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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 September 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 1, 31 and 39 “area enlarging elements” have been interpreted as illustrated in Figs. 2a-h and the accompanying paras. 39-45 of the specification and equivalents thereto; claim 5 “heating element” which has been interpreted as an electrical heat source, a furnace, and infrared heat source, a heat tape and equivalents thereto as set forth at para. 34 of the specification; claim 7 computing system has been interpreted as including a processor, memory, machine learning module, communication component and a data storage service as set forth in para. 55 of the specification (and equivalents thereto).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: precursor control unit in claim 6 which also recites the additional structures that make up the same.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claims 1, 31 and 39 recite the limitation “the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are not detachable from one another” and “the plurality of area enlarging elements and the bottom wall are not detachable from each other”. Originally or presently, none of Applicant’s disclosure, claims or arguments state, clarify and/or suggest support for these claim limitations. It is also noted that the language at least suggests that the limitation is a product by process limitation. Again, this is not clear since the process is not discussed. Paragraph 40 discloses that the 3D pattern is detachably mounted to the bottom wall. There is no mention of “the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are not detachable from one another” or “the plurality of area enlarging elements and the bottom wall are not detachable from each other”. Thus, the claimed features appear to overstep the disclosure and represent new matter. All patent examination procedures regarding product-by-process limitations are also assumed to be applicable to the claim language. The claimed feature has been examined as written to the best of Examiner’s ability. However, further clarification and/or correction is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claims 1, 31 and 39 recite the limitation “the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are not detachable from one another”. It is unclear what this particular limitation is meant to include and/or exclude. Originally or presently, none of Applicant’s disclosure, claims or arguments state, clarify and/or suggest how this claim is meant to be interpreted based on the disclosure of the present application. Thus, the limitation is unclear. It is also noted that the language at least suggests that the limitation is a product by process limitation. Again, this is not clear since the process is not discussed. Paragraph 40 discloses that the 3D pattern is detachably mounted to the bottom wall. There is no mention of “the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are not detachable from one another”. All patent examination procedures regarding product-by-process limitations are also assumed to be applicable to the claim language. The claimed feature has been examined as written to the best of Examiner’s ability. However, further clarification and/or correction is requested.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8 and 31-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0039794 to Birtcher et al. (referred to as Birtcher II).
Regarding claim 1: Birtcher II disclose a precursor supply system for thin film deposition, the precursor supply system comprising a precursor source container (Figs. 1-6, 10), wherein the precursor source container comprises: a top wall (12); a bottom wall (14); a side wall (16) circumferentially connecting the top wall and the bottom wall, wherein the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are not detachable from each other (e.g. not designed to be detached during use/vaporization); a plurality of area enlarging elements (see, e.g., 34) protruding upwardly from an interior surface of the bottom wall, wherein the plurality of area enlarging elements and the bottom wall are not detachable from each other (e.g. not designed to be detached during use/vaporization), the plurality of area enlarging elements configured to support a solid precursor source stored thereon (i.e. physical contact therewith) and enlarge a total contact area with the solid precursor source to enhance heat transfer to the solid precursor source; an inlet (22) configured to allow introduction of a carrier gas into the precursor source container; and an outlet (24) configured to allow exit of a precursor vapor generated in the precursor source container. Birtcher et al. teaches that the protrusions 34, may protrude from the top wall, side wall or bottom wall, or combinations thereof (see, e.g., para. 35).
With respect to claim 3, in Birtcher II, the plurality of area enlarging elements (34) are configured to enlarge a total contact area of the interior surface of the precursor source container with a precursor source stored therein.
With respect to claim 5, in Birtcher II, the precursor supply system may further comprise a heating element (see, e.g., para. 33) in proximity or contact with the precursor source container, the heating element configured to heat the precursor source container and evaporate a precursor source place therein.
With respect to claim 8, in Birtcher II, precursor supply system may further comprise a carrier gas source (not illustrated but necessarily provided, see, e.g., para. 30) in gas communication with the inlet of the precursor source container, the carrier gas source configured to supply the carrier gas into the precursor source container, wherein the carrier gas is mixed with the evaporated precursor source to generate a precursor vapor in the precursor source container.
Regarding claim 31: Birtcher II disclose a precursor supply system for thin film deposition, the precursor supply system comprising a precursor source container (Figs. 1-6, 10), wherein the precursor source container comprises: a top wall (12); a bottom wall (14); a side wall (16) circumferentially connecting the top wall and the bottom wall, wherein the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are not detachable from each other (e.g. not designed to be detached during use/vaporization); a plurality of first area enlarging elements (see, e.g., 34) protruding upwardly from an interior surface of the bottom wall, wherein the plurality of area enlarging elements and the bottom wall are not detachable from each other (e.g. not designed to be detached during use/vaporization), the plurality of first area enlarging elements configured to support a solid precursor source stored thereon (i.e. physical contact therewith) and enlarge a total contact area with the solid precursor source to enhance heat transfer to the solid precursor source; an inlet (22) configured to allow introduction of a carrier gas into the precursor source container; and an outlet (24) configured to allow exit of a precursor vapor generated in the precursor source container.
With respect to claim 32, Birtcher II teaches that the protrusions 34, may protrude from the top wall, side wall or bottom wall, or combinations thereof (see, e.g., para. 35), such that there may be a plurality of second area enlarging elements located on and protruding horizontally from an interior surface of the side wall, wherein the plurality of second area enlarging elements and the side wall are not detachable from each other (e.g. not designed to be detached during use/vaporization).
With respect to claim 33, in Birtcher II, the plurality of first area enlarging elements are continuously connected by the bottom wall. See aforementioned figures, esp. Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 34, in Birtcher II, the plurality of first area enlarging elements may be arranged in parallel to each other in a first horizontal direction (i.e. a direction corresponding to the bottom wall). See aforementioned figures, esp. Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 35, Birtcher II, the first plurality of area enlarging elements is characterized by a cross-sectional shape in a direction perpendicular to the interior surface that is substantially square or rectangular. See aforementioned figures, esp. Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 36, Birtcher II teaches that the protrusions 34, may protrude from the top wall, side wall or bottom wall, or combinations thereof (see, e.g., para. 35), such that the first plurality of area enlarging elements is a first portion of a three-dimensional (3D) pattern, and the 3D pattern further includes a second portion comprising a plurality of second area enlarging elements located on and protruding from an interior surface of the side wall.
With respect to claim 37, in Birtcher II, the first portion of the 3D pattern and the second portion of the 3D pattern are continuously connected by the bottom wall and the side wall, which contact one another.
With respect to claim 38, in Birtcher II, the plurality of first area enlarging elements are arranged in multiple concentric circles, wherein concentric circles can be mapped thereon in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 39: Birtcher II disclose a precursor supply system for thin film deposition, the precursor supply system comprising a precursor source container (Figs. 1-6, 10), wherein the precursor source container comprises: a top wall (12); a bottom wall (14); a side wall (16) circumferentially connecting the top wall and the bottom wall, wherein the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are not detachable from each other (e.g. not designed to be detached during use/vaporization); a plurality of first area enlarging elements (see, e.g., 34) protruding upwardly from an interior surface of the bottom wall, wherein the plurality of area enlarging elements and the bottom wall are not detachable from each other (e.g. not designed to be detached during use/vaporization), the plurality of first area enlarging elements configured to support a solid precursor source stored thereon (i.e. physical contact therewith) and enlarge a total contact area with the solid precursor source to enhance heat transfer to the solid precursor source; an inlet (22) configured to allow introduction of a carrier gas into the precursor source container; and an outlet (24) configured to allow exit of a precursor vapor generated in the precursor source container. Additionally, Birtcher II teaches that the protrusions 34, may protrude from the top wall, side wall or bottom wall, or combinations thereof (see, e.g., para. 35), such that there may be a plurality of second area enlarging elements protruding horizontally from an interior surface of the side wall, wherein the plurality of second area enlarging elements and the side wall are not detachable from each other (e.g. not designed to be detached during use/vaporization), at least a portion of the second area enlarging elements configured to be in contact with the solid precursor source (again, see para. 35).
With respect to claim 40, in Birtcher II, the first portion of the 3D pattern and the second portion of the 3D pattern are continuously connected by the bottom wall and the side wall, which contact one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birtcher II as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 31-40 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0189558 to Liu.
Birtcher II discloses the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Birtcher II fails to disclose a horizontal cross-sectional profile of the plurality of area enlarging elements parallel to the bottom wall varies as a height from the interior surface of the bottom wall increases; and/or a horizontal cross-sectional profile of the plurality of area enlarging elements parallel to the bottom wall continuously decreased in area as a height from the interior surface of the bottom wall increases.
Liu teach providing area enlarging elements in a variety of shapes including those of a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape extending from an inner surface of a container (corresponding to the aforementioned instantly, generically triangular claimed shapes) as suitable alternatives that provide necessary carrier gas turbulence for mixing (see, e.g., para. 89).
Additionally, the courts have ruled that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); and the courts have held that selections of shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the area enlarging elements of Birtcher II having a substantially triangular cross-sectional shape extending from an inner surface of the precursor container, or as other suitable shaped alternatives in order to necessary carrier gas turbulence for mixing as taught by Liu.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birtcher II as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 31-40 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0257878 to Chandrasekharan et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0171383 to Woelk et al.
Regarding claim 6: Birtcher II discloses the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Birtcher II fails to explicitly disclose a precursor control unit operably connected to the precursor source container, the precursor control unit comprising: a concentration sensor configured to detect and monitor a real-time precursor vapor concentration in the precursor container; a temperature sensor configured to detect and monitor a real-time temperature of the precursor source container; a mass sensor configured to detect and monitor a real-time unconsumed quantity of the precursor source remaining in the precursor source container; wherein the precursor control unit is configured to control the heating element and adjust the temperature of the precursor in situ during operation.
Chandrasekharan et al. disclose the provision of a concentration sensor (see, e.g., Fig. 4A-F, 432; paras. 54, 101) configured to detect and monitor a real-time precursor vapor concentration. Note: the concentration of the precursor vapor is considered to be reflective of the precursor vapor concentration in the precursor source.
Woelk et al. disclose a mass sensor configured to detect and monitor a real-time unconsumed quantity of the precursor source remaining in the precursor source container for the purpose of continuously controlling the flux of precursor into the precursor source container to maintain a constant precursor level therein (see, e.g., para. 53); and a temperature sensor (312) configured to detect and monitor a real-time temperature of the precursor, and wherein the precursor control unit is configured to control a heating element and adjust the temperature of the precursor source in situ during operation in combination with a computing system (i.e. controller, computer, cpu) (see also, e.g., para. 51).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided Birtcher II having a precursor control unit operably connected to the precursor source container, the precursor control unit comprising: a concentration sensor, a temperature sensor, and a mass sensor with connecting circuitry as part of the precursor control unit in order to effectively control operations thereof as taught and detailed above by Birtcher II Chandrasekharan et al. and Woelk et al.
Regarding claim 7, in modified Birtcher II, as detailed above (see, e.g., paras. 5-7, 33, 62, 65, 100, 104) of Woelk et al. and (see, e.g., paras. 149-151) of Chandrasekharan et al., the parts of the precursor control system and computing system in real-time communication with each other (i.e., transmitting and receiving information with respect to one another) (paras. 149-151), such that real time-time temperature, concentration of the precursor vapor, and/or unconsumed quantity of the precursor source is transmitted in-situ to the computing system; and receive an instruction from the computing system, the instruction having a real-time temperature adjustment signal based on a pre-established operation model for a target range of the precursor vapor concentration; and control the heating element in-situ based on the instruction to maintain the precursor vapor concentration in the target range.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birtcher II as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 31-40 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0209022 to Inoue et al.
Birtcher II discloses the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Birtcher II fails to explicitly disclose a mass flow controller in gas communication with the carrier gas source and the inlet of the precursor source container, the mass flow controller configured to control flow rate and pressure of the carrier gas to be introduced into the precursor source container.
Nevertheless, the same is well-known in the art, Inoue et al. teach providing a mass flow controller in gas communication with a carrier gas source and an inlet of the precursor source container, the mass flow controller configured to control flow rate (and indirectly pressure) of the carrier gas to be introduced into the precursor source container (see, e.g., Fig. 8, 42; paras. 29-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Birtcher II a mass flow controller in gas communication with the carrier gas source and the inlet of the precursor source container, the mass flow controller configured to control flow rate and pressure of the carrier gas to be introduced into the precursor source container as taught by Inoue et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birtcher II as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 31-40 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0111014 to Donatucci et al.
Birtcher II discloses the system substantially as claimed and as described above, including the use of the enlarging elements occupying an area of an inner surface of the precursor source container to aid in transferring heat directly to precursor material (see, e.g., para. 35).
However, Birtcher II fails to explicitly disclose optimization of the occupied area, wherein the interior surface of the bottom is fully covered by the plurality of area enlarging elements.
Donatucci et al. teach (see, e.g., paras. 2, 19, 35, 47) increasing surface area using area enlarging elements on an inner surface of a precursor source container for the purpose of effectively contacting source material (i.e., a precursor) and yielding increased amounts of vaporized source to a downstream system, wherein the area enlarging elements are provided in sufficient quantity to provide corresponding additional surface area for contacting precursor source mater. Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the enlarging elements with optimized (and increased) surface area (i.e. the interior surface of the bottom wall is fully covered by the plurality of area enlarging elements) in Birtcher II in order to effectively contact and heat precursor source material and yield increased amounts of a vaporized source to a downstream system as taught by Donatucci et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 31-40 gave been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner notes that the issues brought up and discussed in the most recent interview were not addressed in the RCE filing (claims or remarks). The rejections under 35 USC 112 set forth above reflect questions and concerns set forth by Examiner during the interview.
Conclusion
The art and prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. 2018/0245206 is a disclosure that provides explicit support and a specific definition for how to interpret a one-piece construction with respect to their claimed invention. USP Pub. No. USP 2009/0181168 discloses concentric area enlarging elements. USP Pub. 2024/03484417 discloses thin film deposition with improved control of a precursor. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0177309 disclose providing embedded objects during 3D printing. USP Pub. 2003/0053799 disclose a precursor source container with area enlarging elements of various shapes on various inner surfaces of the container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights