DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on January 14, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1, 13, and 23 are amended.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but the new grounds of rejection, elaborated below, render them moot.
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, 3, 7, 9-11, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cleary et al., US 2010/0255198.
Claims 1, 7: Cleary discloses a preform for sublimation comprising a solid sublimation material (28) compressed around a steel support phase (22) to fabricate the preform [0055]. The solid sublimation material, e.g., aluminum trichloride, may be constituted as a pressed powder [0012, 0021]. Further, as shown by Figure 3, the support phase (22) comprises a plurality of parallel channels (30) extending in the vertical direction. Given that the solid sublimation material (28) fills the internal volume of Cleary’s tray (22), the material will necessarily agglomerate about the aforementioned channels, thereby forming parallel channels within the preform itself. The channels (30) of the tray (22) may be taken as the claimed “support phase,” thereby satisfying the claim 1 limitation requiring the sublimation material to “surround at least a portion of the support phase.”
Claim 3: Cleary’s tray may be interpreted as a “lattice of solid metal” (Fig. 3).
Claim 9: The aforementioned channels formed through the preform may be taken as constituting “grooves,” as well.
Claim 10: Cleary provides an ampoule body (12) having a vapor outlet port (40), whereby said body defines an internal space containing the preforms described by claim 1 (Fig. 1; [0096]).
Claim 11: Cleary’s ampoule body comprises a carrier gas inlet (20) [0052].
Claim 13: Cleary offsets the channels (30) of adjacent trays [0065].
Claim 20: Cleary’s tray has a sidewall (26) which enables vertical alignment of the preform at the site of its outer circumference [0055].
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 of this title, 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 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary.
Claims 5-6: Cleary does not dispose foil about a surface of the preform; rather, the preform is situated within an aluminum tray covering both its bottom and side surfaces [0055]. Even so, it is the understanding of the Office that a solid precursor provided with a heat-conducting metal foil on its surface, on the one hand, and a solid precursor disposed against a heat-conducting metal tray, on the other hand, constitute equivalent means by which to conduct heat through the precursor so as to promote sublimation, whereby the selection of either alternative is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 12: It is unclear if Cleary charges each tray with the same sublimation material, but doing so would merely require replicating the configuration of an existing tray. And yet, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). For this reason, it would have been obvious to provide the same sublimation material to each tray.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Tasaki et al., US 6,149,975. Tasaki teaches an ampule for delivery of a vapor, comprising an ampule body (2) having a vapor outlet port (5), wherein the body defines an internal space containing at least one sublimation preform (6) (3, 36-49; Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716