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 .
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to method of coating, classified in C23C14/48.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to product, classified in H01J2237/0805.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the process can be used for implanting ions to a workpiece using metal source heating above 550C.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Alex Tucker on 01/28/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neil J. Bassom et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2023/0245859, here after Bassom).
Claim 1 is rejected. Bassom teaches a process for implanting ions into a workpiece using a liquid metal(melt) alloy ion source, the process comprising:
heating a liquid metal precursor composition to form a homogeneous or heterogenous liquid metal (alloy) ion source;
vaporizing and ionizing the homogeneous or heterogenous liquid metal alloy ion source in an arc chamber to create a plasma of ionized metal elements [0051 last sentence, 0039, 0043 lines 13-16];
extracting the ionized metal elements within the plasma through a source aperture to form an ion beam [0039]; and
implanting one or more of the ionized metal elements into the workpiece [0039]. Although Bassom does not teach heating metal source to less than 550C, but also teaches to selectively heat the source material to between approximately 500-1000C [0064]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Bassom wherein an operating temperature of less than about 550°C, because overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Claims 2-3 are rejected. Bassom teaches the liquid metal alloy precursor composition comprises a metal alloy mixture of two or more metals (for example alloy indium and gallium) [0043] having a eutectic melting temperature at the operating temperature of less than about 550°C (see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
856
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected. Bossom teaches alloy comprising indium, tin, gallium and aluminum [0032, 0043]. Considering the alloy comprising indium and tin melting at about 118C (Eutectic point) adding gallium with very low melting point (Tm=29.77C) acts as flux metal; and
PNG
media_image2.png
583
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and adding aluminum (Tm=660.3C) leads to formation of heterogenous liquid metal alloy ion source, the metal (Al) soluble in the flux metal having a relatively higher melting point (aluminum is soluble in gallium with higher melting point), the additive metal (Al) can be chosen in an amount (more than 90%) which exceeds a solubility limit in the flux metal (Ga) at the operating temperature(118C).
PNG
media_image3.png
651
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected as Bassom teaches the liquid metal alloy precursor composition is in a powder or other solid form [0064].
Claim 7 is rejected. Bossom teaches alloy comprising indium, tin, gallium and aluminum [0032, 0043]. Considering the alloy comprising indium and tin melting at about 118C (Eutectic point) adding gallium with very low melting point (Tm=29.77C) acts as flux metal and adding aluminum (Tm=660.3C) leads to formation of heterogenous liquid metal alloy ion source comprises a flux metal and at least one additional metal at least partially soluble therein (aluminum partially dissolves in the melt).
Claim 8 is rejected as Bassom teaches mass analyzing the ion beam to permit selected ionized mass metal elements to pass therethrough; and implanting selected ionized mass elements into the workpiece [0030-0031].
Claim 10 is rejected. Bassom teaches source materials such as gallium, and lanthanum [0032, 0043], and dopant in source material such as phosphorus for n-type material wafer [0030]. It is well known in the art to generate n-type wafer with bismuth dopant as well as phosphorus dopant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Bassom where the alloy comprising gallium lanthanum and bismuth, because it is known in the art to dope silicon wafer with bismuth to make n-type wafer.
Claims 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neil J. Bassom et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2023/0245859, here after Bassom), further in view of Victor Wang et al (GB 2087139, here after Wang).
Claim 5 is rejected. Bassom teaches the metal alloy precursor composition at the operating temperature comprising two or more metals selected to provide a eutectic melting temperature of less than about 550°C (gallium indium see claim rejection above), wherein at least one of the metals has a melting point greater than the eutectic melting temperature [see the above figure]. Bassom does not teach the liquid metal alloy precursor composition forms a homogenous liquid metal alloy. Wang teaches making alloys for liquid metal ion source wherein the alloys are prepared by mixing powder of the constituents in the requisite amounts, pressing and firing above the melting point in a reducing atmosphere for a period of time sufficient to form a homogeneous mass [page 6 lines]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Bassom where the alloy source is homogeneous mass which in fact results in homogenous liquid metal alloy because it is suitable to make homogenous source for ion implantation process.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason claim 8 is rejected above, Bassom teaches the homogenous liquid metal alloy composition comprises a binary composition of lanthanum (La) and gallium (Ga) [0032, 0043].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718