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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 8, 2025 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 18 and 20 are objected to because each recites that the controller controls an element "so as introduce" a gas. The word "to" appears to have been omitted. For example:
The indirectly heated cathode ion source of claim 1, wherein the controller controls the second valve so as <u>to</u> introduce the second gas whenever the first gas is flowing in the arc chamber.
Claims 4, 11 and 19 are objected to because each recites "the flow rate of the first gas," for which no antecedent basis appears. The scope is nonetheless clear and no § 112(b) rejection is made on this basis. Suggested correction:
... so that a flow rate of the second gas is between 30 and 70% of --the-- <u>a</u> flow rate of the first gas.
The other claims are objected as similarly for correction required.
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.
Reference patent A: U.S. Patent No. 12,224,149 B2 to Navarro Goldaraz et al., issued February 11, 2025 from Application No. 18/099,353, filed January 20, 2023. Twenty claims. Assigned to Applied Materials, Inc.
Reference patent B: U.S. Patent No. 12,154,766 B2 to Wright et al., "Ion Source Having Different Modes of Operation," issued November 26, 2024 from Application No. 17/834,445, filed June 7, 2022. Nineteen claims. Assigned to Applied Materials, Inc. Reference patent A is subject to a terminal disclaimer over Application No. 17/834,445, filed November 22, 2024, by which Applied Materials disclaimed the terminal portion of any patent granted on 18/099,353 beyond the full statutory term of any patent granted on 17/834,445.
Secondary reference: Colvin et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,676,370 B2, "Hydrogen Co-Gas When Using Aluminum Iodide as an Ion Source Material," Axcelis Technologies, Inc., Appl. No. 15/995,707 filed June 1, 2018, provisional 62/515,324 filed June 5, 2017, issued June 9, 2020. Available under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with no date qualification.
Claims 1–7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 4–8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,224,149.
Note: Claim 1 is a species of the genus "a chlorine containing gas" of patented claim 1; HCl is identified at '149 col. 4, ll. ~33–36 and patented claim 3 claims the alternative species. Claims 2–7 correspond one-to-one to patented claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the same dependency relationships.
Reference patent B is not applied against claims 1–7. Its claim 1 requires a vaporizer and a heater to heat dopant material disposed therein; claim 1 of the present application recites neither, and the vaporizer-based claims of reference patent B are not shown to render the two-gas-source arrangement of present claim 1 obvious.
Claims 8–14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 4–8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,224,149 in view of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,766 and further in view of Colvin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,676,370).
Regarding claim 8. Claim 8 recites the ion source of claim 1 of reference patent A; arc chamber with a plurality of walls, indirectly heated cathode, first valve in communication with a first gas source comprising an organoaluminium compound, second valve in communication with a second gas source comprising a chlorine containing gas different from the first gas, and a controller in communication with the first and second valves so as to limit a buildup of molecular byproducts created by decomposition of the first gas; and further recites a third valve in communication with the arc chamber and a third gas source comprising hydrogen gas, with the controller further in communication with the third valve.
The differences between present claim 8 and claim 1 of reference patent A are (i) the further gas source, (ii) the further valve in communication with that source and the arc chamber, and (iii) the controller being further in communication with that valve.
Differences (ii) and (iii) are recited in claim 1 of reference patent B. That claim recites an indirectly heated cathode ion source comprising an arc chamber comprising a plurality of walls; an indirectly heated cathode disposed in the arc chamber; a first valve in communication with the arc chamber and a first gas source; a second valve in communication with the arc chamber and a second gas source; and a controller in communication with the first valve, the second valve and the heater. Reference patent B therefore claims, in a commonly owned indirectly heated cathode ion source of the same architecture, the arrangement in which a plurality of valves each in communication with the arc chamber and a respective gas source are all placed under a single controller. Extending that arrangement to a further valve and gas source in the ion source of claim 1 of reference patent A is not a patentable distinction.
Difference (i): that the further gas source comprises hydrogen gas, is taught by Colvin. Colvin identifies the same problem reference patent A addresses: aluminum-containing source materials used with an etchant gas produce insulating material that coats ion source components, causing charging and arcing, reduced beam currents, frequent preventive maintenance, and flakes and residue forming in the arc chamber (Colvin, col. 1, l. ~44 – col. 2, l. ~9). Colvin's solution is to introduce a reducing agent comprising hydrogen to the ion source from a hydrogen co-gas source 145, converting non-conducting residue to a volatile by-product that is pumped away (Colvin, col. 7, ll. ~10–16 and ~26–32; FIG. 1, element 145; claims 2–4). Colvin is analogous art under In re Bigio, being in the same field of endeavor; ion sources producing aluminum ion beams by ionization of an aluminum-containing source material in an arc chamber, and directed to the same problem.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ion source of claim 1 of reference patent A with a further gas source comprising hydrogen gas as taught by Colvin, controlled by a further valve under the same controller as claimed in reference patent B, in order to obtain the benefit Colvin expressly identifies: converting non-conducting residue to a volatile species that may be evacuated rather than accumulating on source components, thereby extending source lifetime and reducing cleaning frequency.
Claim 8 recites no function for the hydrogen gas and no functional relationship between the further gas source and the first gas, the second gas, or the recited limitation of buildup. It is a bare structural addition.
Regarding claims 9–14. Claims 9–14 depend from claim 8 and recite limitations identical in language to claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of reference patent A, in the same dependency relationships set out in Rejection 1. They are not patentably distinct for the reasons given as to claim 8 and as to the corresponding claims in Rejection 1.
Claims 15–22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9–16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,224,149 in view of claims 1, 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,766 and further in view of Colvin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,676,370).
Regarding claim 15. Claim 15 recites an arc chamber comprising a plurality of walls; an indirectly heated cathode disposed in the arc chamber; a first valve in communication with the arc chamber and a first gas source containing a first gas that is an organoaluminium compound; a vaporizer in communication with the arc chamber; a heater to heat dopant material disposed within the vaporizer to form a second gas; a second valve in communication with the arc chamber and a third gas source comprising hydrogen gas; and a controller in communication with the first valve, the second valve and the heater so as to limit a buildup of molecular byproducts created by decomposition of the first gas.
Claim 1 of reference patent B recites this structure element for element. It recites an arc chamber comprising a plurality of walls; an indirectly heated cathode disposed in the arc chamber; a vaporizer in communication with the arc chamber; a heater to heat dopant material disposed within the vaporizer; a first valve in communication with the arc chamber and a first gas source; a second valve in communication with the arc chamber and a second gas source; and a controller in communication with the first valve, the second valve and the heater. Every structural element of present claim 15 appears in that claim.
The differences are limited to the compositions recited for the two gas sources and to the stated purpose of the controller:
(a) Present claim 15 requires the first gas source to contain an organoaluminium compound. Claim 1 of reference patent B places no composition limitation on its first gas source, and claim 11 of that patent recites a gas source containing dimethylaluminum chloride or trimethylaluminum chloride. A gas source containing an organoaluminium compound is a species of the unrestricted "first gas source" of patented claim 1. Which of two claimed gas sources carries the organoaluminium compound is a matter of labeling and is not a patentable distinction.
(b) Present claim 15 requires the source served by the second valve to comprise hydrogen gas. Claim 1 of reference patent B places no composition limitation on its second gas source. A gas source comprising hydrogen is a species of that genus, and its selection would have been obvious over Colvin for the reasons given in Rejection 2.
(c) Present claim 15 states the controller's purpose as limiting a buildup of molecular byproducts, while claim 1 of reference patent B states it as operating the ion source in one of a plurality of modes. Both recite the same controller in communication with the same first valve, second valve and heater. A statement of intended purpose does not distinguish structurally identical apparatus. MPEP § 2111.02(II).
(d) Present claim 15 requires the heater to heat the dopant material "to form a second gas." Claim 1 of reference patent B requires a heater to heat dopant material disposed within the vaporizer. Reference patent A claims the same limitation expressly at its claim 9.
Regarding claim 16. Claim 16 recites that the first gas is DMAC or TMA. Claim 10 of reference patent A recites the identical limitation; claim 11 of reference patent B recites DMAC or trimethylaluminum chloride in a gas source.
Regarding claim 17. Claim 17 recites that the dopant material is indium chloride, aluminum chloride or another chloride-containing solid. Claim 11 of reference patent A recites the identical limitation. Claim 9 of reference patent B recites that the dopant material disposed in the vaporizer is aluminum chloride.
Regarding claims 18–22. Claims 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 recite limitations identical in language to claims 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of reference patent A respectively, in the same dependency relationships. They are not patentably distinct for the reasons given as to claim 15 and as to the corresponding claims of reference patent A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights