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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 October 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 22-23 and 27 are indicated as currently amended. Claim 27 does not appear to be amended.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 2 (corresponding to, e.g., Figs. 3A-4D) in the reply filed on 12 February 2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 9, 12-18 and 20 were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, claim 2 and 3 thermally conductive plate; claim 22 first edge and second edge; and claim 23 lip must be shown (and labeled) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-5, 11, 19 and 21-26 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the compressible portion is manually compressible” (emphasis added). Examiner is unable to locate support of this limitation in the original disclosure. Nevertheless, the claims are examined as written, even if the feature appears to relate primarily or exclusively to an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 2 and claim 3 now recite “the heat transfer component comprises a thermally conductive plate” and “the second heat-transfer component comprises a thermally conductive plate”. However, from the original disclosure as set forth with the elected and claimed embodiment of Species 2 (Figs. 3A-4D), Examiner is unable to locate the thermally conductive plate as part of the heat transfer component and second heat transfer component. Nevertheless, the claims have been examined as written. See above drawing objections.
Further, with respect to claims 22 and 23, and also related to claims 2 and 3, Examiner is unable to locate the thermally conductive plate as part of the heat transfer component and second heat transfer component that further includes a first edge, a second edge and a lip as part of the original disclosure. Again, the claims have been examined as written. See above drawing objections.
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 2-5, 22-23 and 26 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 dependency.
Claims 2 and 3 now recite “the heat transfer component comprises a thermally conductive plate” and “the second heat-transfer component comprises a thermally conductive plate”. It appears that the thermally conductive plate is at least meant to act as the first heat transfer component and the second heat transfer component, this is not clear based on the claim language or the original disclosure. Clarification and/or correction is requested. In order to expedite Examination, Examiner has assumed this is the case.
Claims 4-5 recite the limitation “heat transfer component and second heat transfer component”, which have been previously further defined as “thermally conductive plates”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to the now claimed “thermally conductive plates of the heat transfer component and second heat transfer component” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “heat transfer component and second heat transfer component”, which have been previously further defined as “thermally conductive plates”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to the now claimed “thermally conductive plates of the heat transfer component and second heat transfer component” and has examined accordingly.
Claim 23 recite the limitation “the first and second thermally conductive components”, which have been previously further defined as “thermally conductive plates”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to the now claimed “thermally conductive plates of the heat transfer component and second heat transfer component” and has examined accordingly.
Claims 25-26 are rejected because the claim appears to only appear to add to the claimed invention by reliance on features of the ampoule which is not considered a feature of the claimed apparatus. It is not clear to Examiner what the claim is meant to cover or not cover based on the claim language. In examination, the ampoule has not been interpreted as a feature of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “heat transfer components”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to the now claimed “thermally conductive plates of the heat transfer component and second heat transfer component” and has examined accordingly.
In all instances, clarifications and/or corrections are requested. Additionally, any future amendments should take into consideration the issues addressed above.
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, 11, 19, 21, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 4,947,790 to Gärtner et al.
Regarding claim 1: Gärtner et al. disclose a tray (individual ones of 22 in Fig. 2) for an ampoule, comprising: a compressible portion having a compressed state and a relaxed state, wherein a spring potential energy in the compressible portion in the compressed state is necessarily higher than in the relaxed state, and wherein the compressible portion comprises an accordion-like (e.g. “sinusoidal”) surface having a ridge direction (i.e. in and out of page) and a fold direction (i.e. direction of arrangement of plurality of folds). (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and column 8, rows 53-68). Gärtner also teach that the structure of the tray may be drawn together or pressed apart in order to optimize a coating material in the trays.
Gärtner et al. do not expressly teach the compressible portion is manually compressible from the relaxed state to the compressed state for insertion or removal from the ampoule and wherein when the manual compression is released, the compressible portion expands the tray against an inner wall of the ampoule.
However, it is noted that the feature is one based on an intended use(s) of the claimed apparatus (i.e., manual compression, insertion and/or removal). Additionally, it is noted that the ampoule is not considered a feature of the claimed invention, rather an apparatus with which the tray may be used during an intended use (e.g., insertion and/or removal and/or vaporizing, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 11, in Gärtner et al., the accordion-like surface is configured to (i.e. capable of) holding solid precursor materials. See above regarding intended use. Also, the courts have ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 19, the tray may be provided as part of an ampoule (1).
With respect to claim 21, the tray of Gärtner et al. is capable of an intended use wherein the accordion-like surface may be compressed in the fold direction and not the ridge direction. Additionally, again, with respect to intended use, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 25, see above regarding intended use, wherein the courts have ruled that “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also, Gärtner is capable of such a configuration.
With respect to claim 27, in Gärtner, the tray includes flat portions connected by hinge portions. Also see above regarding intended use, wherein the courts have ruled that “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See annotated figure above.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 22-23 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/234715 to Wang et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Fig. 30, Wang et al. disclose a tray for an ampoule, comprising: a compressible portion (inner portion of 3040) having a compressed state and a relaxed state, wherein a spring potential energy in the compressible portion in the compressed state is necessarily higher than in the relaxed state, and wherein the compressible portion comprises an accordion-like surface having a ridge direction (i.e. in and out of page) and a fold direction (i.e. direction of arrangement of plurality of folds). For example, see annotated figure below, and also paras. 102, 107-109, 123-124 and 134.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang et al. does not expressly teach the compressible portion is manually compressible from the relaxed state to the compressed state for insertion or removal from the ampoule and wherein when the manual compression is released, the compressible portion expands the tray against an inner wall of the ampoule.
However, it is noted that the feature is one based on an intended use(s) of the claimed apparatus (i.e., manual compression, insertion and/or removal). Additionally, it is noted that the ampoule is not considered a feature of the claimed invention, rather an apparatus with which the tray may be used during an intended use (e.g., insertion and/or removal and/or vaporizing, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Wang et al. further disclose a heat transfer component/thermally conductive plate and a second heat-transfer component/thermally conductive plate, wherein both the thermally conductive plate of the heat transfer component and the second heat transfer component are in thermal contact with the compressible portion. See annotated figure above.
With respect to claim 4, in Wang et al., a distance from the heat-transfer component/thermally conductive plate to the second heat-transfer component/thermally conductive plate would be reduced when the compressible portion is manually compressed. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 5, the heat-transfer component and the second heat-transfer component are configured to be (i.e., capable of being) in thermal contact with the inner wall surface of the ampoule, and wherein the heat-transfer component and the second heat-transfer component are configured to transfer (i.e. capable of transferring) thermal energy from the inner wall surface of the ampoule to the compressible portion. Note: the ampoule is not considered a feature of this claim. See, e.g., MPEP 2111.02. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 11, in Wang et al., the accordion-like surface is configured to (i.e. capable of) holding solid precursor materials. See above regarding intended use. Also, the courts have ruled that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 21, the tray of Wang et al. is capable of an intended use wherein the accordion-like surface may be compressed in the fold direction and not the ridge direction. Additionally, again, with respect to intended use, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 22, Wang et al. disclose, see annotated figure above, the heat transfer component/thermally conductive plate and the second heat transfer component/thermally conductive plate each comprise: a first edge contacting the compressible portion of the tray; a second edge opposite the first edge, the second edge contoured such that it can conform to an inner surface of an ampoule (also see above with respect to intended use); and the heat transfer component/thermally conductive plate connecting the first edge and the second edge, the heat transfer component/thermally conductive plate made of a thermally conductive, corrosion resistant material.
With respect to claim 25, in Wang et al., the ridge direction and the fold direction are capable of forming a plane which is substantially horizontal when the tray is in use. Again, regarding intended use, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 26, which is based on an intended use of the tray, see above.
With respect to claim 27, Wang et al. teach that the accordion-like surface comprises flat portions connected by hinge portions, and based on an intended use the flat portions need not significantly compress when compressing the accordion-like surface and the hinge portions can adjust an angle between adjacent flat portions when compressing the accordion-like surface. See annotated figure above.
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, 11, 19, 21, 24-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2017/0342557 to Baum et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0053799 to Lei.
Regarding claims 1 and 11: Baum et al. disclose a tray for an ampoule substantially as claimed and comprising: a compressible portion (Fig. 6, 86 and 88) having a compressed state and a relaxed state (based on press-fitting), wherein a spring potential energy in the compressible portion is higher than in the relaxed state (necessarily so). See, e.g., para. 38.
However, Baum et al. fail to disclose the compressible portion includes an accordion-like surface having a ridge direction and a fold direction, wherein the accordion like surface is configured to hold solid precursor materials.
Lei teach providing a tray (or trays) comprising an accordion-like surface having a ridge direction and a fold direction, wherein the accordion-like surface is configured to hold solid precursor materials for the purpose of providing more surface area which allows for a more efficient and faster vaporization (see, e.g., para. 26).
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 tray in Baum et al. comprising an accordion-like surface having a ridge direction and a fold direction, wherein the accordion-like surface is configured to hold solid precursor materials fin order to provide more surface area which allows for a more efficient and faster vaporization as taught by Lei.
Modified Baum et al. fail to disclose the compressible portion is manually compressible from the relaxed state to the compressed state for insertion or removal from the ampoule and wherein when the manual compression is released, the compressible portion expands the tray against an inner wall of the ampoule.
However, it is noted that the feature is one based on an intended use(s) of the claimed apparatus (i.e., manual compression, insertion and/or removal). Additionally, it is noted that the ampoule is not considered a feature of the claimed invention, rather an apparatus with which the tray may be used during an intended use (e.g., insertion and/or removal and/or vaporizing, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 19, the modular tray may be provided as part of an ampoule (82).
Modified Baum et al. fail to disclose the compressible portion is manually compressible from the relaxed state to the compressed state for insertion or removal from the ampoule and wherein when the manual compression is released, the compressible portion expands the tray against an inner wall of the ampoule. However, it is noted that the feature is one based on an intended use(s) of the claimed apparatus (i.e., manual compression, insertion and/or removal), wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 21, in modified Baum et al., in an intended use thereof, the accordion-like surface may be compressed in the fold direction and not the ridge direction. Additionally, with respect to intended use, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 24, in modified Baum et al., Baum et al. et al. disclose a plurality of gas vents (e.g., 74 and unnumbered pores in fritted disks) in the support surface of the tray for precursor materials.
With respect to claim 25, see above regarding intended use, wherein the courts have ruled that “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 27, modified Baum et al., the tray includes flat portions and hinge portion. Also see above regarding intended use, wherein the courts have ruled that “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See annotated figure above.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 19, 21 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0120433 to Hendrix et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 4,947,790 to Gärtner et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 11: Hendrix et al. disclose a tray (Fig. 1A, 22 or 210 or 310) capable of use in an ampoule (10) substantially as claimed and comprising: a compressible portion having a compressed state and a relaxed state, wherein a spring potential energy in the compressible portion in the compressed state is higher than in the relaxed state. Also see, e.g., abstract, paras. 7-8, 13-14 and 28-30). Note: the entirety of the tray is considered to be compressible at least because the outer limit of the tray provides the compressed state and relaxed state of the tray with respect to an ampoule during an intended use.
However, Hendrix et al. fail to disclose the compressible portion includes an accordion-like surface (e.g., a top surface) having a ridge direction and a fold direction, wherein the accordion-like surface is configured to hold solid precursor materials.
Gärtner et al. disclose a tray capable of use in an ampoule having an accordion-like surface having a ridge direction and a fold direction for the purpose of holding solid precursor materials (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and column 8, rows 53-68). Gärtner also teaches that the structure of the tray may be drawn together or pressed apart in order to optimize positioning of a coating material in the tray.
PNG
media_image2.png
280
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 compressible portion of the tray of Hendrix et al. including an accordion-like surface top surface having a ridge direction and a fold direction as part of the compressible portion, wherein the accordion like surface is configured to hold solid precursor materials as taught by Gärtner et al.
Modified Hendrix et al. fail to explicitly teach the compressible portion is manually compressible from the relaxed state to the compressed state for insertion or removal from the ampoule and wherein when the manual compression is released, the compressible portion expands the tray against an inner wall of the ampoule.
However, it is noted that the feature is one based on an intended use(s) of the claimed apparatus (i.e., manual compression, insertion and/or removal). Additionally, it is noted that the ampoule is not considered a feature of the claimed invention, rather an apparatus with which the tray may be used during an intended use (e.g., insertion and/or removal and/or vaporizing, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 2, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose the tray further comprises: a heat-transfer component/thermally conductive plate (e.g., Fig. 2, 222A), wherein the heat-transfer component is in thermal contact with the compressible portion (i.e. the accordion-like top surface of the compressible portion of Gärtner et al.).
With respect to claim 3, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose the tray/compressible portion further comprises a second heat-transfer component/thermally conductive plate (e.g., 222B), wherein the second heat-transfer component is in thermal contact with the compressible portion (i.e. the accordion-like top surface of the compressible portion Gärtner et al.).
With respect to claim 4, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose a distance from the heat-transfer component to the second heat-transfer component would be reduced when the compressible portion is compressed. See, e.g., abstract, paras. 7-8, 13-14 and 28-30. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 5, the heat-transfer component and the second heat-transfer component are configured to be (i.e., capable of being) in thermal contact with an inner wall surface of the ampoule, and wherein the heat-transfer component and the second heat-transfer component are configured to transfer thermal energy from the inner wall surface of the ampoule to the compressible portion. Note: the ampoule is not considered a feature of this claim. See, e.g., MPEP 2111.02. Also note that courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 6, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose, the tray further comprises a surface (e.g., Fig. 2, 216), wherein the surface is configured to hold solid precursor materials, and wherein the surface is in thermal contact with the compressible portion. Also see surface as disclosed by Gärtner et al.
With respect to claim 7, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose the compressible portion is compressible along a radial direction of the surface, a circumferential direction of the surface, or both. See, abstract, paras. 7-8, 13-14 and 28-30.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose the surface includes a non-planar portion, a planar portion, or both. See, e.g., abstract, paras. 7-8, 13-14 and 28-30With respect to claim 19, the tray may be provided as part of an ampoule (24 and 30).
With respect to claim 19, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose the tray may be provided as part of ampoule (10).
Modified Hendrix et al. fail to disclose the compressible portion is manually compressible from the relaxed state to the compressed state for insertion or removal from the ampoule and wherein when the manual compression is released, the compressible portion expands the tray against an inner wall of the ampoule. However, it is noted that the feature is one based on an intended use(s) of the claimed apparatus (i.e., manual compression, insertion and/or removal), wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 21, in modified Hendrix et al., Gärtner et al. teach an intended use wherein the accordion-like surface may be compressed in the fold direction and not the ridge direction, as indicated by arrows 28 and 29 in Fig. 2. Also see, e.g., column 8, rows 66 through column 9, row 22, wherein expansion and compression are capable of being provided in a ridge direction and/or a fold direction. Additionally, with respect to intended use, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 24, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose a plurality of gas vents (i.e. holes corresponding to tubes –140, 240, 340). Additionally, although not explicitly disclosed, the accordion-like surface of Gärtner et al. would necessarily have a plurality of gas vents as well.
With respect to claim 25, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. and Gärtner et al. disclose the tray such that the ridge direction and the fold direction form a plane which is substantially horizontal when the tray is in use. Again, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 26, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose Again, Examiner notes that the claim appears to be merely drawn to an intended use of the apparatus wherein the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Nevertheless, it is noted that in modified Hendrix et al., when in use, the accordion-like top surface of the compressible portion does not contact an interior wall of an ampoule rather, and the tray only contacts the inner wall of the ampoule through the heat transfer component and the second heat transfer component.
With respect to claim 27, in modified Hendrix et al., Gärtner et al. teach that the accordion-like surface comprises flat portions connected by hinge portions, and based on an intended use the flat portions do not significantly compress when compressing the accordion-like surface and the hinge portions adjust an angle between adjacent flat portions when compressing the accordion-like surface, as indicated by arrows 28 and 29 in Fig. 2. Also see, e.g., column 8, rows 66 through column 9, row 22, wherein expansion and compression are capable of being provided in a ridge direction and/or a fold direction.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 19, 21 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0120433 to Hendrix et al. in view of WO Pub. No. 2019/234715 to Wang et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 11: Hendrix et al. disclose a tray (Fig. 1A, 22 or 210 or 310) capable of use in an ampoule (10) substantially as claimed and comprising: a compressible portion having a compressed state and a relaxed state, wherein a spring potential energy in the compressible portion in the compressed state is higher than in the relaxed state. Also see, e.g., abstract, paras. 7-8, 13-14 and 28-30). Note: the entirety of the tray is considered to be compressible at least because the outer limit of the tray provides the compressed state and relaxed state of the tray with respect to an ampoule during an intended use.
However, Hendrix et al. fail to disclose the compressible portion includes an accordion-like surface (e.g., a top surface) having a ridge direction and a fold direction, wherein the accordion-like surface is configured to hold solid precursor materials.
In Fig. 30, Wang et al. disclose a compressible portion (3040) includes an accordion-like surface having a ridge direction (e.g. in and out of page) and a fold direction (e.g., corresponding to the arrangement direction of the plurality folds/bends), wherein the accordion-like surface is configured to hold solid precursor materials advantageously because of its large carrier surface-area-to-volume ratio (also see, e.g., paras. 102, 107-109, 123-124 and 134).
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 compressible portion of the tray of Hendrix et al. including an accordion-like surface having a ridge direction and a fold direction as part of the compressible portion in order to provide a tray for holding solid precursor materials advantageously because of its large carrier surface-area-to-volume ratio wherein the accordion like surface is configured to hold solid precursor materials as taught by Wang et al.
Modified Hendrix et al. fail to disclose the compressible portion is manually compressible from the relaxed state to the compressed state for insertion or removal from the ampoule and wherein when the manual compression is released, the compressible portion expands the tray against an inner wall of the ampoule.
However, it is noted that the feature is one based on an intended use(s) of the claimed apparatus (i.e., manual compression, insertion and/or removal). Additionally, it is noted that the ampoule is not considered a feature of the claimed invention, rather an apparatus with which the tray may be used during an intended use (e.g., insertion and/or removal and/or vaporizing, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 2, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose the tray further comprises: a heat-transfer component/thermally conductive plate (e.g., Fig. 2, 222A), wherein the heat-transfer component is in thermal contact with the compressible portion.
With respect to claim 3, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose the tray/compressible portion further comprises a second heat-transfer component/thermally conductive plate (e.g., 222B), wherein the second heat-transfer component is in thermal contact with the compressible.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose a distance from the heat-transfer component to the second heat-transfer component would be reduced when the compressible portion is compressed. See, e.g., abstract, paras. 7-8, 13-14 and 28-30. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 5, the heat-transfer component and the second heat-transfer component are configured to be (i.e., capable of being) in thermal contact with an inner wall surface of the ampoule, and wherein the heat-transfer component and the second heat-transfer component are configured to transfer thermal energy from the inner wall surface of the ampoule to the compressible portion. Note: the ampoule is not considered a feature of this claim. See, e.g., MPEP 2111.02. Also note that courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 19, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose the tray may be provided as part of ampoule (10).
Modified Hendrix et al. fail to explicitly disclose the compressible portion is manually compressible from the relaxed state to the compressed state for insertion or removal from the ampoule and wherein when the manual compression is released, the compressible portion expands the tray against an inner wall of the ampoule. However, it is noted that the feature is one based on an intended use(s) of the claimed apparatus (i.e., manual compression, insertion and/or removal), wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 21, in modified Hendrix et al., Wang et al. only explicitly teaches folding in the fold direction, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the same. Additionally, with respect to intended use, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 24, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. disclose a plurality of gas vents (i.e. holes corresponding to tubes –140, 240, 340) the tray.
With respect to claim 25, in modified Hendrix et al., Hendrix et al. and Wang et al. disclose the tray such that the ridge direction and the fold direction form a plane which is substantially horizontal when the tray is in use. Again, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With respect to claim 26, Examiner notes that the claim appears to be merely drawn to an intended use of the apparatus wherein the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Nevertheless, it is noted that in modified Hendrix et al., when in use, the accordion-like top surface of the compressible portion does not contact an interior wall of an ampoule rather, and the tray only contacts the inner wall of the ampoule through the heat transfer component and the second heat transfer component.
With respect to claim 27, in modified Hendrix et al., Wang et al. teach that the accordion-like surface comprises flat portions connected by hinge (fold) portions, and based on an intended use the flat portions do not significantly compress when compressing the accordion-like surface and the hinge portions adjust an angle between adjacent flat portions when compressing the accordion-like surface.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 11, 21-22 and 25-27 above and as further set forth below.
Wang et al. disclose the tray substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Wang et al. fail to disclose the lip extending perpendicular to the heat transfer component/thermally conductive plate and the second heat transfer component/thermally conductive plate, rather it is illustrated as at least substantially perpendicular.
Nevertheless, this appears to be what is illustrated, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are moot based on claim amendments or additions and resulting modified rejections. Arguments that remain relevant are addressed below.
Due to claim amendments, heat transfer component is no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, these same claim amendments have introduced related objections and rejections addressed above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Gärtner does not possess a ridge or fold direction, see above annotated figure and accompanying descriptions.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the use of welding or bolts precludes the claimed intended use, Examiner points out that the obvious fact that merely because an object (e.g., a tray) is affixed at some point in time, does not mean that is always affixed and unremovable. For example, bolts can be removed and welding can be reversed.
A plurality of different rejections has been expressed above in order to show the breadth of prior art readable on the structural features of the claimed invention(s), especially claims 1-3. Therefore, as previously mentioned, regarding all claims that are related to a specific arrangement of the claimed tray with respect to an ampoule (which is most claims), Examiner suggests including them as features of claim 19, which is actually drawn to an apparatus including the tray and apparatus. Such amendment will improve both the clarity of the claimed invention and how it appears to be meant to distinguish over prior art ampoules including trays. In particular, Examiner suggests properly adding the intended structural subject matter of claim 23 (and the claims from which it is depends) to claim 19 in order to advance examination. Alternatively, if Applicant is most interested in pursuing method subject matter related to a method of inserting a tray into an ampoule, Applicant may want to focus on an application drawn explicitly to the same in a future application, as such an invention remains non-elected in the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 3,636,302 discloses a heat transfer component/thermally conductive plate for mounting a tray used to hold a deposition material.
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