DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 13 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habuka (2019/0390331) in view of Sun (2002/0192375), Gardner (2014/0335918) and Toda (2006/0037539).
Habuka teaches a process of forming a vanadium nitride film by plasma CVD using vanadium tetrachloride [0031-34]. Habuka teaches an apparatus for the process, see Fig. 1 and related text, and teaches that VCl4 (vanadium halide) is liquid at room temperature, but does not teach a system for providing the gas to the system.
Sun teaches a system for delivering a liquid precursor comprising:
- a precursor source (see Figs. 1,2, 6 and 7 and related text), reagent liquid 14,
- a control valve in fluid communication with the source to control a liquid flow (see 70),
- an injector in fluid communication with the control valve, see heated vaporization chamber 19, 20 or 62 depending on embodiment wherein the injector includes atomizer 50 and a further vaporizer, wherein the vaporizer is not explicitly taught as a heated tube comprising a heater and hollow cylinder, the teachings of Toda are further applied. Toda teaches that an effective heated tube vaporizer (particularly to use in conjunction with an atomized material) includes a hollow cylinder with a radially outer surface and a heater coupled to the same surface, see particularly [0170] and Fig. 2. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the vaporizer of Toda in the apparatus of Haukka and Sun as Sun teaches an atomizer feeding a vaporizer but is silent on the exact details of the evaporator (i.e. heated vaporization chamber) and Toda teaches that such a useful structure includes a hollow cylinder and heater coupled to the radially outer service in the same manner as claimed.
- a reaction chamber in communication with the injector – see chamber 26 which is understood as connected to the vaporization chamber in all embodiments (see text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to apply the liquid delivery system of Sun to the apparatus of Habuka because Habuka teaches a desire to form a vanadium nitride film using a liquid VCl4 but is silent on delivering the precursor and Sun teaches an operable structure for delivering such a liquid precursor and teachings all elements of the claim – it would be understood that the liquid vanadium precursor would be in the noted precursor vessel of Sun.
The teachings include all elements of the claim except for supplying the precursor wherein a pulse of vanadium precursor is alternated with a pulse of inert gas, but Gardner teaches a method of performing ALD formation of vanadium nitride using a vanadium tetrachloride, particularly wherein the precursor is applied alternatively with a nitrogen source [0064]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the vanadium halide in the claimed, alternate manner as Gardner further teaches that an ALD process is a useful manner of forming a vanadium nitride layer – the ALD method would be an operable alternative to the CVD method of Habuka. As the teachings include carrying out a process using an apparatus, a control system is implicitly taught, it is well understood that computer and/or controllers are used to carry out such processes in the semiconductor industry (see MPEP 2144.01 in regard to implicit disclosure – in considering the teachings of a reference it is proper to take into account both explicit and implicit teachings of a reference). In any case/furthermore, Sun teaches a controller [0049-52] and it is understood to form a film by the combination of the teachings. One would apply the control system of Sun for the purpose of controlling all process steps wherein the art is otherwise silent on such an explicit teaching. In regard to the selectively operating the control valve – in combination of the teachings, one would apply the controller of Sun to control the injection of the liquid as required by the process being performed as per Gardner.
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but rather whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Furthermore, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the techniques is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” See id. at 417. In this case, all elements of the instant claim are present in the art as described and it would be a matter of ordinary skill and creativity to carry out the process as claimed. In this case, one is not limited in applying the controller for any particular process (i.e. CVD or ALD) – the process of the combined art includes ALD and that of Sun (particularly) includes supplying a vaporized material for a vapor deposition process.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, VCl4 is taught as noted.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Habuka teaches a nitrogen source, understood as being provided from some type of vessel, a vessel is in any case taught by Sun.
Regarding claim 5, , as per the combined art, one would supply the required reactants for the vanadium nitride film in an alternate, pulsed manner as per the ALD process of Park with an expectation of operability.
Regarding claim 8, all elements are met per above based on Sun and Park and with the vanadium liquid source of Habuka.
Regarding claim 11, all elements are met as per the combined art as per above, including the implicitly taught control system to carry out the process steps, liquid VCl4, nitrogen reactant source and formation of vanadium nitride.
Regarding claim 34, in combination of the teachings it would be understood that the control valve is controlled to supply the required precursor.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habuka, Sun, Gardner, Toda and Bang.
The teachings of Habuka, Sun, Toda and Ogawa are described above and won’t be repeated. The combined teachings include all elements of the claim except for the presence of the liquid flow meter (LFM)– but Bang teaches that it is useful to control a liquid flow from a liquid precursor vessel to a valve though a liquid flow meter [0027]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the LFM of Bang to the system of Habuka et al as the LFM of Bang would allow a further level of control of the liquid to be conveyed.
Regarding claim 22, the combined is understood to control an amount of liquid, and, as per the functionality of the vaporizer, vaporize the amount of liquid supplied.
Regarding claim 25, Sun teaches a carrier gas feeding to the atomizer (Figs).
Regarding claim 29, the teachings of the combined art are applied above over claim 1, with Bang further applied as in claim 21 and details not repeated.
Regarding claim 30, the teachings of the combined art are applied above over claim 30, with Bang further applied as in claim 21 and details not repeated, the control valve is already taught by Sun as noted.
Regarding claim 31, the teachings of the combined art are applied above over claim 1, with Bang further applied as in claim 21 and details not repeated. Sun teaches the noted control valve and the flow of the vanadium precursor is understood per the combined art and the described ALD process.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, the combined art teaches valves – to the extent valves are not specifically described in each of the areas claimed, Examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to include valves at various points along fluid lines and between vaporizers and chambers, etc. To include the claimed valves would therefore have been obvious – it would further follow that to carry out the required controller steps, the valves would be opened by the controller as required to perform the noted steps.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 25 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Habuka, Sun, Toda, Gardner and Bang in view of Jungermann.
The teachings of Habuka, Sun, Ogawa and Bang are described above, including the claimed aerosol generator, i.e. atomizer, but not teaching a specific control mechanism to control the feed of liquid. Jungermann, however, teaches that in order to evaporate liquid coming from an aerosol mixing device, it is useful to monitor and control the flow of liquid into the atomizer [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to apply the liquid flow meter of Jungermann in the apparatus of Sun (and Habuka) as it would help to control the amount of flow into the atomizer. The combined teachings include liquid vanadium as noted. The liquid flow meter is taught by Bang as per above.
Regarding claims 22 and 24, the injector of Sun comprises the atomizer and heating element as described above, the heating element of Sun as per above meets the requirements of the claimed heated conduit.
Regarding claim 25, a carrier gas is taught as per above claim 4.
Regarding claim 31, the Office initially holds the position that the claim is addressed as above, but if it were determined that the teachings do not specifically teach the claimed flow of material – the teachings of Jungermann are further applied to support the specific flow of such material including the control of flow into the atomizer.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, the claims are rejected in the manner as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the controller is not adequately taught by the combined prior art, the Office does not agree.
Initially, applicants point to comments in the specification – but the Office does not find that the comments support that one would not have combined the art for the reasons of record to arrive at the claimed invention. There is no actual support for any expectation of problems in applying the prior art as presented. Applicants conclude the paragraph on arguments p9 with that one would be aware of the problems identified in specification [0024-25] but there is no specific support for the problems argued nor is there any reason to expect the apparatus to inoperable.
Secondly, applicants argue that Gardner does not disclose a control system, but, as per above, the control system is argued as per Sun, which is already part of the rejection. Further, and per the third argument, applicants argue against Official Notice – the Office however has clarified that this is a matter of implicit teachings. One of ordinary skill in the art would be challenged to find a production (and even an applications-lab-scale) apparatus that is not controlled via computer/controller and the Office now cites MPEP 2144.01 in regard to implicit disclosure.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Flex).
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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715