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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-8, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2-5 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li and Wright.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding the 112 (f) interpretations (not rejections), that Examiner made a typo, and that the limitation is (claims are) not to be rejected under 112 (f).
Examiner disagrees, and notes that the limitation is not being interpreted under 112 (f) (aka, not invoking it), but rather BRI (Broadest Reasonable Interpretation). BRI is included in the 112 (f) section, though it is not a 112 (f) interpretation concept, rather, it is a general interpretation concept. Hence the write-up is maintained.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 204. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Protective surface treatment (coating, surface modification, or combination) in at least claims 1-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 12-14, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220090261 to Itsuki in view of US 20240344235 to Li.
Claim 1, 4-5, 21: Itsuki discloses a precursor delivery system comprising: a vaporizer vessel (100 [vaporizable source material container], Fig. 1-2) configured to contain a vaporizable precursor that, when vaporized, produces a precursor vapor (para. [0047]); and at least one protective surface treatment (10 [fluorocarbon polymer coating]); wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (10) covers a sufficient amount of at least one gas-exposed surface (12 [container wall]) of the precursor delivery system (100) to reduce an amount of at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor as compared to a precursor vapor produced by a precursor delivery system without the at least one protective surface treatment (10, para. [0049]).
Itsuki does not explicitly disclose (claim 1) wherein the vaporizable precursor comprises a molybdenum-containing source reagent (claim 4) wherein the precursor vapor comprises MoCl5 vapor; (claim 5) wherein the precursor vapor comprises less than 10 ppm of at least one contaminant after 180 days exposure at a temperature of at least 140 °C; (claim 21) wherein the at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor is selected from an iron contaminant, a nickel contaminant, or any combination thereof.
Li discloses (claim 1) wherein the vaporizable precursor comprises a molybdenum-containing source reagent (para. [0067]); (claim 4) wherein the precursor vapor comprises MoCl5 vapor (para. [0067]); (claim 5) wherein the precursor vapor comprises less than 10 ppm of at least one contaminant after 180 days exposure at a temperature of at least 140 °C (para. [0069], para. [0083]); (claim 21) wherein the at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor is selected from an iron contaminant, a nickel contaminant, or any combination thereof (heating solid precursor vaporizer to above 150 degrees for extended period can lead to Cr, Fe, Ni, etc, contamination, para. [0067]); for the purpose of being more thermally stable and providing stable vapor supply.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Li with motivation to be more thermally stable and provide stable vapor supply.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Itsuki in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (10, Fig. 1-2, Itsuki) covers all gas-exposed surfaces of the precursor delivery system (para. [0048-0051]).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Itsuki in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (10, Fig. 1-2, Itsuki) covers all gas-exposed surfaces of the vaporizer vessel (para. [0048-0051]).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Itsuki in view of Li discloses further comprising: a gas supply line (34 [delivery gas pipes], Fig. 2, Itsuki) fluidly coupling the vaporizer vessel (100) to a semiconductor processing tool (para. [0090]), wherein at least a portion of at least one gas-exposed surface of the gas supply line (inside of 34) is covered by the at least one protective surface treatment (para. [0070], [0048-0049]).
Claim 12: The apparatus of Itsuki in view of Li discloses further comprising: a valve assembly (30 [valves], Fig. 1-2, Itsuki) fluidly coupling the vaporizer vessel (100) and the gas supply line (34), wherein at least a portion of at least one gas-exposed surface of the valve assembly (30) is covered by the at least one protective surface treatment (para. [0048-0050]).
Claim 13: The apparatus of Itsuki in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (10, Fig. 1-2, Itsuki) covers all gas-exposed surfaces of the valve assembly (30, para. [0048-0050]).
Claim 14: The apparatus of Itsuki in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (10, Fig. 1-2, Itsuki) comprises at least one of a coating (10), a surface modified region, or any combination thereof para. [0049]).
Claims 2, 15: (Cancelled).
Claims 16-20: (Withdrawn).
Claim(s) 3, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itsuki in view of Li as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 12-14 above and further in view of US 20220356563 to Wright.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Itsuki in view of Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the precursor vapor comprises MoO2Cl2 vapor.
Wright discloses wherein the precursor vapor comprises MoO2Cl2 vapor (para. [0037]) for the purpose of achieving deposition of molybdenum-containing material with higher deposition rates to accommodate efficient high-volume manufacturing operations (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Wright with motivation to achieve deposition of molybdenum-containing material with higher deposition rates to accommodate efficient high-volume manufacturing operations.
Claim 22: The apparatus of Itsuki in view of Li, Wright does not disclose wherein the at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor is selected from an iron contaminant, a nickel contaminant, or any combination thereof.
Li discloses wherein the at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor is selected from an iron contaminant, a nickel contaminant, or any combination thereof (heating solid precursor vaporizer to above 150 degrees for extended period can lead to Cr, Fe, Ni, etc, contamination, para. [0067]); for the purpose of being more thermally stable and providing stable vapor supply.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Li with motivation to be more thermally stable and provide stable vapor supply.
Claim(s) 1, 4-14, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180044800 to Hendrix in view of US 20240344235 to Li.
Claim 1, 4-5, 21: Hendrix discloses a precursor delivery system comprising: a vaporizer vessel (solid source delivery vaporizer, Fig. 2-3) configured to contain a vaporizable precursor that, when vaporized, produces a precursor vapor (para. [0136]); and at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating, para. [0136]); wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating) covers a sufficient amount of at least one gas-exposed surface of the precursor delivery system (delivery vaporizer) to reduce an amount of at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor as compared to a precursor vapor produced by a precursor delivery system without the at least one protective surface treatment (para. [0136]).
Hendrix does not explicitly disclose (claim 1) wherein the vaporizable precursor comprises a molybdenum-containing source reagent (claim 4) wherein the precursor vapor comprises MoCl5 vapor; (claim 5) wherein the precursor vapor comprises less than 10 ppm of at least one contaminant after 180 days exposure at a temperature of at least 140 °C; (claim 21) wherein the at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor is selected from an iron contaminant, a nickel contaminant, or any combination thereof.
Li discloses (claim 1) wherein the vaporizable precursor comprises a molybdenum-containing source reagent (para. [0067]); (claim 4) wherein the precursor vapor comprises MoCl5 vapor (para. [0067]); (claim 5) wherein the precursor vapor comprises less than 10 ppm of at least one contaminant after 180 days exposure at a temperature of at least 140 °C (para. [0069], para. [0083]); (claim 21) wherein the at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor is selected from an iron contaminant, a nickel contaminant, or any combination thereof (heating solid precursor vaporizer to above 150 degrees for extended period can lead to Cr, Fe, Ni, etc, contamination, para. [0067]); for the purpose of being more thermally stable and providing stable vapor supply.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Li with motivation to be more thermally stable and provide stable vapor supply.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating, Hendrix) covers all gas-exposed surfaces of the precursor delivery system (para. [0136]).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating, Hendrix) covers all gas-exposed surfaces of the vaporizer vessel (para. [0136]).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li discloses further comprising: a gas supply line (tubing, Fig. 2, Hendrix) fluidly coupling the vaporizer vessel to a semiconductor processing tool (102 [furnace]), wherein at least a portion of at least one gas-exposed surface of the gas supply line (tubing) is covered by the at least one protective surface treatment ((alumina coating, para. [0136]).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating, Hendrix) covers all gas-exposed surfaces of the gas supply line (tubing, para. [0136]).
Claim 10: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li discloses, further comprising: at least one filter (filter, Fig. 2, Hendrix) located in the gas supply line (tubing, para. [0117]), wherein at least a portion of at least one gas-exposed surface of the at least one filter (filter) is covered by the at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating, para. [0136]).
Claim 11: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating, Hendrix) covers all gas-exposed surfaces of the at least one filter (filter, para. [0136], [0117]).
Claim 12: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li discloses further comprising: a valve assembly (valves, Fig. 2, Hendrix) fluidly coupling the vaporizer vessel (delivery vaporizer) and the gas supply line (tubing, Fig. 2), wherein at least a portion of at least one gas-exposed surface of the valve assembly (valves) is covered by the at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating, para. [0136]).
Claim 13: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating, Hendrix) covers all gas-exposed surfaces of the valve assembly (valves, para. [0136]).
Claim 14: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li discloses wherein the at least one protective surface treatment (alumina coating, Hendrix) comprises at least one of a coating (alumina coating), a surface modified region, or any combination thereof (para. [0136]).
Claims 2, 15: (Cancelled).
Claims 16-20: (Withdrawn).
Claim(s) 3, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrix in view of Li as applied to claims 1, 4-8, 12-14, 21 above and further in view of US 20220356563 to Wright.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the precursor vapor comprises MoO2Cl2 vapor.
Wright discloses wherein the precursor vapor comprises MoO2Cl2 vapor (para. [0037]) for the purpose of achieving deposition of molybdenum-containing material with higher deposition rates to accommodate efficient high-volume manufacturing operations (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitation above as taught by Wright with motivation to achieve deposition of molybdenum-containing material with higher deposition rates to accommodate efficient high-volume manufacturing operations.
Claim 22: The apparatus of Hendrix in view of Li, Wright does not disclose wherein the at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor is selected from an iron contaminant, a nickel contaminant, or any combination thereof.
Li discloses wherein the at least one contaminant in the precursor vapor is selected from an iron contaminant, a nickel contaminant, or any combination thereof (heating solid precursor vaporizer to above 150 degrees for extended period can lead to Cr, Fe, Ni, etc, contamination, para. [0067]); for the purpose of being more thermally stable and providing stable vapor supply.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Li with motivation to be more thermally stable and provide stable vapor supply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200340110 discloses a surface treatment for the vaporization vessel or trays coated with graphite can be a pyrolytic treatment that provides a pyrolytic coating that seals the graphite (para. [0056]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights