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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II claims 7-15 in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Claims 16-19 are newly added. Claims 7-19 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “…the dopant is boron” which should read “the dopant is boron.”, e.g., a common should be after “boron”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites "... sequentially …", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
Claim 17 recites "... cooling the material at a first rate until temperature of the material reaches ductile-to-brittle transition point of silicon… a second rate …", which is not described in the specification as originally filed.
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.
Claims 7-19 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 7 “…the dopant of less than 1 ppm-mass; wherein the dopant comprises one or more impurities of less than 100 ppm-mass; and wherein the dopant is selected from a group consisting of boron or gallium at a concentration of 0.05wt% to 0.5wt%; phosphorous at a concentration of 0.5wt% to 5.0wt%; arsenic at a concentration of 1.5wt% to 15.0wt%; and antimony at a concentration of 0.1wt% to 1.0wt% …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear with respect to the relationship between dopant and the impurities; it is not clear whether the impurities are the dopant or not. Based on the instant claim reciting “the dopant comprises one or more impurities,” it appears that the impurities are part of the dopant, it is not clear what “the dopant of less than 1 ppm-mass; wherein the dopant comprises one or more impurities of less than 100 ppm-mass; and wherein the dopant is selected from a group consisting of boron or gallium at a concentration of 0.05wt% to 0.5wt%; phosphorous at a concentration of 0.5wt% to 5.0wt%; arsenic at a concentration of 1.5wt% to 15.0wt%; and antimony at a concentration of 0.1wt% to 1.0wt%” means, for example, “the dopant of less than 1ppm mass is equal to the dopant of less than 0.0001wt%” and “the dopant comprises one or more impurities of less than 100 ppm-mass” is equal to “the dopant comprises one or more impurities of less than is 0.01wt%, while the claim also recites “the dopant is selected from a group consisting of boron or gallium at a concentration of 0.05wt% to 0.5wt%; phosphorous at a concentration of 0.5wt% to 5.0wt%; arsenic at a concentration of 1.5wt% to 15.0wt%; and antimony at a concentration of 0.1wt% to 1.0wt%,” e.g., it appears that the claim recites exclusive range of the dopant; thus, it is not clear with respect to the dopant amount in the mixture. It is also not clear whether “one or more impurities” refers the same “one or more impurities” or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 7 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 8-19 are rejected because they depend on claim 7.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the solidified material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7-12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadashi Saito (US 20040067647 A1, “Saito”), and further in view of Ounadjela et al (US 20100310445 A1, “Ounadjela”).
Regarding claim 7, Saito teaches a method of forming a material, the method comprising forming a mixture of silicon and a dopant (abstract, 0009, 0024, claim 1), wherein the dopant is gallium at a concentration of 5x10-2 atomic% (=0.00124wt%) to 6.3x10-4 atomic% (=0.156wt%) (0021, claim 2), overlapping the instantly claimed range; Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.05 I; melting the mixture (0010, 0022, claim 1); and crystallizing (solidifying) the melted mixture to form the material (abstract, 0011, 0023, claim 1). Saito teaches the mixture of the silicon and the dopant as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach one or more impurities less than 1 ppm-mass, and one or more impurities of less than 100 ppm-mass. However, Ounadjela teaches a method, wherein a material has an impurity less than 0.5 parts per million (0.5 ppm) (0007, 0040-0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Saito per teachings of Ounadjela in order to provide silicon material with controlled impurities at an increased silicon yield for more efficiently further use (0011-0018, 0040-0048).
Regarding claim 8, Saito/Ounadjela teaches that the dopant is gallium (Saito abstract, 0009, 0011).
Regarding claim 9, Saito/Ounadjela teaches that the dopant is boron (Saito 0030). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, consult Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.1989). It is also well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Saito/Ounadjela teaches that the gallium at a concentration of 5x10-2 atomic% (=0.00124wt%) to 6.3x10-4 atomic% (=0.156wt%) (0021, claim 2), overlapping the instantly claimed range of gallium. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I). Furthermore, “0.1wt% to 0.3wt% if the dopant is boron or gallium; 1.0wt% to 3.0wt% if the dopant is phosphorous; 3wt% to 10wt% if the dopant is arsenic; and 0.2wt% to 0.7wt% if the dopant is antimony” are contingent limitations in a method (or process) claim, those limitations are not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the limitations that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Regarding claim 11, Saito/Ounadjela teaches a similar method of forming the material as addressed above, Therefore, “the material being resistant to etching by halogen plasma” is reasonably expected, because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is well established that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages, e.g., the advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the combination of references. See MPEP 2144 II. Also, if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 12, as addressed above, Saito/Ounadjela teaches a similar method of forming the material to the instantly claimed, Therefore, “the material does not include precipitates containing the dopant” is reasonably expected, because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is well established that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages, e.g., the advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the combination of references. See MPEP 2144 II.
Regarding claim 18, Saito/Ounadjela teaches the material as addressed above, and further teaching sequentially cooling the material (abstract, 0011, 0023, claims 1 and 3). Therefore, “reducing formation of dopant precipitates and cracking of the material” is reasonably expected, because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is well established that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages, e.g., the advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the combination of references. See MPEP 2144 II.
Regarding claim 19, Saito/Ounadjela teaches supplying an inert gas to the melted mixture (Saito abstract, 0010, 0022, claim 1). Therefore, “control SiO formed in the melted mixture” is reasonably expected, because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is well established that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages, e.g., the advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the combination of references. See MPEP 2144 II.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito/Ounadjela as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Koshimizu et al (US 20090197423 A1, “Koshimizu”).
Regarding claim 13, Saito/Ounadjela teaches the material comprising silicon as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach machining the material to form a component of a substrate processing chamber wherein the component is at least one of a C-shaped plasma confinement shroud, an L-shaped plasma confinement ring, an edge ring, an electrode, a sidewall of the substrate processing chamber, a window in the substrate processing chamber, and a dome of the substrate processing chamber. However, Koshimizu teaches a processing method/apparatus, wherein an electrode and a ring of a processing chamber is made of silicon (0002, 0011, 0014, 0019, 0020, 0027, 0028, 0033, 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Saito/Ounadjela per teachings of Koshimizu in order to provide suitable component of processing chamber which is capable of performing plasma etching (Kishimizu 0002, 0011, 0014, 0019, 0020, 0027, 0028, 0033, 0044, 0051). It is also well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07. Regarding the component being at least one of a C-shaped plasma confinement shroud, an L-shaped plasma confinement ring, an edge ring, an electrode, a sidewall of the substrate processing chamber, a window in the substrate processing chamber, and a dome of the substrate processing chamber limitations, they are apparatus limitations in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 14, Saito/Ounadjela/Koshimizu teaches a similar component of the material as addressed above, Therefore, “the component is resistant to etching by halogen plasma when exposed to the halogen plasma in the substrate processing chamber” is reasonably expected, because if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 15, as addressed above Saito/Ounadjela/Koshimizu teaches the component of the material and a similar method of making the material. Therefore, “the component does not include precipitates containing the dopant” is reasonably expected, because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is well established that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages, e.g., the advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the combination of references. See MPEP 2144 II.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito/Ounadjela as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lu et al (US 20050016443 A1, “Lu”).
Regarding claim 16, Saito/Ounadjela teaches the material as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach sequentially cooling the material while pulling out the solidified material. However, Lu teaches a method, wherein an ingot cools while being pulling upward (0011, 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Saito/Ounadjela per teachings of Lu in order to suppress the nucleation and growth of point defects (Lu 0011-0018, 0036).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito/Ounadjela as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lu et al (US 20050016443 A1, “Lu”) and Buonassisi et al (US 20110073869 A1, “Buonassisi”).
Regarding claim 17, Saito/Ounadjela teaches the material as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach cooling the material at a first rate until temperature of the material reaches ductile-to-brittle transition point of silicon; and subsequently cooling the material at a second rate that is faster than the first rate. However, Lu teaches a method, wherein a material is cooled at a first rate until a temperature; and subsequently cooling the material at a second rate that is faster than the first rate (0011, 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Saito/Ounadjela per teachings of Lu in order to suppress the nucleation and growth of point defects (Lu 0011, 0036). Saito/Ounadjela/Lu does not explicitly teach the material reaches ductile-to-brittle transition point of silicon. However, Buonassisi teaches a method, wherein a silicon material is processed at a temperature down to brittle-to-ductile transition temperature (0022, 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Saito/Ounadjela/Lu per teachings of Buonassisi in order to provide a material with reduced dislocations density (Buonassisi abstract, 0003, 0006, 0007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights