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 without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 06/26/26 is acknowledged.
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.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spielvogel [US 7641879] in view of Olander [US 8389068].
Claim 1: Spielvogel teaches a method of synthesizing isotopically enriched metal borohydride [abstract] wherein the compound is isotopically enriched in at least one isotope [abstract]. Although Spielvogel does not explicitly teach vaporizing the metal borohydride compound to obtain a vaporized precursor for a method of ion implantation, Spielvogel does teach large boron hydride compounds have become important feed stocks (precursors) for semiconductor manufacture such as boron atom implantation [col 1, ln 30-35]. Spielvogel also further refers to a method of ion implantation of isotopically enriched boron compounds (WO 03/044837) [col 2, ln 25-35]. However, Spielvogel fails to explicitly teach for the method ion implantation, vaporizing a precursor to obtain a vaporized precursor to form a film on a substrate. Olander is provided.
Olander teaches a method implant boron ions [abstract] by supplying a boron hydride precursor [abstract] and in practice the precursor is vaporized using vaporization method and introduced to a vacuum chamber which is then collided with ions to form ionized plasma which allows ions to accelerate towards a workpiece [col 8, ln 40-58] and implant into the workpiece (deposition) [col 7, ln 10-15]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vaporize the precursor for ion implantation method since Olander teaches it is well known and typical for ion implantation to vaporize a borohydride precursor.
Claim 2: Spielvogel teaches the compound can be MBH4 [col 3, ln 48].
Claim 3: Spielvogel teaches M can be potassium [abstract; col 7, ln 9-10].
Claim 4: Spielvogel teaches the isotope can be 10B [abstract].
Claim 5: Spielvogel teaches the isotope can be 11B [abstract].
Claim 6: Spielvogel teaches the isotope comprises 10B and 11B [col 8, ln 1-15].
Claim 7: although Spielvogel does not explicitly teach a purity of 90% since Spielvogel teaches the term boron hydride is intended to be consist essentially of boron and hydrogen or pure boranes [col 11, ln 20-42], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the purity to be as close as 100 % purity as possible, being at least 90%.
Claim 8: Olander teaches the precursor can be liquid form [col 8, ln 40-58].
Claims 9-10: Olander teaches some of the boron hydride has a vaporizing temperature of room temperature [col 9, ln 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the precursor at a vaporizing temperature such as at room temperature (e.g. ~20-25 C) in order to sufficient vaporize the precursor.
Claims 11-12: Olander teaches that precursor feedstock is vaporized using vaporization methods well known in the art such as reduced pressure [col 8, ln 42]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressure at which precursor is vaporized through routine experimentation since Olander teaches pressure induced vaporization is a workable variable that affects vaporization.
Claim 13: Olander teaches the precursor can further comprise of H2 [col 10, ln 45-50].
Claim 14: Olander teaches the precursor can further comprises BF3 [col 8, ln 8].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights