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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, Subspecies Ia, in the reply filed on 3/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully request withdrawal of the restriction requirement based on the generic nature of claim 1”. This is found persuasive because currently amended claim 1 is now generic to Species I and II & claims 6-7 amended to clarify that the interlayer is an intermediate diffusion blocking layer. Hence, the Restriction/Election, mailed on 1/27/2026, is withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 & 18-22 are pending in this application. Claims 12-17 are cancelled. Claims 18-22 are new.
Claim Objections
2. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claim 1,
-lines 5, 7, 9 & 12: after “getter material” insert --layer--,
-lines 7 & 11: in front of “hydrogen” insert --the--,
-line 13: after “surface material” insert –layer--.
Re claim 2, lines 1-2: after “getter material” insert --layer--.
Re claim 5, lines 1-2: after “surface material” insert --layer--.
Re claim 6, line 3: in front of “preventing”, delete “interlayer” and insert --intermediate diffusion-blocking layer--.
Re claim 10, line 3: delete “and surface materials” and insert --layer and surface material layer--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
3. Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egert (US 5,654,084).
Re claim 1, Egert teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-2, abstract, claims 1, 3 & cols.1 & 3-4, a high-temperature getter device (10’) for removing (as intended use or based on similar used material) hydrogen from an ambient in a processing chamber (e.g., vacuum chamber) during high-temperature processing (**) of a material sample (e.g., layer 14 or any layer in the stack), comprising:
-a getter material layer (getter layer 26) (e.g., even closer to substrate 12, col. 3, last par. & col. 4, 2nd par.);
-a diffusion-blocking layer (physical barrier 16, in phantom lines 24 as additional layers) (col. 3, last par.& col. 4, 2nd par.) disposed on an upper surface of the getter material (26); and
-a surface material layer (additional layer 16 of plurality of physical barriers, in phantom lines 24 as additional layers) (claim 1, col. 3, last par.& col. 4, 2nd par.) disposed on an upper surface of the diffusion-blocking material layer (16);
wherein the getter material (26, e.g., titanium or lithium) (col.4, 2nd par.) absorbs and retains (*) (based on similar material) hydrogen from the ambient at a processing temperature of about 500 to about 2000oC (**) (e.g., based on similar used material);
wherein the surface material layer (16) prevents (*) damage to the getter material (26) from exposure to nitrogen and oxygen in the ambient at the processing temperature (e.g., based on selected metal material of 16); and
wherein the diffusion-blocking layer (16, e.g., molybdenum) (col. 3, 2nd par.) allows (*) hydrogen from the ambient to pass through and be absorbed by the getter material (26) while preventing (*) mixing of the getter material (26) and the surface material (18) at the processing temperature (e.g., based on similar used material).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(*) The limitations: “for removing hydrogen from an ambient”, “prevents damage to the getter material”, “allows hydrogen from the ambient” & “preventing mixing…” are merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior arts. While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.Cir.1997). Further, the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional/intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. Additionally, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
(**) The limitation "during high-temperature processing of a material sample" & “at a processing temperature of about 500 to about 2000 C” are merely a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Re claim 2, Egert teaches wherein the getter material (26) comprises titanium (Ti) (col. 4, 2nd par.), yttrium (Y), or an alloy thereof.
Re claim 3, Egert teaches wherein the diffusion- blocking layer (16) comprises any one or more of chromium (Cr), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), Molybdenum (Mo) (col. 3, 2nd par.), Tungsten (W), or alloys thereof.
Re claim 4, Egert teaches wherein the diffusion- blocking layer (16) comprises a stack of material layers of chromium (Cr), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), Molybdenum (Mo) (e.g., molybdenum), Tungsten (W), or alloys thereof (e.g., plurality of continuous of physical barrier material, see claims 1 & 3).
Re claim 6, Edgert teaches an intermediate diffusion-blocking layer (another layer 16) disposed between the getter material layer (26) and the diffusion-blocking layer (16), the interlayer (16) preventing (*) mixing of the getter material (26) and the diffusion-blocking material (16) at the processing temperature.
Note: consider at least 3 layers 16 in a stack.
Re claim 7, Egert teaches the intermediate diffusion-blocking layer (16) comprises chromium (Cr), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), Molybdenum (Mo) (see claim 3), Tungsten (W), or alloys thereof.
Re claim 18, Egert teaches wherein the material sample includes a hydrogen-blocking layer (diffusion barrier layer 14).
4. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baek et al. (US 2011/0291066).
Re claims 1 & 2, Baek teaches, under BRI, Fig. 1, [0050, 0052], a high-temperature getter device (71) for removing (*) (as intended use) hydrogen from an ambient in a processing chamber during high-temperature processing of a material sample (as preamble), comprising:
-a getter material layer (getter layer 50);
-a diffusion-blocking layer (diffusion barrier 41) disposed on an upper surface of the getter material (50); and
-a surface material layer (electrode 60) disposed on an upper surface of the diffusion-blocking material layer (41);
wherein the getter material (50) absorbs and retains (*) hydrogen from the ambient at a processing temperature of about 500 to about 2000oC (**) (e.g., based on titanium (Ti)) [0052];
wherein the surface material layer (60) prevents (*) damage to the getter material (26) from exposure to nitrogen and oxygen in the ambient at the processing temperature (e.g., based on selected metal material) [0050];
wherein the diffusion-blocking layer (41) allows (*) hydrogen from the ambient to pass through and be absorbed by the getter material (50) while preventing (*) mixing of the getter material (50) and the surface material (60) at the processing temperature (e.g., based on aluminum oxide) [0052]; and
wherein the getter material (50) comprises titanium (Ti) [0052], yttrium (Y) or an alloy thereof.
PNG
media_image2.png
264
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(*) The limitations “for removing hydrogen from an ambient”, “prevents damage to the getter material”, “allows hydrogen from the ambient” & “preventing mixing…” are merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior arts. While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.Cir.1997). Further, the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional/intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. Additionally, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
(**) The limitation “at a processing temperature of about 500 to about 2000 C” is merely a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
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 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.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egert in view of Kageyama (US 2012/0145534).
The teachings of Egert have been discussed above.
Re claim 5, Egert does not explicitly teach wherein the surface material comprises palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), rhodium (Rh), rhenium (Re), Ruthenium (Ru), or Iridium (Ire), or an alloy thereof.
Kageyama teaches “the formation of the Ru film as the protective layer” [0159].
As taught by Kageyama, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain material of the surface material as claimed, because Ru is a known metal & widely used in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kageyama in combination Egert due to above reason.
6. Claims 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egert in view of Ozoegawa et al. (JP 2004-319180 A, English translation attached).
The teachings of Egert have been discussed above.
Re claim 8, Egert does not wherein the getter device is situated in the processing chamber separate from the material sample being processed.
Ozoegawa teaches, Fig. 4, [0026, 0028], the getter device (38) is situated in the processing chamber (30) separate from the material sample (e.g., substrate 11) being processed.
As taught by Ozoegawa, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the getter device is situated in the processing chamber separate from the material sample being processed, because getter device is commonly used in vacuum chamber to reduce/prevent getter flash from adhering to the substrate.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Ozoegawa in combination Egert due to above reason.
Re claim 9, in combination cited above, Ozoegawa teaches wherein the getter device (38) comprises a plurality of discrete blocks or sheets of the getter material (see also Egert’s teaching, claim 1, e.g., at least one continuous layer of getter material) contained within an enclosure (42) inside the processing chamber (30).
Re claim 11, in combination cited above, Ozoegawa teaches, Fig. 4, wherein the getter device (38) is situated as a cap disposed on the material sample (within getter deposition position 40) being process.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egert in view of Ozoegawa et al. (JP 2004-319180 A, English translation attached) and Palena et al. (US 2009/0220382).
The teachings of Egert have been discussed above.
Re claim 10, Egert teaches the getter device (see claim 1 above) & Eger in view Ozoegawa teaches wherein the getter device (38) containing within an enclosure (42) inside the processing chamber (30) (Ozoegawa’s Fig. 4) (see also claims 8 & 9 discussed above).
Egert/Ozoegawa does not teach the getter device comprises a plurality of core/shell powder in which the getter material is the core and the diffusion-blocking and surface materials are the shells.
Palena teaches “the nano-getter device 10 may include one or more dendrimers 40 which encapsulate a semiconducting quantum dot and/or plasmonic metal-dielectric core-shell nanoparticle” [0028].
As taught by Palena, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the getter device comprises a plurality of core/shell powder in which the getter material is the core and the diffusion-blocking and surface materials are the shells as claimed, because it aids in achieving desired dimension/shape of a getter device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Palena in combination Egert/Ozoegawa due to above reason.
8. Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egert in view of Feigelson et al. (US 2012/0068188).
The teachings of Egert have been discussed above.
Re claim 19, Egert does not teach wherein the hydrogen-blocking layer in the material sample is selected from the group consisting of: n-type gallium nitride (GaN), aluminum nitride (AIN), indium nitride (InN), scandium nitride (ScN), boron nitride (BN) and/or alloys thereof.
Feigelson teaches the hydrogen-blocking layer in the material sample is GaN or AlN (Fig. 2).
As taught by Feigelson, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain material of the hydrogen-blocking layer as claimed, because GaN or AlN are known materials in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Feigelson in combination Egert due to above reason.
Re claim 20, in combination cited above, Fiegelson teaches, Fig. 2, wherein the hydrogen-blocking layer (202) comprises an in-situ dopant-implanted region (with Mg ions 204) within the material sample being processed.
Re claim 21, in combination cited above, Fiegelson teaches wherein the material sample is a p-type [0051] and the hydrogen-blocking layer is a n-type [0055].
9. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egert as modified by view of Ozoegawa as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Fiegelson.
The teachings of Egert/Ozoegawa have been discussed above.
Re claim 22, Egert/Ozoegawa does not teach the material sample comprises gallium nitride (GaN).
Fiegelson teaches wherein the material sample comprises gallium nitride (GaN) (Fig. 2).
As taught by Feigelson, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain material of the material sample as claimed, because GaN is known materials in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Feigelson in combination Egert/Ozoegawa due to above reason.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 4/20/26
Prosecution Insights