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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 20040103914 A1).
As to claim 17, Cheng discloses a method for cleaning an interior wall of a reaction chamber [Abstract, para. 0005; claims 12, 16], the method comprising:
providing a reactor system in which a molybdenum-containing film is deposited on the interior wall of the reaction tube [Abstract, para. 0005; claims 12, 16];
flowing a halide gas into the reaction tube [claim 20, claim 22]; and
activating an in situ radical generator in the reaction tube to form a radical gas from the halide gas [claim 12, “third plasma”; para. 0013, para. 0017], wherein the radical gas etches the molybdenum-containing film [para. 0017].
As to claim 18, Cheng discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising flowing an inert gas into the reaction tube before activating the in situ radical generator [Fig. 1, S24[Wingdings font/0xE0]S26[Wingdings font/0xE0]Repeat S10[Wingdings font/0xE0]S24; Here, given the cyclic process of Cheng, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “before”, the claim is anticipated by flowing the helium purge gas in S26 before repeating the cyclic process including S24 comprising activating the in situ radical generator to produce the third plasma].
As to claim 19, Cheng discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising flowing an inert gas to remove a by-product of a reaction of the radical gas with the molybdenum-containing film from the reaction tube [para. 0018; claims 12-15].
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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12-14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12203166 B2 (herein US ‘166). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claims 1-4 are anticipated by claims 1-4 of US ‘166, respectively (i.e., instant claim 1 anticipated by claim 1).
Instant claim 5 is anticipated by claim 1 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 6 is anticipated by claim 5 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 7 is anticipated by claim 6 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 8 is anticipated by claim 7 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 9 is anticipated by claim 8 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 10 is anticipated by claim 9 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 11 is anticipated by claim 12 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 12 is anticipated by claim 13 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 13 is anticipated by claim 16 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 14 is anticipated by claim 14 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 15 is anticipated by claim 1 of US ‘166.
Instant claim 16 is anticipated by claim 1 of US ‘166.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record to Wu et al. (US 20100022095 A1), either alone or in combination with other prior art, fails to teach or suggest a method for cleaning an interior wall of a reaction tube comprising a step of “flowing a halide gas into the reaction tube” in conjunction with “wherein the halide gas reacts with a metallic surface within the reactor system to form a radical gas, and wherein the radical gas etches the molybdenum-containing film.”, as recited in independent claim 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show conventional methods of removing residues from reactor interior components using halide radicals [Abstracts].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights