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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species 1 in the reply filed on 29 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the internal surface is selected from" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “the internal surface modification capable of providing an internal surface selected from the group consisting of … ” or similar and has examined accordingly.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the metal" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to “a metal” and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0111246 to Bauer et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20120111246 to Behm al.
Bauer et al. discloses a container (Fig. 7, 106) substantially as claimed, the container comprising: a volume of a halidosilane precursor compound, including e.g., monochlorosilane and/or monochlorodisilane, wherein the container includes an internal surface capable of containing the volume of halidosilane precursor compound in a stable condition (also see, e.g., paras. 34, 40, 57. The volume of halidosilane precursor compound is considered stable in that is capable of being transported to reaction chamber for use.
However, Bauer et al. fails to explicitly disclose the internal surface is selected from the group consisting of (a) a surface resulting from mechanical polishing; (b) a surface resulting from electropolishing; (c) a surface resulting from formation of a hydrophobic protecting layer of organic molecules; (d) a surface resulting from providing an internal surface of stainless steel; (e) a surface resulting from providing an internal surface of aluminum; (f) a surface resulting from providing an internal surface of nickel; (g) a surface resulting from a polymer coating; (h) a surface having a silicon oxide coating; (i) a surface having a crystalline carbon layer molecularly bonded to a metal (j) a surface having a passivation layer of a metal fluoride; (k) a surface having a passivation layer of silane bonded to metal by exposure to silanes; (l) a surface having de-activated hydroxyl. Examiner notes that depending on the internal surface modification, there may be instances where the modification is subject to an interpretation as a product-by process limitation.
Behm et al. disclose providing a container for stably storing monochlorosilane having an internal surface selected from the group consisting of (a) a surface resulting from mechanical polishing; (b) a surface resulting from electropolishing; (c) a surface resulting from formation of a hydrophobic protecting layer of organic molecules; (d) a surface resulting from providing an internal surface of stainless steel; (e) a surface resulting from providing an internal surface of aluminum; (f) a surface resulting from providing an internal surface of nickel; (g) a surface resulting from a polymer coating; (h) a surface having a silicon oxide coating; (i) a surface having a crystalline carbon layer molecularly bonded to a metal (j) a surface having a passivation layer of a metal fluoride; (k) a surface having a passivation layer of silane bonded to metal by exposure to silanes; (l) a surface having de-activated hydroxyl groups for the purpose of storing the compound in a stable manner with out degradation of the compound due to reduction in surface reactions to acceptable levels (abstract). While Behm et al. do not specifically disclose the compound as monochlorodisilane, as detailed above Bauer et al. discloses using either of the compounds in their disclosed apparatus, such that one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would find it obvious to store the compounds using similar conditions, wherein the courts have ruled that the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the container of Bauer having an internal surface modification consisting of (a) a surface resulting from mechanical polishing; (b) a surface resulting from electropolishing; (c) a surface resulting from formation of a hydrophobic protecting layer of organic molecules; (d) a surface resulting from providing an internal surface of stainless steel; (e) a surface resulting from providing an internal surface of aluminum; (f) a surface resulting from providing an internal surface of nickel; (g) a surface resulting from a polymer coating; (h) a surface having a silicon oxide coating; (i) a surface having a crystalline carbon layer molecularly bonded to a metal (j) a surface having a passivation layer of a metal fluoride; (k) a surface having a passivation layer of silane bonded to metal by exposure to silanes; (l) a surface having de-activated hydroxyl groups in order to store the compound of monochlorodisilane in the container in a stable manner without degradation of the compound due to reduction in surface reactions to acceptable levels as taught by Behm et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 6,071,349 discloses electropolishing SUS316 to prevent corrosion of deposition system structures and contaminants from entering the deposition system. USP 11913112 (PGPUB 20220154331) and 11268190 (PGPUB 20200032389) are related.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights