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 .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: the locking member in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the locking member is interpreted as being two pieces that lock together.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The fastening member in claim 11 is not being interpreted under 112(f) because the generic placeholder (fastening member) is modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Specifically, the generic place holder (fastening member) is defined in the claim as being a bolt and a nut.
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, 4, and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itsuki et al, JP 6887688 B2 (see US 2022/0090261 A1 for English equivalent).
Itsuki et al teaches:
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 17, a vaporizable source material container 100 for storing and vaporizing a metal halide for thin film deposition as a vaporizable source material, the vaporizable source material container comprising: an inner container 12a accommodated in an outer container 12b, constituting a double-wall structure together with the outer container; a lid body 4 including an inner lid detachably fixed to the inner container and an outer lid detachably fixed to the outer container; a gas introduction pipe (pipe upstream of 8) connected to a carrier gas inlet 8 disposed in the lid body, wherein the portions of the inner container, the outer container, and the gas introduction pipe to be in contact in a gas and solid state with the metal halide (aluminum chloride, AlCl.sub.3) for thin film deposition are made of a metal (aluminum) material that is the same metal as the metal halide for thin film deposition and has a purity of 99 (2N) to 99.9999 (6N), and wherein the carrier gas G1 supplied through the carrier gas inlet flows into the inner container after passing through the gas introduction pipe, and mixed gas G3 which is the mixture of the metal halide for thin film deposition vaporized into a gas state G2 in the inner container by heating and the canier gas G1 entered into the inner container is released from a mixed gas outlet 18 provided in the lid body 4.
Regarding claim 4, the inner container is further provided with a dividing wall 22 for dividing the inner space into two spaces, one of which is a vaporizable source material storage space on the inner lid side, constituting an upper wall of the inner container, and the other of which is a carrier gas diffusion space on the bottom wall side of the inner container, wherein one or more through holes are formed in the dividing wall, wherein the end of the gas introduction pipe has a structure of penetrating through the dividing wall and extending to a position immediately above the bottom wall of the inner container, and wherein the carrier gas is released in the carrier gas diffusion space from the end of the gas introduction pipe, and the carrier gas diffused in the carrier gas diffusion space is released through the through holes into the vaporizable source material storage space storing the metal halide for thin film deposition. (Figure 1)
Regarding claim 7, one or more members 26 disposed in the inner container 12a and having a maximum length of 1 to 30 mm and made of the same material (aluminum) as a metal constituting the metal halide (aluminum chloride, AlCl.sub.3) for thin film deposition (Figure 3, Paragraph 0020)
Regarding claim 8, the fastening members and the joint members are electrolytic polished or chemical polished.
Regarding claim 9 and 10, a fluorocarbon polymer coating or ceramic coating is further applied to the surfaces subjected to electrolytic polishing or chemical polishing.
Regarding claim 11, comprising fastening members 6 for fixing the outer lid to the outer container, wherein the fastening members are each composed of a bolt member inserted into a bolt insertion hole provided in the outer container and the outer lid and a nut member screwed to the bolt member to be capable of fastening (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, one of the metal halide for thin film deposition is (aluminum chloride, AlCl.sub.3) which is a compound represented by a general formula; MXn, where M represents a metal element constituting the metal halide for thin film deposition, X a halogen element, and n the number of X atoms. (Other metal halides can be found in Paragraphs 0078-0079)
Regarding claim 13, a vaporizable source material to be used for thin film deposition by a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) method is stored therein.
Regarding claim 14, a vaporizable source material to be used for thin film deposition by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) method is stored.
Regarding claim 15, a valve 30 is installed in a gas flow path downstream from the mixed gas outlet, the valve is a vacuum valve with a CV value (in terms of water) of 0.2 or greater.
Regarding claim 18, the metal halide for thin film deposition stored in the vaporizable source material container is heated by heating the sidewalls or both the sidewalls and a bottom plate of the vaporizable source material container (Paragraph 0081), and the carrier gas, supplied from the carrier gas inlet and released into the inner container, flowing through the gas introduction pipe, is also heated, and wherein mixed gas is generated by mixing the metal halide for thin film deposition vaporized by heating with the carrier gas heated in the gas introduction pipe.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itsuki et al, JP 6887688 B2, in view of Nakagawa et al, US 2021/0371977 A1.
Itsuki et al was discussed above.
Itsuki et al differs from the present invention in that Itsuki et al does not teach all of the claimed well known design arrangements for supplying carrier gas to the metal halide.
Nakagawa et al teaches all of the claimed well known arrangements for suppling carrier gas to the metal halide. (See Figures)
The motivation for replacing the design arrangement of Itsuki et al with one of the alternate, well known designs taught by Nakagawa et al is to provide an alternate design arrangement as taught by Nakagawa et al. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the design arrangement of Itsuki et al with one of the alternate well known designs taught by Nakagawa et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed June 30, 2026, with respect to the 112 rejections of claims 7-10 have overcome the 112 rejections. The 112 rejection of claims 7-10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the argument that Itsuki et al does not teach “the portions of … the gas introduction pipe to be … are made of a metal material that is the same metal as the metal halide for thin film deposition and has a purity of 2N to 6N.”, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
Claim 1 requires “a gas introduction pipe connected to a carrier gas inlet disposed in the lid body,
wherein
the portions of the inner container, the outer container, and the gas introduction pipe to be in contact in a gas and solid state with the metal halide for thin film deposition are made of a metal material that is the same metal as the metal halide for thin film deposition and has a purity of 2N to 6N,” (emphsis added). Thus, the claim requires a gas introduction pipe connected to a carrier gas inlet disposed in the lid body and any portion of the inner container, the outer container, and the gas introduction pipe in contact (exposed to) the gas or solid state of the metal halide are made from the same metal as the metal halide and has a purity of 2N to 6N. There is no requirement for parts not exposed to the metal halide to be made the same pure metal. Itsuki et al teaches a gas introduction pipe (pipe upstream of 8) connected to a carrier gas inlet 8 disposed in the lid body and is not in contact (exposed to) the gas or solid state of the metal halide. Therefore, there is no requirement in claim 1 that the gas introduction pipe be made of a metal material that is the same metal as the metal halide with a purity of 2N to 6N, and the arguments based on this alleged requirement are moot.
The Examiner notes that if a reference provides an example in the specification, the example is sufficient to support a 102 rejection, even if it is only one of “a broad list of possible materials”. Thus, Itsuki et al teaches the use of aluminum and aluminum chloride and supports the 102 rejection of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160046408 A1 could be used to reject the claims under 102 or 103.
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.
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 Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights