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 the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the channel has open walls such that the chlorine containing gas reacts with aluminum as it flows through the channel”. The current specification and drawings do not describe or illustrate a channel with “open walls” as recited by the claim, or explain how such a structure enables the chlorine gas to react with the aluminum solid material. It is not clear what particular structure would meet this limitation nor would one of ordinary skill in the art understand how to construct a channel to meet the claimed limitation.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the channel” in claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 13-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,112,915 B2 (hereinafter Hahto). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 5 of Hahto teaches an ion source comprising:
An arc chamber comprising a gas inlet (vapor outlet of vaporizer lets vapor into arc chamber);
A source of a chlorine containing gas (chlorine containing gas inlet, claim 1);
An aluminum containing component (aluminum containing solid material, claim 1); and
A pathway from the source of the chorine containing gas to the arc chamber through the gas inlet,
Wherein the pathway passes through the aluminum containing component before reaching the gas inlet, such that the chlorine containing gas flows through the aluminum containing component prior to entering the arc chamber (chlorine containing gas passes through vaporizer containing aluminum and then arc chamber, claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect gaseous chlorine to react with vaporized aluminum in the aluminum containing crucible.
Regarding claim 4, claim 5 of Hahto teaches that the aluminum containing component comprises a cavity (crucible) containing aluminum.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 of Hahto teaches a heater disposed proximate to the cavity (heater for heating the crucible, claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, the aluminum must fill only a portion of the channel for gas to flow through.
Regarding claim 9, claim 6 of Hahto teaches that the aluminum is pure aluminum.
Regarding claim 13, claim 5 of Hahto teaches an ion source comprising:
An arc chamber comprising a gas inlet (vapor outlet of vaporizer lets vapor into arc chamber);
An aluminum containing component (aluminum containing solid material, claim 1) in fluid communication with the gas inlet;
A gas source inlet to the aluminum containing component,
Wherein a reactive gas flows from the gas source inlet through the aluminum containing component into the arc chamber through the gas inlet (chlorine enters gas inlet and vapor is output into arc chamber).
Regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect gaseous chlorine to react with vaporized aluminum in the aluminum containing crucible.
Regarding claim 15, claim 5 of Hahto teaches that the reactive gas comprises chlorine (claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, claim 5 of Hahto teaches that the aluminum containing component comprises a space (crucible) containing aluminum.
Regarding claim 17, claim 6 of Hahto teaches that the aluminum is solid aluminum (aluminum containing solid material, claim 1; pure aluminum, claim 6).
Regarding claim 20, Hahto teaches an aperture disposed in the wall of the arc chamber (vapor enters arc chamber through wall, implicitly through some sort of aperture).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Hahto of in view of Horsky (6,452,338 B1).
Regarding claim 7, claim 5 of Hahto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 5 of Hahto does not teach a thermocouple that measures a temperature of the cavity.
Horsky teaches an ion source having a thermocouple that measures a temperature of a cavity (col. 5 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hahto to have the thermocouple of Horsky, in order to measure and regulate the temperature of the heated solid material for interaction with the reaction gas as described by Horsky.
Claims 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Hahto in view of Foad (US 5,977,552 A).
Regarding claim 11, claim 5 of Hahto teaches an ion source comprising:
An arc chamber (ion source 51, fig. 5) comprising a gas inlet (for gas 55);
A source of a chlorine containing gas (gas 55; gas may be BCl, p. 7 paragraph 1).
Claim 5 of Hahto does not teach a gas bushing having an internal conduit in communication with the source of chlorine gas and the gas inlet.
Foad teaches a gas bushing (connector 74 and bores 73, fig. 3) having an internal conduit in communication with a source of gas (feed pipe 75) and an arc chamber (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hahto to have the gas coupling of Foad, in order to maximize the interaction of the gas and the reagent within a crucible by spreading the gas through a solid reagent as described by Foad with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 12, Foad teaches that a feature is disposed in the internal conduit to increase a surface area of the internal conduit (bores with rough surfaces, col. 9 lines 4-8).
Claims 3, 10 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Hahto in view of Murooka (US 11,107,659 B2).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, claim 5 of Hahto teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as described above. Claim 5 of Hahto does not teach that the aluminum is powder, pellets, a block or a porous block (porous structure).
Murooka teaches a reactant (92) in a crucible in the form of a powder (col. 9 line 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to form the reactant of Hahto as, as a matter of selecting a known type of solid reactant used in a crucible for an arc chamber with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 10, claim 5 of Hahto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hahto does not teach that the arc chamber has an aperture to extract an ion beam, the gas inlet is disposed opposite to the aperture.
Murooka teaches an arc chamber (72) having a gas inlet (vapor inlet 84) opposite an aperture (slit 80) to extract an ion beam (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to form the arc chamber of Hahto as arranged by Murooka, as a matter of selecting a known layout for an arc chamber which allows gas to pass through the ionization region and ions to be extracted with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 19, claim 5 of Hahto teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Claim 5 of Hahto does not teach a filament and cathode disposed in the arc chamber.
Murooka teaches an ion source arc chamber (72) having a filament (74a) and a cathode (74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hahto to have the filament and cathode of Murooka, as this is a known arrangement of an arc chamber for performing ionization with no unexpected result.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP S56-117458U.
Regarding claim 1, JP S56-117458 U teaches an ion source (ion source p. 1) comprising:
An arc chamber (ion source 51, fig. 5; Freeman type ion source) comprising a gas inlet;
A source of a chlorine containing gas (gas 55; gas may be BCl, p. 7 paragraph 1);
An aluminum containing component (Al substrate 53, p. 5 paragraph 1; “At” is assumed to be a typo for Al); and
A pathway from the source of the chlorine containing gas to the arc chamber through the gas inlet (fig. 5);
Wherein the pathway passes through the aluminum containing component before reaching the gas inlet, such that the chlorine containing gas flows through the aluminum containing component prior to entering the arc chamber (gas passes through reaction box full of Al before ion source, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the aluminum containing component and the chlorine containing gas chemically react to introduce aluminum into the gas chamber (forming ions such as At, assumed to be a typo for Al, p. 6 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 3, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the aluminum containing component comprises an aluminum block (plate, p. 6 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 4, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the aluminum containing component comprises a cavity containing aluminum in solid form (solid Al in box 52, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, JPS56-117458 teaches a heater (54) disposed proximate to the cavity.
Regarding claim 6, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the aluminum containing cavity comprises a cavity comprising a channel (passage through region 52), wherein the chlorine containing gas reacts with aluminum as it flows through the channel.
Regarding claim 8, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the aluminum fills only a portion of the channel.
Regarding claim 9, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the aluminum is pure aluminum.
Regarding claim 10, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the arc chamber (ion source 51) has an aperture to extract an ion beam (56), and the gas inlet is disposed opposite to the aperture.
Regarding claim 13, JPS56-117458 U teaches an ion source comprising:
An arc chamber (ion source 51) including a gas inlet;
An aluminum containing component (52) in fluid communication with the gas inlet;
A gas source inlet (for gas 55) to the aluminum containing component;
Wherein a reactive gas flows from the gas source inlet through the aluminum containing component and into the arc chamber through the gas inlet (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the reactive gas chemically reacts with aluminum in the aluminum containing component (forming ions such as At, assumed to be a typo for Al, p. 6 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 15, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the reactive gas comprises chlorine (gas may be BCl, p. 7 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 16, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the aluminum containing component comprises a space containing aluminum (box 52).
Regarding claim 17, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the aluminum is solid aluminum.
Regarding claim 18, JPS56-117458 U teaches that the aluminum is a block.
Regarding claim 20, JPS56-117458 U teaches an aperture is disposed in a wall of the arc chamber (ion source 55 must have aperture to allow ions 56 to pass out, fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S56-117458 U in view of Horsky (6,452,338 B1).
Regarding claim 7, JP S56-117458 U teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. JP S56-117458 U does not teach a thermocouple that measures a temperature of the cavity.
Horsky teaches an ion source having a thermocouple that measures a temperature of a cavity (col. 5 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of JPS56-117458 U to have the thermocouple of Horsky, in order to measure and regulate the temperature of the heated solid material for interaction with the reaction gas as described by Horsky.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S56-117458 U in view of Foad (US 5,977,552 A).
Regarding claim 11, JPS56-117458 U teaches an ion source comprising:
An arc chamber (ion source 51, fig. 5) comprising a gas inlet (for gas 55);
A source of a chlorine containing gas (gas 55; gas may be BCl, p. 7 paragraph 1).
JPS56-117458 U does not teach a gas bushing having an internal conduit in communication with the source of chlorine gas and the gas inlet.
Foad teaches a gas bushing (connector 74 and bores 73, fig. 3) having an internal conduit in communication with a source of gas (feed pipe 75) and an arc chamber (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of JPS56-117458 U to have the gas coupling of Foad, in order to maximize the interaction of the gas and the reagent within a crucible by spreading the gas through a solid reagent as described by Foad with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 12, Foad teaches that a feature is disposed in the internal conduit to increase a surface area of the internal conduit (bores with rough surfaces, col. 9 lines 4-8).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S56-117458 U in view of Murooka (US 11,107,659 B2).
Regarding claim 19, JP S56-117458 U teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. JP S56-117458 U does not teach a filament and cathode disposed in the arc chamber.
Murooka teaches an ion source arc chamber (72) having a filament (74a) and a cathode (74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of JPS56-117458 U to have the filament and cathode of Murooka, as this is a known arrangement of an arc chamber for performing ionization with no unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
