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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed 07/18/2025.
Claim 1 is pending and being examined. Claims 2-3 are canceled. Claim 1 is amended with no new subject matter being introduced.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momoi et al. (WO 2017/130745 A1, using US 2019/0031526 A1 for English translation).
Considering claim 1, Momoi teaches a tungsten pentachloride (WCl5) with a molybdenum content of less than 0.5 ppm or less, suitable for use in the electronic industry (Momoi, [0031] and [0041]-[0042]). Momoi teaches the tungsten pentachloride comprises a total content of metal impurities of less than 10 ppm and teaches iron as one of the metal impurities (Momoi, [0027] and [0045]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of less than 0.5 ppm of iron overlaps the range taught by Momoi (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Momoi fails to describe, depict or teach the limitations that he composition comprises a concentration of iron less than 0.5 parts per million have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In support of above argument, Applicant asserts that Momoi’s examples showing an iron concentration of 3.1 ppm. However, it should be noted that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Momoi teaches the desire for low concentration of metal impurities including iron of less than 10 ppm. The claimed concentration of iron overlaps the range taught by Momoi. Momoi’s examples use 4N (i.e., Comp. 1) and 5N (i.e., Comp. 2) purity tungsten hexachloride as a starting material (Table 1). Table 2 shows an iron content of 13.5 ppm for a 4N tungsten hexachloride starting material and a 3.1 pm iron content for a 5N tungsten hexachloride starting material. Thus, Momoi suggests/teaches that the iron content of the final tungsten pentachloride depends on the purity of the tungsten hexachloride starting material. Momoi also teaches that it is preferable to use a tungsten hexachloride having a purity of 5N or more (Momoi, [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a higher purity tungsten hexachloride (i.e., higher than 5N) in order to obtain a tungsten pentachloride product with a desired lower content of impurities including an iron content of less than 0.5 ppm.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights