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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’ amendment of the claims, filed on 12/30/2025, in response to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 11-15 from the non-final office action, mailed on 10/01/2025, by amending claims 1 and 11, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-10 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards to the “wherein the recess is created in the evaporator body by milling or grinding” of claim 7,
The “created... by milling or grinding” is considered as product-by-process. When the boat has a recess, it is considered meeting the claim language, no matter how it is created, such as milling, grinding, compressing, molding, or by any other processes.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusinko, Jr. et al. (US 20070110412, hereafter ‘412) in view of Adachi et al. (JP 07316785, hereafter ‘785).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘412 teaches:
Container for evaporation of metal (title, the claimed “An evaporation boat comprising an evaporator body”);
an inverted isosceles trapezoid shape for a cross-section as in FIG. 19 ([0036], note an upper surface of the body of Fig. 19, the claimed “wherein: the evaporator body comprises an evaporator surface which extends along a longitudinal direction of the evaporator body from a first end face toward a second end face of the evaporator body”);
The boat is connected to a source of electrical power within an evacuated chamber and heated to a controlled operating temperature sufficient to cause a metal charge placed in contact with the boat to vaporize ([0002], note It is well-known in the art that the metal charge is disposed and evaporated in the upper surface of the body, the claimed “wherein the evaporator surface comprises a surface over which the material to be evaporated is disposed and evaporated therefrom when the evaporation boat is in operation”);
the boat of the invention comprises a smooth surface onto which grooves are formed. In another embodiment, the boat has at least one cavity in the top surface, with the grooves being formed on the surface of the cavity ([0037], note before forming the groove and the cavity, the top surface is a smooth surface, in other words, the surface having no groove or cavity is known feature, thus the feature of a prior art of ‘412, the claimed “and wherein the entire evaporator surface is disposed to be in one linear plane in the longitudinal direction”);
Fig. 19 shows the boat intrinsically has an underside opposite to the body upper surface, thus the evaporator body has a thickness between the upper surface and the underside in a region along its longitudinal direction (the claimed “the evaporator body comprises an underside opposite to the evaporator surface, so that the evaporator body has a thickness between the evaporator surface and the underside in a region along the longitudinal direction”);
Fig. 19 shows the boat intrinsically has an end region on each of the first and second ends (the claimed “and the evaporator body comprises an end region on the first end face and on the second end face”);
Fig. 19 shows the end region and the center region have same thickness (the claimed “wherein a thickness of the end region is equal to or greater than a thickness of the center of the evaporator body”);
Fig. 19 shows the body upper surface extends (the claimed “and the evaporator surface extends”).
‘412 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: the evaporator body comprises at least one recess on an underside opposite to the evaporator surface, so that the evaporator body has a thickness between the evaporator surface and the underside in a region of the at least one recess along the longitudinal direction, and the thickness decreases from a center of the evaporator body in the longitudinal direction toward one of the end faces associated with the recess; and the evaporator body comprises an end region on the first end face and/or on the second end face and the at least one recess extends from the center of the evaporator body to the end region of the associated end face, wherein a thickness of the end region is equal to or greater than a thickness of the center of the evaporator body, and the evaporator surface extends beyond the at least one recess.
‘785 is analogous art in the field of heating element for evaporating metal (English title). Fig. 2 of ‘785 shows a groove or cavity that extends from the center toward an end region is on an underside of the body, and a thickness of the body in the underside groove or cavity region decreases from a center of the body in the longitudinal direction toward one of the end faces.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the decreasing groove or cavity, to the bottom of the boat of ‘412, for the purpose of overcoming non-uniform heat conduction from the end to the center, because the heat is generated by the electrical connection clamped at the end portions of the boat, the end portions of the boat have more heat than the center of the boat. Consequently, when the underside cavity is imported into ‘412, the imported groove would have modified the end portion of ‘412 so to be thinner, thus more heat is conducted to the center with less heat loss at the end portions. Further, even when the cavity is imported into the bottom of ‘412, the end portion thickness between the bottom and the top of the boat of ‘412 would be still equal to the thickness at the center between the bottom and the top, as shown in the illustration below. Lastly, even when the groove or cavity is imported, the upper surface of the body still intrinsically extends beyond the groove or cavity, because the length of the groove or cavity is smaller than the length of the upper surface of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
415
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to Claim 3,
Figs. 1-2 of ‘785 shows a thickness in an end region is equal to and/or greater than a thickness in the center, therefore, when the cavity of ‘785 is imported into ‘412, the cavity extends from the center towards the end region, and a thickness of the end region is equal to or greater than a thickness of the center, see also the illustration above (the claimed “wherein the evaporator body comprises an end region on the first end face and on the second end face and the at least one recess extends from the center of the evaporator body to the end region of the associated end face, wherein a thickness of the end region is equal to or greater than a thickness of the center of the evaporator body”).
Regarding to Claim 2,
Fig. 2 of ‘785 shows a groove or cavity is on an underside of the body, and a thickness of the body in the groove or cavity region decreases from a center of the body in the longitudinal direction toward one of the end faces, therefore, when the cavity of ‘785 is imported into ‘412, the thickness of the body of ‘412 gradually decrease from the center towards an end portion, see also the illustration above (the claimed “wherein the thickness of the evaporator body decreases substantially continuously in the region of the at least one recess along the longitudinal direction”).
Regarding to Claim 4,
‘785 teaches As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the groove has a taper shape with a width of 4 mm having a depth of 0.8 mm at the end of the cavity and 0 mm at the center of the cavity ([0019]), and the groove depth was variously changed ([0021]).
Based on teaching of the variable depth of the cavity of ‘785, depending on the variable depth, the thickness (see the illustration above) would be changed, in other words, the thickness of the body is also result effective variable parameter to control the uniform heating.
Consequently, when the cavity of ‘785 is imported into ‘412, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found the minimum thickness, as recited, for the purpose of providing uniform heat conduction from the end to the center, and/or since 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.
Regarding to Claim 5,
The body of Fig. 19 of ‘412 shows a mirror plane exists at the center (the claimed “wherein the evaporator body comprises a mirror plane which extends along a transverse direction, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and through the center of the evaporator body”).
Regarding to Claim 7,
The modified ‘412 has cavity (see the claim interpretation above, the claimed “wherein the recess is created in the evaporator body by milling or grinding”).
Regarding to Claim 11,
Claim 11 has all the limitation of Claims 1 and 3, therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 1 and 3 rejection with ‘412 and ‘785 above.
Regarding to Claims 12-15,
‘412 teaches the metallization boat comprises an electrically conductive component such as titanium diboride, zirconium diboride, titanium nitride, silicon carbide, chromium carbide, and mixtures thereof; a non-conductive component such as boron nitride, aluminum nitride, silicon nitride, nitride of a rare earth metal compound, alumina, silica, boric oxide, boron oxynitride, oxide of a rare earth metal compound, oxide of an alkaline earth metal, and mixtures thereof. The boron nitride is either hexagonal boron nitride or amorphous boron nitride, or its mixtures ([0026], the claimed “wherein the evaporator body is comprised of a ceramic material” of Claims 12 and 14, and “wherein the ceramic material is selected from a group of titanium diboride (TiB2), boron nitride (BN), aluminum nitride (AIN), or mixtures thereof” of Claims 13 and 15).
Alternatively, claims 1-5, 7, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘412 in view of GOETZ et al. (ES 2352433, hereafter ‘433) and ‘785.
In case the applicants keep arguing that ‘412 does not teach the “and wherein the entire evaporator surface is disposed to be in one linear plane in the longitudinal direction” of the amended claim 1, without providing any evidence,
‘433 is analogous art in the field of vaporization body (English abstract of the English translation). ‘433 teaches According to one embodiment, the upper side, which comprises the vaporization surface, comprises a cavity inside which the material to be vaporized is supplied… However, it is also possible that the vaporization capsule has a flat (upper) vaporization surface without a cavity (last paragraph of page 2), it is not necessary to provide a cavity in the vaporization body (last paragraph of page 3), and it is also possible to omit cavity 4 (last paragraph of page 4).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the upper surface of the body of Fig. 19, to be flat having no cavity and groove, for the purpose of providing simple body structure depending on a manufacturing cost, and/or further the selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claims 2-5, 7, 11-15,
Claims 2-5, 7, 11-15 are alternatively rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 2-5, 7, 11-15 rejection with ‘412 and ‘785 above.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants admitted prior art (hereafter AAPA) in view of Adachi et al. (JP 07316785, hereafter ‘785).
Regarding to Claims 1-5, 7 and 11-15, AAPA teaches:
FIG. 8 a sectional view through an example of an evaporation boat as known in the prior art ([0041] of the applicants’ disclosure, note Based on Fig. 8, the applicants’ prior art appears to be the same as the applicants’ apparatus of Fig. 5, thus it is considered to teach all the recited features of Claims 1-5, 7 and 11-15).
‘AAPA does not explicitly teach “the evaporator body comprises at least one recess on an underside opposite to the evaporator surface, so that the evaporator body has a thickness between the evaporator surface and the underside in a region of the at least one recess along the longitudinal direction, and the thickness decreases from a center of the evaporator body in the longitudinal direction toward one of the end faces associated with the recess; and the evaporator body comprises an end region on the first end face and/or on the second end face and the at least one recess extends from the center of the evaporator body to the end region of the associated end face, wherein a thickness of the end region is equal to or greater than a thickness of the center of the evaporator body, and the evaporator surface extends beyond the at least one recess” of Claims 1 and 11.
However, as discussed in ‘785 above,
Fig. 2 of ‘785 shows a groove or cavity that extends from the center toward an end region is on an underside of the body, and a thickness of the body in the underside groove or cavity region decreases from a center of the body in the longitudinal direction toward one of the end faces.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the decreasing groove or cavity, to the bottom of the boat of ‘412, for the purpose of overcoming non-uniform heat conduction from the end to the center, because the heat is generated by the electrical connection clamped at the end portions of the boat, the end portions of the boat have more heat than the center of the boat. Consequently, when the underside cavity is imported into ‘412, the imported groove would have modified the end portion of ‘412 so to be thinner, thus more heat is conducted to the center with less heat loss at the end portions. Further, even when the cavity is imported into the bottom of ‘412, the end portion thickness between the bottom and the top of the boat of ‘412 would be still equal to the thickness at the center between the bottom and the top, as shown in the illustration below. Lastly, even when the groove or cavity is imported, the upper surface of the body still intrinsically extends beyond the groove or cavity, because the length of the groove or cavity is smaller than the length of the upper surface of the body.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed on 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
In regards to the 35USC103 rejection of Claims 1 and 11, the applicants argue that due to the groove of ‘412, ‘412 does not teach the new limitation of the amended claims, see the pages 8-9.
This argument is found not persuasive.
As discussed in the claim rejection above, before forming the groove and the cavity on the top surface of the body of ‘412, the top surface is a smooth surface, in other words, the surface having no groove or cavity is well-known feature as a prior art.
Emphasized again, an earlier prior art within the cited reference is still a part of the prior art, therefore, use of the earlier known feature clearly set forth anticipation or obviousness rejection.
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 AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights