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 .
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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) 7 to 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beck et al (acta crystal).
The Beck et al reference teaches a molybdenum pentachloride, note entire reference. The molybdenum pentachloride has several polymorphisms, crystals. The vapor pressure for molybdenum pentachloride is inherently in the range as set forth, as it is known to be withing the 1-1000 pa range as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Beck et al reference and have sufficient amount of crystalline molybdenum pentachloride in order to have the vapor pressure range claimed and a more stable molybdenum pentachloride.
With regards to claim 8, the Beck et al reference teaches triclinic, note abs.
With regards to claim 9, the Beck et al reference teaches monoclinic, note abs.
With regards to claim 10, the Beck et al reference teaches orthorhombic, note abs.
Claim(s) 14 to 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beck et al (acta crystal) in view of Nakagawa (Wo 2021/067764).
The Beck et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the percussor vessel. However, the Nakagawa reference teaches a apparatus with a vessel to contain a precursor for vapor deposition of metals. This includes molybdenum as a deposited metal and halide starting material, note fig 1 and page 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Beck et al reference by the teachings of the Nakagawa reference to place the crystal molybdenum pentachloride in a vessel for deposition in order to use the crystals as sources for molybdenum.
Claims 11 to 13 and 18 to 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims recite a specific crystalline structure that is not taught in the prior art of record.
Claims 1 to 6 are allowable over the art of record, as there is no teaching of the claimed method of vaporing and cooling to obtain the crystalline form of the molybdenum pentachloride.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights