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 .
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 22-23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further, claim 22 includes boron as an example of a metal. Boron is not a metal.
In claim 23, there are boron precursors that include molecular masses of 90+. It is unclear how this will fit into claim 18 from which it depends as there are no inert diffusion gases with greater molecular mass.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 23, there are boron precursors that include molecular masses of 90+. It is unclear how this will fit into claim 18 from which it depends as there are no inert diffusion gases with greater molecular mass. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 18-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimer et al. (US 2020/0027725 A1)
As to claims 18 and 34, Weimer teaches a method for operating a chemical vapor deposition, CVD, process (abstract), comprising: providing a substrate in a reaction zone of a reaction chamber (Fig. 3-4), providing at least one precursor gas flow into the reaction chamber, the precursor gas comprising precursor molecules (para 0003-0004, 0022), heating the reaction chamber to a temperature that is greater than a reaction onset temperature of the precursor molecules (Fig. 2, reaction occurs, para 0013, 0038), and providing at least one inert diffusion additive gas into the reaction chamber, the inert diffusion additive comprising inert diffusion additive molecules (para 0037), wherein the inert diffusion additive molecules have a greater molecular mass than the precursor molecules (para 0037 vs the molecules in para 0003-0004, 0022, etc.). Weimer does not explicitly teach wherein a partial pressure of the inert diffusion additive gas is greater than a partial pressure of the precursor gas (para 0030, 0072-0079). However, the partial pressure of the inert diffusion additive gas is chosen so that the energy state/reaction conditions near the substrate are appropriate in para 0030. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the partial pressures by routine experimentation so that the energy state/reaction conditions near the substrate are appropriate. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 19-21, these techniques are known to make the claimed films in para 0022.
As to claim 22, the precursor gas includes boron in para 0028, 0048.
As to claim 23, boron trichloride may be included in para 0028.
As to claim 24, the inert diffusion additive gas is a noble gas in para 0037.
As to claim 25, the inert diffusion additive gas is merged with the precursor gas upstream of the reaction zone as shown in Fig. 4.
As to claims 26-27, there is additional carrier gas, such as hydrogen, in para 0037. As the noble gas and hydrogen gas both serve the purposes of carrier and diffusion gases, this naming convention is considered arbitrary. The merging is shown in Fig. 4.
As to clam 28, the temperature is as claimed in para 0038.
As to claim 29, the substrate is shown in Fig. 4.
As to claims 30-31, the substrate may be porous, indicating fused granules or particles as broadly claimed in Fig. 1E, para 0012.
As to claims 32-33, these features are shown in Figs. 1B as claimed in para 0097.
As to claim 35, the noble gas may be Xe in para 0037.
As to claims 36-37, the gases may be premixed in a manifold in para 0064.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Duan et al. (US 9711360) teaches a similar process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights