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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed March 7, 2023 are accepted.
However, it is noted that the patent or application file contains at least one drawing represented by black and white photographs. Photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1 and 2) which states “Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.” In the present instance, the photographs appear to be useful in depicting the claimed invention as described by the specification and therefore are considered within the acceptable outline of 37 C.F.R. 1.8(b)(1).
In conclusion, the photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. See again 37 C.F.R. 1.8(b)(1). New photographs or drawings may be required if upon time of printing the quality is deficient.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 8 and 12 – 18 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 and/or 2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tsuchibuchi (US 2021190487).
Tsuchibuchi teaches formation of devices for semiconductor production. This includes 1) a filling container for solid material supply comprised of stainless steel, aluminum, silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, or silicon nitride; and 2) a corrosion resistant coating selected from the group consisting of stainless steel, aluminum, silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, and glass. The solid material is supplied as a solid material vapor which may include inorganic metal compounds such as aluminum, hafnium, indium, molybdenum, tantalum, titanium, tungsten, yttrium and zirconium, and organic metal compounds. MoO2Cl2 is specifically named in test example 4 as the solid material, with stainless steel SUS316L as the material for the container, and a heating temperature of 135 C.
Tsuchibuchi does not describe reduction or inhibition of mass change at the high temperatures as being part of the corrosion resistance, nor the development of blue material absence the coating.
However, the properties of mass change and blue material development are a result of the materials being used (see present specification). As stainless steel is the same material disclosed by applicant as developing the blue coating (e.g. application paragraph [0056]), this same container substrate would be expected to form the blue material absent the coating under the claimed conditions. Similarly, as applicant discloses the claimed mass change reduction or inhibition is due to an oxide coating such as alumina (e.g. application paragraph [0061]), the same materials disclosed by Tsuchibuchi necessarily produce the same result.
In the alternative, while Tsuchibuchi do not provide for the specific coating used with example 4 referenced above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the finite lists of options available in forming the coating of alumina or another suitable material and arrive at the disclosed materials, let alone select from the finite lists of options for each claimed component as described by the reference’s general disclosure and arrive at overlapping compositions. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With regard to Claims 2-3, a mass gain as claimed is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 4, 6 – 8 and 12, a mass loss is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 13, a mass gain due to a molybdenum residue is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claims 14 – 15, formation of molybdenum residue is therefore inhibited when the vapor is at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius or greater.
With regard to Claim 16, a mass gain due to a molybdenum residue that is not a post – ash residue is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 17, a mass gain due to a molybdenum residue that is particulate matter is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 18, a device for delivering vapor is therefore taught.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 8 and 12 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaushal et al (US 2003/0029563) in view of Tsuchibuchi (US 2021190487).
Regarding claim 1, Kaushal et al disclose semiconductor fabrication tools (devices) including a coating including a rare-earth material such as alumina to improve corrosion resistance in plasma etching and high temperature deposition environments that include gas/vapor (paragraph [0039]). The coating protects against corrosion at high temperatures as high as 700 C (paragraph [0065]) which falls within and therefor anticipates the claimed temperature range.
Kaushal et al. do not define the gas/vapor as being one of the claimed molybdenum compounds. Further, they do not describe reduction or inhibition of mass change at the high temperatures as being part of the corrosion resistance, nor the development of blue material absence the coating.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor fabrication, Tsuchibuchi teaches formation of devices for semiconductor production. This includes 1) a filling container for solid material supply comprised of stainless steel, aluminum, silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, or silicon nitride; and 2) a coating selected from the group consisting of stainless steel, aluminum, silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, and glass. The solid material is supplied as a solid material vapor which may include inorganic metal compounds such as aluminum, hafnium, indium, molybdenum, tantalum, titanium, tungsten, yttrium and zirconium, and organic metal compounds. MoO2Cl2 is specifically named in test example 4 as the solid material, with stainless steel SUS316L as the material for the container, and a heating temperature of 135 C.
It would be obvious to use one of the disclosed materials such as stainless steel for the container of Kaushal et al. with the gas/vapor formed from molybdenum such as MoO2Cl2 as taught by Tsuchibuchi. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). As stainless steel is the same material disclosed by applicant as developing the blue coating (e.g. application paragraph [0056]), this same container substrate would be expected to form the blue material absent the coating under the claimed conditions. Similarly, as applicant discloses the claimed mass change reduction or inhibition is due to an oxide coating such as alumina (e.g. application paragraph [0061]), the same materials disclosed by Tsuchibuchi necessarily produce the same result.
With regard to Claims 2-3, a mass gain as claimed is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 4, 6 – 8 and 12, a mass loss is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 13, a mass gain due to a molybdenum residue is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claims 14 – 15, formation of molybdenum residue is therefore inhibited when the vapor is at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius or greater.
With regard to Claim 16, a mass gain due to a molybdenum residue that is not a post – ash residue is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 17, a mass gain due to a molybdenum residue that is particulate matter is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 18, a device for delivering vapor is therefore taught.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 8 and 12 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0131628 A1) in view of Sagusa et al (JP H09 – 10577 A; English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Baum et al disclose vapor deposition of molybdenum dioxydichloride (paragraph 0001), therefore coating by exposure to a vapor, in the manufacture of a semiconductor (paragraph 0001) and also disclose deposition onto a substrate that is aluminum oxide (paragraph 0030). Baum et al fail to disclose coating onto at least a portion of a device, wherein a coating is exposed to the vapor and the coating reduces mass change at an outer surface of the device from exposure to the vapor and in the absence of the coating the vapor forming a blue material on the device.
Sagusa et al teach a device that is equipment for vapor deposition that is CVD (paragraph 0003) for the manufacture of semiconductor products, and a thin film of the vapor adhering to the device (a thin film also adheres to various structural members installed in the vacuum equipment other than the target substrate; paragraph 0002), the device comprising aluminum oxide coating a substrate that is a base metal (paragraph 0017) that is stainless steel (paragraph 0016) for the purpose of obtaining excellent corrosion resistance (paragraph 0017). Sagusa et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is deposition as evidenced by paragraph 0003.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the aluminum oxide disclosed by Baum er al to comprise a coating on stainless steel in order to obtain a device having excellent corrosion resistance as taught by Sagusa et al. Because aluminum oxide that is a coating of stainless steel is also disclosed in paragraph 0061 of the instant specification, no mass change would be observed. Additionally, in the absence of the coating of aluminum oxide, the vapor would form a blue material on the surface of the stainless steel. The coating is therefore configured for exposure to the vapor, and the coating reduces a mass change.
With regard to Claim 2-3, a mass gain as claimed is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 4, 6 – 8 and 12, a mass loss is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 13, a mass gain due to a molybdenum residue is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claims 14 – 15, formation of molybdenum residue is therefore inhibited when the vapor is at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius or greater.
With regard to Claim 16, a mass gain due to a molybdenum residue that is not a post – ash residue is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 17, a mass gain due to a molybdenum residue that is particulate matter is therefore inhibited.
With regard to Claim 18, a device for delivering vapor is therefore taught by Sagusa et al.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are addressed below. Further, new grounds of rejection have been outlined above that do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the temperature limitation newly added to claim 1 is outside of the range newly claimed and is “likely why Baum et al. did not see the blue material formation described in the present application.” The argument goes on to say it is this increase in temperature that can produce reaction between materials conventionally used to connect the ampoule to the reaction chamber, resulting tin the formation of blue material on the surfaces. Thus, the argument states Baum et al. and other early art did not identify the problem of molybdenum precursors depositing the blue material on surfaces when the precursors were heated to higher temperatures (above 100C).
In response, it is noted that stainless steel is the same material disclosed by applicant as developing the blue coating (e.g. application paragraph [0056]). This same container substrate would be expected to form the blue material absent the coating under the claimed conditions. Similarly, as applicant discloses the claimed mass change reduction or inhibition is due to an oxide coating such as alumina (e.g. application paragraph [0061]), the same materials necessarily produce the same result. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily posses the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
It is further important to note that the limitations with respect to the vapor and exposure of the container with or without a coating thereto relate to the intended use of the device claimed. That is to say, the claims are to a device and the combination of references establish the obviousness of the claimed device. Structural claims, such as claims directed to an article or apparatus, must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein; see also In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959) ("Claims drawn to an apparatus must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function"); In re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948) ("It is trite to state that the patentability of apparatus claims must be shown in the structure claimed and not merely upon a use, function, or result thereof."). The record fails to establish how the intended use results in a structural difference from the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights