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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 January 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 each recite the limitation “the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body”. Examiner finds no implicit or explicit support for this limitation as part of the original disclosure. First, Examiner notes Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose integrally forming or forming the top wall, the bottom wall and the side wall as a unitary monolithic body. Rather, the original disclosure mentions at para. 40 (pointed to by Applicant as support) that the a 3d pattern 202 (on the bottom wall), a top wall, a side wall and a bottom wall are “built as one piece”. What “built as one piece” means and more specifically, its bounds are not specifically discussed in the paragraph, except to say the 3d pattern 202 may be detachable. Without further evidence, Examiner does not find the term formed as a unitary monolithic body to be commensurate to the original disclosure. In particular, generic phrase “built as one piece” without further clarification or evidence is not equivalent or commensurate to the very specific, well-defined phrase “formed as a unitary monolithic body”. For example, something permanently mounted would not normally be considered detachable; by no means would something permanently mounted render something formed as unitary monolithic body. Further clarification/evidence/correction is requested. Nevertheless, in order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as written.
Claim 32 recites “the plurality of area enlarging elements integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body with the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall”. It appears to lack support with the original disclosure for at least the reasons set forth above. Further clarification/evidence/correction is requested. Nevertheless, in order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as written.
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.
Claim 32 is 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.
Claim 32 appears to be missing the word “are” between “elements” and “integrally”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed its presence and examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 31 and 36 are found to be found allowable, claims 39 and 40 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 31-37 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0056283 to Shero et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0131630 to Birtcher et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 12 and 14, e.g., Shero et al. disclose a precursor supply system for thin film deposition substantially as claimed, the precursor supply system comprising a precursor source container, wherein the precursor source container comprises: a top wall (306); a bottom wall (340); a side wall (310) circumferentially connecting the top wall and the bottom wall, wherein the bottom wall has a plurality of area enlarging elements (364) protruding from an interior surface thereof configured to enlarge the total contact area with a solid precursor stored thereon to enhance heat transfer to the solid precursor source; an inlet (384) configured to allow introduction of a carrier gas into the precursor source container; and an outlet (388) configured to allow exit of a precursor vapor generated in the precursor source container. See, e.g., paras. 34 and 44 and 75-87.
Shero et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as set forth above.
However, Shero et al. fail to disclose the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body.
Birtcher et al. teach using a 3D printing process (i.e. a single manufacturing step without any disclosed attachments necessary) as a way of providing a precursor source container design with, inter alia, an acceptable deposition rate and without clogging (see, e.g., paras. 4-9 and 84-91).
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 Shero et al. a 3D printing manufacturing step such that the top wall, bottom wall and side wall are integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body without any mechanical attachments in order to provide a precursor source container design with, inter alia, an acceptable deposition rate and without clogging as taught by Birtcher et al.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Shero et al., Shero et al. teach the bottom wall may have a second plurality of are enlarging elements (see, e.g., Fig. 14 wherein at least 4 enlarging elements (i.e. two pluralities).
With respect to claim 3, in modified Shero et al., Shero et al. teach the plurality of area enlarging elements (364) 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 modified Shero et al., Shero et al., the precursor supply system may further comprise a heating element (362) 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 modified Shero et al., Shero et al. teach the supply system may further comprise a carrier gas source (not illustrated but necessarily provided, see, e.g., para. 81) 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.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Shero et al., Shero et al., teach a gas box (recesses between filter 396 and solid portions of 374) may be in gas communication with the outlet of the precursor source container, the gas box configured to be capable of stabilizing, purifying and homogenizing the precursor vapor transferred therein.
Regarding claims 31 and 39: In Figs. 12 and 14, e.g., Shero et al. disclose a precursor supply system for thin film deposition substantially as claimed, the precursor supply system comprising a precursor source container, wherein the precursor source container comprises: a top wall (306); a bottom wall (340); a side wall (310) circumferentially connecting the top wall and the bottom wall, and wherein a plurality of area enlarging elements (364) are located on and protruding from an interior surface of the bottom wall, the area enlarging elements configured to enlarge a total contact area with a solid precursor source stored thereon to enhance heat transfer to the solid precursor source; an inlet (384) configured to allow introduction of a carrier gas into the precursor source container; and an outlet (388) configured to allow exit of a precursor vapor generated in the precursor source container. See, e.g., paras. 34 and 44 and 75-87.
Shero et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as set forth above.
However, Shero et al. fail to disclose the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body.
Birtcher et al. teach using a 3D printing process (i.e. a single manufacturing step without any disclosed attachments necessary) as a way of providing a precursor source container design with, inter alia, an acceptable deposition rate and without clogging (see, e.g., paras. 4-9 and 84-91).
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 Shero et al. a 3D printing manufacturing step such that the top wall, bottom wall and side wall are integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body without any mechanical attachments in order to provide a precursor source container design with, inter alia, an acceptable deposition rate and without clogging as taught by Birtcher et al.
With respect to claim 32: Modified Shero et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as set forth above.
However, the embodiment fails to disclose the plurality of area enlarging elements are integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body with the top wall, the bottom wall and the side wall.
Again, Birtcher et al. teach using a 3D printing process (i.e. a single manufacturing step without any disclosed attachments necessary) as a way of providing a precursor source container design with, inter alia, an acceptable deposition rate and without clogging (see, e.g., paras. 4-9 and 84-91).
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 Shero et al. a 3d printing manufacturing step wherein the plurality of area enlarging elements are integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body with the top wall, the bottom wall and the side wall without any mechanical attachments in order to provide a precursor source container design with, inter alia, an acceptable deposition rate and without clogging as taught by Birtcher et al.
With respect to claim 33, in modified Shero et al., Shero et al., Shero et al. disclose that the plurality of area enlarging elements are separate from each other in a direction substantially orthogonal to their linear portions. See, e.g., Figs. 12 and 14.
With respect to claim 34, in modified Shero et al., Shero et al. disclose each of the plurality of area enlarging elements (i.e. the linear portions thereof) may be arranged in parallel to each other in a first horizontal direction. See, e.g., inner portions in Fig. 12.
With respect to claim 35, in modified Shero et al., Shero et al., the plurality of area enlarging elements is characterized by a cross-sectional shape that is substantially rectangular (see solid portions formed by 364 in Fig. 12.).
With respect to claims 36 and 40, in modified Shero et al., Shero et al. teach each of the plurality of the area enlarging elements is characterized by a cross-sectional shape that substantially triangular (e.g. see shape formed surfaces thereof in Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 37, in modified Shero et al., Shero et al. teach each of the plurality of the area enlarging elements is characterized by a cross-sectional shape that is substantially curved (e.g. see shape formed by inner portions thereof in Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Shero et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 31-37 and 39-40 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0111014 to Donatucci et al.
Modified Shero et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above, including the use of the enlarging elements to aid in transferring heat directly to precursor material (see, e.g., para. 27).
However, modified Shero et al. fail to explicitly disclose optimization of the same such that the area enlarging elements increase a total area of the interior surface by at least 10%, or at least 10%, or at least 20%, or at least 30%, or at least 40%, or at least 50%, or at least 100%, or at least 150%, or at least 200%, or at least 500%, or at least 1,000%, relative to the interior surface without the area enlarging elements.
Donatucci et al. teach (see, e.g., paras. 2, 19, 35, 47) increasing surface area for the purpose of effectively contacting source material (i.e., a precursor) and yielding increased amounts of vaporized source to a downstream system. Additionally, it is noted that the court 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 in modified Shero et al. in order to effectively contact source material (i.e., a precursor) and yield increased amounts of vaporized source to a downstream system as taught by Donatucci et al.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Shero et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 31-37 and 39-40 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: modified Shero et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Shero et al. fail 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 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 Shero et al., Chandrasekharan et al. and Woelk et al.
Regarding claim 7, in modified Shero et al, 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 Shero et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 31-37 and 39-40 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0209022 to Inoue et al.
Modified Shero et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Shero et al. fail 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 Shero et al. 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) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Shero et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 31-37 and 39-40 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0219168 to Brcka.
Modified Shero et al. disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Shero et al. fail to disclose the plurality of area enlarging elements is characterized by a cross-sectional shape that is arranged in multiple concentric circles.
Brcka teach providing area enlarging elements arranged in multiple concentric circles for the purpose of providing a constant surface area as solid precursor is consumed (see, e.g., abstract).
Additionally, 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); 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); and 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).
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 as multiple concentric circles or as other suitably shaped alternatives in order to provide a substantially constant surface area as solid precursor is consumed as taught by Brcka.
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, except for those addressed below.
Applicant has argued that by replacing “built as one piece” with the language “integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body” the claims are now definite.
In response, Examiner notes that while the claims may now be “definite”, the issue relating to the language at issue has merely shifted from one relating to a lack of clarity to one relating to lack of disclosure, as para. 40 does not provide support for “a unitary monolithic body”. For example, it could merely mean that they are not meant to be detached from one another, wherein detachment might lead to defects or destruction.
Applicant has argued that Shero alone fails to disclose “the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body”.
Examiner agrees with this characterization of Shero. However, see rejections under 35 USC 112a above, wherein Examiner does not find that Applicant discloses this feature either.
Applicant has also argued that Shero in combination with Birtcher fails to render obvious “the top wall, the bottom wall, and the side wall are integrally formed as a unitary monolithic body” because it necessitates a removable lid in order to be filled with solid precursor powder.
Examiner disagrees and notes that Shero does not limit to solid precursor; and even if it did -- there are ways (well-known in the art) of refilling a solid powder (or a liquid) into a container without removing a lid. Thus, the prior art combination remains relied upon above in a modified rejection that accounts for Applicant’s claim amendments.
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.
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