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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 14-16, 20, 24-26, 28-29, and 31-33 are pending
Claims 14, 24, and 33 have been amended
Claims 1-13, 17-19, 21-23, 27, and 30 have been cancelled
Claims 24-26, 28-29, and 31-33 have been withdrawn
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumoto (JP 2009147356A) in view of Miyake et al. (US 6271498), Woelk et al. (US 20120034378), Kher et al. (US 20080063798), Wagner et al. (US 20130340681), and Hyodo et al. (US 20040058510), with Panagopoulos et al. (US 20090236447), Takamatsu et al. (US 20040216669), and Collins et al. (US 20170335450) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 14:
Matsumoto teaches a raw material supply apparatus (vaporizer 110; vaporizer 110 and its constituent parts are analogous to vaporizer 430) comprising: a container (vaporization chamber 432); a raw material injection part (spray port 431a) at an upper portion of the container (as evidenced by Fig. 3, spray port 431a is at an upper portion of the vaporizer 110), and connected to a raw material source (raw material containers 101a-101d) that stores a solution obtained by dissolving a first solid raw material in a solvent (the material containers 101a-101d store metal-based materials in solution) or a dispersion system obtained by dispersing the first solid raw material in a dispersion medium; a first exhaust port provided at a lower portion of the container
and connected to a processing apparatus that performs a process (the gas outlet 433 can be connected to a film forming chamber 120; as evidenced by Fig. 3, the gas outlet 433 is disposed at a lower portion of vaporization chamber 432), and a deposition part (filter 434) provided in the container at a location between the upper portion and the lower portion of the container (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the filter 434 is located between an upper portion and lower portion of the chamber 432) [Fig. 3, 9 & 0003-0005, 0013, 0038-0040].
Matsumoto does not specifically disclose a carrier gas injection part provided separately from the raw material injection part at the upper portion of the container, and configured to inject a carrier gas into the container.
Miyake teaches a carrier gas injection part (introducing pipe 116) provided separately from the raw material injection part (nozzle 114) at the upper portion of the container (as evidenced by Fig. 12, the pipe 116 is provided at an upper portion of vaporizing apparatus 108a), and configured to inject a carrier gas into the container (inert gas 118) [Fig. 12 & Col. 10 lines 32-54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Matsumoto to include a separate carrier gas injection part, as in Miyake, to provide easier control over container pressure [Miyake - Col. 13 lines 14-28]. Panagopoulos et al. (US 20090236447) also discloses that having multiple seperate gas sources would be beneficial so as to provide finer control over gas flow, flow rates, flow ratios, gas compositions, gas flow direction, gas distribution, and the like [Panagopoulos - 0021, 0024, 0029, 0052]. Takamatsu et al. (US 20040216669) also discloses a separate carrier gas feed (outer tube 10) at an upper portion of a chamber, which helps reduce unwanted deposits [Takamatsu - 0008-0009, 0060].
Additionally/alternatively, a carrier gas injection part (inlet port 104) provided separately from the raw material injection part (fill port 106) at the upper portion of the container, and configured to inject a carrier gas into the container (inlet port 104 introduced a carrier gas) [Fig. 1 & 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Matsumoto to include a separate carrier gas injection part, as in Takamatsu, since the carrier gas injection arrangement (including the deflector 122) of Woelk , helps gas distribute uniformly [Woelk - 0005, 0034, 0077]. It is also noted that more carrier gas sources would enable a higher flow rate of carrier gas, and Woelk states that higher carrier gases flow rates increases precursor transportation rates, thereby improving film growth speed [Woelk - 0006].
Modified Matsumoto (Matsumoto modified by Miyake) does not specifically disclose a second exhaust port provided separately from the first exhaust port.
Kher teaches a second exhaust port (exhaust conduit 224) provided separately from the first exhaust port (conduit 218) and connected to an exhaust device that exhausts an inside of the container (the exhaust conduit 224 is connected to a valve 226, which may be coupled to a vent fan) [Fig. 2A & 0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Masumoto to have at least one exhaust port connected to an exhaust device, as in Kher, to provide the capability to remove harmful gases [Kher - 0057]. Collins et al. (US 20170335450) also discloses that it would be beneficial to have a dedicated exhaust line to allow for the purging of undesirable gases [Collins - 0044].
Modified Matsumoto (Matsumoto modified by Miyake and Kher) does not specifically disclose a second exhaust port provided separately from the first exhaust port at the lower portion of the container.
Although Wagner does not specifically disclose "a second exhaust port provided separately from the first exhaust port at the lower portion of the container," Wagner does disclose that exhaust location is a result effective variable. Specifically, exhausts can be provided at a location which is more convenient from a standpoint of the chamber design, location of the exhaust pump, or in terms of minimizing interference with other operations [Wagner - 0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover an optimum placement for exhaust ports in order to properly support processing operations [Wagner - 0012]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, although Masumoto does not specifically disclose "a second exhaust port provided separately from the first exhaust port at the lower portion of the container," modifying Matsumoto to have two exhaust ports at a lower portion of the container would be a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B). As such, Matsumoto would disclose two separate exhaust ports at a lower portion of the container.
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the raw material injection part is configured to spray the solution or the dispersion system into the container to vaporize and remove the solvent or the dispersion medium from the solution or the dispersion system before the solution or the dispersion system reaches the deposition part, wherein the deposition part is configured to deposit a second solid raw material, which is formed by the vaporization of the solvent or the dispersion medium, on the deposition part, and wherein the heating part is configured to heat the inside of the container to a temperature at which the second solid raw material deposited on the deposition part is sublimated,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
It is noted that the combination of references would be capable of performing the aforementioned limitation. Hyodo et al. (US 20040058510) discloses a heater (heater 32) for a container, and as such, the combination of references would be capable of heating the container such that a fed solution vaporizes as it enters the container, or such that a deposited material sublimates [Hyodo - 0079-0080, 0103]. It’s also noted that, a material injector is capable of supplying any type of solution desired, and as such, the combination of references would be capable of depositing a solute onto the deposition part. Furthermore, Miyake et al. (US 6271498) discloses carrier gas being fed to control the pressure of a container [Miyake – Col. 13 lines 14-28]. Therefore, the combination of references discloses an apparatus wherein both the temperature and the pressure inside a container can be controlled. Since the combination of references teaches a container with controllable conditions, the combination of references is capable of vaporizing a solution or sublimating a solution.
It's also noted that the raw material deposited in Matsumoto are usually solid at room temperature and normal pressure (therefore, at certain conditions, the chamber 40 is capable of depositing the solid materials of the containers 101a-101c) [Masumoto - Fig. 3 & 0003-0004, 0040, 0043].
Regarding Claim 15:
Matsumoto teaches wherein the deposition part partitions the inside of the container into a region including the injection part and a region including the exhaust port (as evidenced by Fig. 3, filter 434 divides the chamber 412 into two regions: one region with gas outlet 433 and one region with spray port 431a) [Fig. 3 & 0038-0040].
Regarding Claim 16:
Matsumoto teaches wherein the deposition part is made of a porous material (filter 434 can be made of a porous material) [Fig. 3 & 0013, 0038-0040].
Regarding Claim 20:
Matsumoto teaches wherein the deposition part is made of a porous material (filter 434 can be made of a porous material) [Fig. 3 & 0013, 0038-0040].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 14-16, and 20-21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a carrier gas injection part provided separately from the raw material injection part at the upper portion of the container,” and “a second exhaust port provided separately from the first exhaust port at the lower portion of the container.” However, this argument is now moot because the argument does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Miyake et al. (US 6271498), Panagopoulos et al. (US 20090236447), Takamatsu et al. (US 20040216669), Woelk et al. (US 20120034378), Kher et al. (US 20080063798), and Wagner et al. (US 20130340681) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the raw material injection part is configured to spray the solution or the dispersion system into the container to vaporize and remove the solvent or the dispersion medium from the solution or the dispersion system before the solution or the dispersion system reaches the deposition part, wherein the deposition part is configured to deposit a second solid raw material, which is formed by the vaporization of the solvent or the dispersion medium, on the deposition part, and wherein the heating part is configured to heat the inside of the container to a temperature at which the second solid raw material deposited on the deposition part is sublimated,”
In response, while the examiner agrees that the combination of references may not specifically disclose the exact listing of steps as claimed (for example, Matsumoto discloses that the solution mostly vaporizes once in contact with the deposition part), the examiner would again like to reiterate that the limitations are merely an intended use. In order for the combination of references to disclose the limitation, they only need to be capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The combination of references would be capable of performing the aforementioned limitation. Hyodo et al. (US 20040058510) discloses a heater (heater 32) for a container, and as such, the combination of references would be capable of heating the container such that a fed solution vaporizes as it enters the container, or such that a deposited material sublimates [Hyodo - 0079-0080, 0103]. It’s also noted that, a material injector is capable of supplying any type of solution desired, and as such, the combination of references would be capable of depositing a solute onto the deposition part. Furthermore, Miyake et al. (US 6271498) discloses carrier gas being fed to control the pressure of a container [Miyake – Col. 13 lines 14-28]. Therefore, the combination of references discloses an apparatus wherein both the temperature and the pressure inside a container can be controlled. Since the combination of references teaches a container with controllable conditions, the combination of references is capable of vaporizing a solution or sublimating a solution.
Furthermore, the raw material deposited in Matsumoto are usually solid at room temperature and normal pressure (therefore, at certain conditions, the chamber 40 is capable of depositing the solid materials of the containers 101a-101c) [Masumoto - Fig. 3 & 0003-0004, 0040, 0043].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718