/0166268 A1.
Meyers et al. discloses organometallic radiation resist compositions are described based on tin ions with alkyl ligands. Some of the compositions have branched alkyl ligands to provide for improved patterning contrast while maintaining a high degree of solution stability. Blends of compounds with distinct alkyl ligands can provide further improvement in the patterning. High resolution patterning with a half-pitch of no more than 25 nm can be achieved with a line width roughness of no more than about 4.5 nm. Synthesis techniques have been developed that allow for the formation of alkyl tin oxide hydroxide compositions with very low metal contamination, see abstract.
Meyers provides several examples of potential precursor solutions that can be used in the disclosed coatings and methods. Specifically, Example 7, paragraphs [0150]-[0151], of Meyers teaches preparation of "a water-reactive precursor, isopropyl tris(dimethylamido)tin, (i-PrSn(NMe₂)₃ by mixing LiNMe₂ and anhydrous hexanes, and then adding i-PrSnCl₃ by addition funnel to the reaction flask dropwise over a period of two hours. After the reaction was brought to room temperature, the reaction mixture was filtered, the solvent was removed and the residue distilled. ¹H and ¹¹⁹Sn NMR of the distillate in a C₆D₆ solvent "match[ed] the predicted spectra for PrSn(NMe₂)₃ and the "primary ¹¹⁹Sn resonance" was "consistent with a major product with a single tin environment, with a chemical shift comparable to reported monoalkyltin amido compounds.
Applicant’s claims are deemed to be anticipated over said disclosure because a single tin environment of PrSn(NMe₂)₃ would inherently have no more than 4 mole% of dialkyltin compounds as an impurity and no more than 0.1 mole% of Sn(NMe2)4 as an impurity.
In the alternative, if Meyers et al. Example 7 does result in the reaction product of PrSn(NMe₂)₃ that actually contains more than 4 mole% of dialkyltin compounds as an impurity and more than 0.1 mole% of Sn(NMe2)4 as an impurity, Meyers et al. can be optionally taken in view of Deelman et al..
Please note that Meyers further recognized a need for high purity monoalkyltin compounds: "As described herein, low metal contamination synthesis approaches can be accomplished with appropriate alternative hydrolysis approaches and high- purity alkyltin precursors, see abstract and paragraph [0063].
Deelman et al. discloses High Purity Monoalkyltin Compounds and uses thereof. Specifically alkyltin compound compositions containing monoalkyltin as a major compound, and minor quantities of di- and/or trialkyltin compounds are disclosed, see the Abstract. Deelman further teaches that "high purity monoalkyltin trihalides can be converted to other mono-alkyltin derivatives that are of interest for several existing applications.", see paragraph [0010].
Deelman et al. explains "[s]electively produced mono-alkyltin trihalides have been found to be easily converted to mono-alkyltin compounds of formula RSn(T)₃ by reacting mono-alkyltin halides RSn(Hal)₃ with a compound of formula H-T in the presence of a suitable base.", see paragraph [0031]. "[T]he monoalkyltin trihalides can be separated from the reaction medium by distillation, solvent extraction, crystallization, and the like.", see paragraph [0057].
Deelman et al.’s "Detailed Description of the Invention" states that the monoalkyltin compound compositions may have "from 85 wt% to 99.999 wt%, of at least one monoalkyltin compound of formula RSn(T)₃, in which R is linear, branched or cyclic C₁-C₂₀ alkyl, preferably C₁-C₁₀ alkyl, and T is a ligand, see paragraph [0013]. "As regards the ligand T, it is any ligand known in the art[.]", see paragraph [0023]. In another aspect, Deelman states the composition can comprise a "weight ratio of (mono-alkyltin compound)/(di-alkyltin compound) of not less than 90/10, preferably of not less than 95/5, most preferably of not less than 97/3.", see paragraph [0017].
Deelman et al. further teaches that the compositions can include "organic, aprotic or even protic solvents," including ethers and alcohols, and specifically lists "tetrahydrofuran (THF), ethanol, and 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME)" as suitable solvents, see paragraph [0052].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Meyers et al.’s disclosure alone as strong motivative to make a single tin environment of PrSn(NMe₂)₃ that would inherently have no more than 4 mole% of dialkyltin compounds as an impurity and no more than 0.1 mole% of Sn(NMe2)4 as an impurity since having very low metal contamination environment is directly taught as being highly advantageous. It is well known that it is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
Optionally, the disclosure of the secondary reference to Deelman et al. can be combined with Meyers et al.’s disclosure for Deelman et al.’s disclosure that it is well known in the same art that it is highly advantageous to make monoalkyltin compound compositions that have "from 85 wt% to 99.999 wt%, of at least one monoalkyltin compound of formula RSn(T)₃, in which R is linear, branched or cyclic C₁-C₂₀ alkyl, preferably C₁-C₁₀ alkyl, and T is a ligand, see paragraph [0013]. As such, using Deelman et al.’s said disclosure, one having ordinary skill in the art would be well motivated to make Meyers et al.’s PrSn(NMe₂)₃ compound such that it has no more than 4 mole% of dialkyltin compounds as an impurity and no more than 0.1 mole% of Sn(NMe2)4 as an impurity.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are deemed to be a subset of the patented claims.
Claims 1-2 and 4-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,897,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap in the scope of the claim sets. As way of illustration only, patented independent claim 1 requires that the alkyl group attached to the (Sn) atom is a cyclohexyl group which falls directly within the definition of R as set forth in pending independent claims 1 and 13.
Claims Free of Prior-Art Rejections
Claims 13-24 are free of any prior-art rejections in light of the reasons for allowance, as set forth in great grandparent case 15/950,286 now U.S. Patent Number 11,673,903. Please note that pending claims 13-24 are deemed to be a subset of patented claims 1-9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights