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 .
Response to Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on 26 May 2026 , PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. Modified rejections are set forth below more clearly and explicitly addressing claimed subject matter with respect to prior art and also addressing potentially allowable subject matter.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 3 in the reply filed on 12 February 2025 was previously acknowledged. In the same reply, claims 19-20, corresponding to Group II were withdrawn and later cancelled. New claims drawn to a non-elected method 30-31 have been added.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 29 January 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
A “modular” feature has been interpreted in light of the original disclosure to be inclusive of a feature formed of separate modules/components.
“Single modular tray” has been interpreted to be inclusive of modules/components arranged substantially in single layer.
Claim 1 preamble limitation “ampoule” and feature “ampoule” mentioned in the body of the claim but not explicitly recited as a feature of the claimed invention has been considered a feature of the claimed invention based on its presence in the preamble and repetition in the body of the claims, as set forth in MPEP 2111.02, in accordance with Applicant’s most recent arguments. The ampoule is considered to disclose a fundamental characteristic of the claimed invention that is properly construed as a limitation and feature of the claim. Thus, the claimed invention is essentially a tray and ampoule functioning as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8-14, 18 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 1 fails to refer to the modular tray consistently. In order to expedite and clarify examination, Examiner has assumed claim was meant to recite the first component, the second component, and the third component form the modular tray, or similar; and that the first component, the second component, and the third component are wedge-shaped components such that when placed side to side the modular tray formed is circular, or similar. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 27 fails to refer to the modular tray consistently. In order to expedite and clarify examination, Examiner has assumed claim was meant to recite the modular tray formed by the first component, the second component, and the third component form is a single modular tray, or similar, wherein a single modular tray has been interpreted as a tray including the relevant features assembled in a single substantially horizontal level, rather than, for example, a stacked configuration. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 21 recites the three components. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite, the first component, the second component and the third component and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 22 recites the each component. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite each of the first component, the second component and the third component and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-13, 18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102027179 to Na et al. in view of 2004/0016404 to Gregg et al. as further evidenced by U.S. Patent No. 11,926,894 to Verghese.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 1-6, Na et al. disclose a system comprising a tray (multiple components) for an ampoule (10) substantially as claimed and comprising: a first component (20a), a second component (20b); and a third component (20c), wherein the first component, the second component, and the third component are configured to be connectable together, such that when connected together (i.e. assembled), the second component is in thermal contact with the first component (via heat medium), and the third component is in thermal contact with the first compartment and the second component (via heat medium); and the first component, the second component, and the third component form the modular tray, where that the first component, the second component, and the third component are wedge-shaped components (see figures) such that when placed side to side the tray formed thereby (with lower cover 30) is circular/cylindrical in the ampoule, wherein the ampoule is formed by assembly of components 20a-c, upper cover 40 and lower cover 30, such that all components are in/included in the ampoule.
However, Na et al. fail to disclose the components are disengageably connectable together, wherein this has been interpreted as permanently attached. Na et al. discloses that when assembled the components are attached via welding to enable easy and stable assembly. Welding is normally considered a permanent attachment.
Within the art of vaporizer delivery apparatus, Gregg et al. disclose use of vented stainless steel screws to disengageably install features of the vaporizer delivery apparatus to allow for adjustability to optimize a process or sublimation rate (see, e.g., paras. 59). Also in the art of vaporizer delivery apparatus, Verghese (see, e.g., column 19, row 20 through column 20, rows 14) is provided as evidence that providing permanent connections or disengageable connections during installation are known in the art as options each having their own advantages and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary, creativity, common sense and logic.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first component, the second component and the third component are configured to be disengageably connected together (thus forming a modular tray) using vented stainless steel screws in order to allow for adjustability to optimize a process or sublimation rate as taught by Gregg et al.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Na et al., Na et al. discloses the first component comprises: a bottom plate portion (i.e. bottom surface(s) of 20a, or 20b, or 20c); and an arced wall portion (i.e. circumferential surface), wherein the bottom plate portion is configured to be in thermal contact with the arced wall portion (i.e. the surfaces are connected). See aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Na et al., Na et al. discloses the first component comprises: a first wall portion (i.e. one of outer radial surface), wherein the first wall portion is in thermal contact with the bottom plate portion and the arced wall portion (i.e. the surfaces are connected); and a second wall portion (i.e. the other outer radial surface), wherein the second wall portion is in thermal contact with the bottom plate portion, the arced wall portion, and the first wall portion (i.e. the surfaces are connected). See aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Na et al., Na et al. discloses the first component defines a first compartment to hold solid precursor (i.e. the periphery of the first component defines the first compartment).
With respect to claim 11, in modified Na et al., Na et al. discloses the second component defines a second compartment to hold solid precursor (i.e. the periphery of the second component defines the second compartment).
With respect to claim 12-13, in modified Na et al., Na et al. discloses three or more components (20) may be provided and any one or more may have substantially similar structures. See translation.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Na et al., the ampoule when assembled contains the modular tray.
With respect to claim 21, in modified Na et al., the first component, the second component and the third components are the same. See aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 22, in modified Na et al., Na et al. discloses each of the first component, the second component and the third component comprises: a bottom plate portion (i.e. bottom surface(s) of 20a, or 20b, or 20c); an arced wall portion (i.e. circumferential surface); a first wall portion (i.e. one of outer radial surface); and a second wall portion (i.e. the other outer radial surface), wherein the bottom plate portion is in direct contact with the arced wall portion, the first wall portion, and the second wall portion (i.e. the surfaces are connected); the first wall portion is in direct contact with the arced wall portion (i.e. the surfaces are connected); and the second wall portion is in direct contact with the arced wall portion (i.e. the surfaces are connected). See aforementioned figures.
Claim(s) 1, 18 and 21 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 2004/0016404 to Gregg et al. as further evidenced by U.S. Patent No. 11,926,894 to Verghese.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 14-15, Shero et al. disclose a system comprising a tray (multiple components) for an ampoule (300) substantially as claimed and comprising: a first component (one of 364), a second component (another of 364); and a third component (another of 364), wherein the first component, the second component, and the third component are configured to be connectable together, such that when connected together (i.e. assembled), the second component is in thermal contact with the first component (via heat transfer conduit 360), and the third component is in thermal contact with the first compartment and the second component (via heat transfer conduit 360); and the first component, the second component, and the third component form the tray (with base 340), where that the first component, the second component, and the third component are wedge-shaped components (see specific shape in illustrated in Fig. 15.) such that when placed side to side the tray formed thereby (with base 360) is circular/cylindrical in the ampoule, wherein the ampoule is formed by assembly of components 364, housing, 310, heat transfer member 360 and base 340, such that all components are in/included in the ampoule. Also, Shero et al. disclose the number of components may be three and provides examples where they are evenly radially spaced. See, e.g., paras. 88-92.
However, Shero et al. fail to explicitly disclose the first component, the second component and the third component are disengageably connectable together. Shero et al. is silent with respect to this feature.
Within the art of vaporizer delivery apparatus, Gregg et al. disclose use of vented stainless steel screws to disengageably install features of the vaporizer delivery apparatus to allow for adjustability to optimize a process or sublimation rate (see, e.g., paras. 59). Also in the art of vaporizer delivery apparatus, Verghese (see, e.g., column 19, row 20 through column 20, rows 14) is provided as evidence that providing permanent connections or disengageable connections during installation are known in the art as options each having their own advantages and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary, creativity, common sense and logic.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first component, the second component and the third component are configured to be disengageably connected together (thus forming a modular tray) using vented stainless steel screws in order to allow for adjustability to optimize a process or sublimation rate as taught by Gregg et al.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Shero et al., the ampoule when assembled contains the modular tray.
With respect to claim 21, in modified Shero et al., the first component, the second component and the third components are the same. See aforementioned figures.
Response to Arguments
As mentioned above, Applicant's arguments, filed in the appeal brief filed 26 May 2026 are at least partially persuasive. Previous prior art rejections of have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s comment that the ampoule is a feature of the claimed invention and to avoid reliance on features that are not explicitly and definitively addressed in the relied upon prior art. More specific and clear prior art rejections have also been set forth to address the broader claims representing the claimed invention. Also see below regarding allowable subject matter. In particular, evidence has been provided where one of ordinary skill in the art would need to impartially use ordinary skill, common sense and logic, where available.
Although Buffington is no longer relied upon, Examiner notes MPEP 2141.01(a), regarding analagous and nonanalagous art, esp. in the mechanical arts. Examiner also maintains that the previous rejection relying on Buffington, did not rely on introducing the whole of the disclosure of Buffington as-is.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art or record fails to teach or fairly suggest when the modular tray is assembled, the first wall portion of the first component and the second wall portion of the second component are in direct contact (i.e. direct physical contact) and form a flow path for gas through the modular tray. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Claims 27-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art or record fails to teach or fairly suggest when the modular tray is assembled and each of the three or more components comprises a bottom plate, an arced wall, a first radial wall and a second radial wall, wherein the bottom plate contacts the arced wall, the first radial wall, and the second radial wall and the arced wall contacts the first radial wall and the second radial wall, the first radial wall of a first component of the three or more components contacts a second radial wall of a second component of the three or more components and the first radial wall of the first component and the second radial wall of the second component form a flow path for gas to travel through the modular tray. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
The (prior) art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. KR 20200063946; KR 102208303; KR 102027179; and USP Pubs. 2002/0084958, 20050217575; and 2008/0202426 disclose segmented and/or modular arrangements for chemical vaporization of solid chemicals. USP Pub 2005/0008799 discloses walls between compartments with various opening configurations therein. D426,925 paint receptacle with removable wedge-shaped inserts. EP 0483975 discloses a catalyst reactor with removable wedge-shaped inserts USP Pub 20200340110 discloses disengageable components in the art.
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
