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 .
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 In the same reply, claims 19-20, corresponding to Group II were withdrawn and later cancelled.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.
Additionally, Examiner notes that the originally elected invention was a tray and/or ampoule, wherein broadly speaking those inventions can be interpreted as a system. However, “a system” comprising additional features outside of the tray and ampoule may not be considered readable on the elected invention. The claims have been examined because as amended, as presently written, they do not inherently shift the invention. However, this may not always be the case depending on how what the system is meant/written to encompass in future. Original presentation and original election remain without “amendment”.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 29 January 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
In light of claim amendments and Applicant’s remarks, the following title is suggested: SYSTEM AND METHOD HAVING MODULAR TRAY FOR SOLID CHEMICAL VAPORIZING, or similar
Claim Interpretation
“Identical”, although not used in the original disclosure, has been interpreted as inclusive of at least “same” as set forth in the original disclosure.
“Modular” has been interpreted in light of the original disclosure to be inclusive of a feature formed of separate modular components.
“Single modular tray”, although not used original disclosure to disclose the features at issue, in has been interpreted to be at least inclusive of a plurality of modular tray components arranged horizontally side by side.
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, 8-14, 18 and 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0006799 to Gregg et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,384,260 to Buffington.
Regarding claim 1: in Fig. 6, for example, Gregg et al. disclose tray (e.g., 610 or 620) for an ampoule/container (300) substantially as claimed and comprising: a first component (e.g., first radial region/section); a second component (e.g., second radial region/section); and a third component (e.g., third radial region/section), wherein the first component, the second component, and the third component are configured to be connected together (e.g., via walls 618 and 628), such that when connected together, the second component is in thermal contact with the first component, and the third component is in thermal contact with the first component and the second component; and the first component, the second component, and the third component form a circular module tray (i.e. a circular tray with modular components). Each of the first component, the second component and the third component are considered to be in thermal contact, at least, via one or more sidewalls of the ampoule/container during use (see, e.g., para. 149).
However, Gregg et al. fail to disclose the first component, the second component and the third component are wedge shaped components that form a circular modular tray when placed side to side in the ampoule (according to an intended use) in a horizontal dimension, wherein the first component, and wherein the second component and the third component are configured to be disengageably connectable together.
It is noted though that that at para. 79, Gregg et al. teach, “Although holder 310 is illustrated in the example embodiment of FIGS. 3 and 4 as having an integral body defining support surface 311 and sidewall 312, one or more holders for another embodiment may be formed from separate pieces to define one or more support surfaces and/or one or more sidewalls and/or one or more supports.
Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled the following: In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) (Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.); and In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Further still, Buffington teach providing a tray that is sectional/modular comprising a plurality of wedge-shaped components when placed side by side in a horizontal dimension for the purpose of, inter alia, providing a tray that is easy to manufacture, of rigid construction, easily washable and provides maximum utility (see, e.g., column 1). Note: Buffington shows four wedge shaped components but does not limit thereto. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic that a different number of wedge shaped segments could also be provided side by side to form the circular tray. It is also noted that Applicant’s claim does not negate the presence of a fourth component to form the circular tray (also see claim 13 in the instant application, which requires a fourth component).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided first component, the second component and the third component as a plurality of disengageably connectable, wedge-shaped components that when placed side by side in a horizontal dimension of Gregg et al. form a circular modular tray in order to provide a tray that is easy to manufacture, of rigid construction, easily washable and provides maximum utility as taught by Buffington et al.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose the first component comprises: a bottom plate portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 611 or 621); and an arced wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 615 or 625), wherein the bottom plate portion is configured to be in thermal contact with the arced wall portion. As detailed above, each of the first component, the second component and the third component are considered to be in thermal contact, at least, via one or more sidewalls of the ampoule/container during use (see, e.g., para. 149).
With respect to claim 9, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose the first component further comprises: a first wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 617-618 or 627-628 facing in a clockwise direction), wherein the first wall portion is in thermal contact with the bottom plate portion and the arced wall portion and a second wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 617-618 or 627-628 facing in a counter-clockwise direction), wherein the second wall portion is in thermal contact with the bottom plate portion, the arced wall portion, and the first wall portion. As detailed above, each of the first component, the second component and the third component are considered to be in thermal contact, at least, via one or more sidewalls of the ampoule/container during use (see, e.g., para. 149).
With respect to claims 10-12, in modified Gregg et al., the first component defines a first compartment (inner volume thereof) to hold solid precursor, the second component defines a second compartment (inner volume thereof) to hold solid precursor, and the third component defines a third compartment (inner volume thereof) to hold solid precursor.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose a fourth component in thermal contact with each of the first component, the second component and the third component may also be provided (see, again, Fig. 6), and all of the first component, the second component, the third component and the fourth component may have substantially similar structures.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose system may further include an ampoule (300) containing the modular tray.
With respect to claim 21, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose the first component, the second component and the third component are identical/same.
With respect to claim 22, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose, each of the first component, the second component and the third component comprise: a bottom plate portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 611 or 621); an arced wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 615 or 625); a first wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 617-618 or 627-628 facing in a clockwise direction); and a second wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 617-618 or 627-628 facing in a counter-clockwise direction), wherein the bottom wall portion is in direct contact with the arced wall portion, the first wall portion, and the second wall portion; the first wall portion is in direct contact with the arced wall portion; and the second wall portion is in direct contact with the arced wall portion. As detailed above, each of the first component, the second component and the third component are considered to be in thermal contact, at least, via one or more sidewalls of the ampoule/container during use (see, e.g., para. 149).
With respect to claim 23, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose wherein when the modular tray is assembled and in use, the first wall portion of the first component and the second wall portion of the second component are in direct thermal and form a flow path for gas through the modular tray (via central hole and/or passageways corresponding to radial walls).
With respect to claim 24, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose the modular tray may consist of the first component, the second component, and the third component. In particular, Gregg et al., teaches that any suitable number of two or more components may be used to form the module tray. See, e.g., para. 117.
With respect to claim 25, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose the modular tray comprises a fourth component, which comprises: a bottom plate portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 611 or 621); an arced wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 615 or 625); a first wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 617-618 or 627-628 facing in a clockwise direction); and a second wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 617-618 or 627-628 facing in a counter-clockwise direction), wherein the bottom wall portion is in direct contact with the arced wall portion, the first wall portion, and the second wall portion; the first wall portion is in direct contact with the arced wall portion; and the second wall portion is in direct contact with the arced wall portion. As detailed above, each of the first component, the second component and the third component are considered to be in thermal contact, at least, via one or more sidewalls of the ampoule/container during use (see, e.g., para. 149).
With respect to claim 26 in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose a wedge component (see, e.g., Fig. 3, 305), which when the modular tray is assembled, presses the first component, the second component, the third component, and the fourth component against an inner wall of the ampoule.
Regarding claim 27: in Fig. 6, for example, Gregg et al. disclose tray (e.g., 610 or 620) for an ampoule/container (300) substantially as claimed and comprising three or more components wherein each component comprises: a bottom plate (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 611 or 621); an arced wall (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 615 or 625); a first radial wall (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 617-618 or 627-628 facing in a clockwise direction); and a second radial wall portion (e.g., corresponding to relevant portion of 617-618 or 627-628 facing in a counter-clockwise direction), wherein the bottom wall contacts the arced wall, the first radial wall, and the second radial wall, and wherein when the modular tray is assembled, the first radial wall of a first component of the three or more components thermally contacts a second radial wall of the second component of the three or more components and the first radial wall of the first compartment and the second radial wall of the second compartment form a flow path for gas to travel through the modular tray (via central hole and/or passageways corresponding to radial walls).
However, Gregg et al. fail to disclose the first component, the second component and the third component are constituents of a tray having modularity in its horizontal dimension.
It is noted, though, that that at para. 79, Gregg et al. teach, “Although holder 310 is illustrated in the example embodiment of FIGS. 3 and 4 as having an integral body defining support surface 311 and sidewall 312, one or more holders for another embodiment may be formed from separate pieces to define one or more support surfaces and/or one or more sidewalls and/or one or more supports.
Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled the following: In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) (Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.); and In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Further still, Buffington teach providing a single modular formed from a plurality of wedge-shaped components that when placed side by side in a horizontal dimension form the single modular tray for the purpose of, inter alia, providing a tray that is easy to manufacture, of rigid construction, easily washable and provides maximum utility (see, e.g., column 1).
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 Gregg the three or more components as a single modular tray with a plurality of wedge-shaped components that when placed side by side in a horizontal dimension form the single modular tray in order to provide a tray that is easy to manufacture, of rigid construction, easily washable and provides maximum utility as taught by Buffington et al.
With respect to claim 28, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose a wedge component (see, e.g., Fig. 3, 305), which when the modular tray is assembled, presses the first component, the second component, the third component, and the fourth component against an inner wall of the ampoule.
With respect to claim 29, in modified Gregg et al., Gregg et al. disclose each component of the three or more components directly thermally/fluidly contacts adjacent components via the heat provided for the ampoule and the gas(es) that flow therethrough and form a vent between adjacent components and the three or more components form a vent (e.g. corresponding to 615, 625 in Gregg) at a center thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to claim independent claims 1 and 27, filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amended claim 29 is addressed in the above rejections.
Applicant has argued inclusion of outer circular container (11) as disclosed in Buffington would introduce another layer between the interior of the ampoule and the tray. Examiner notes that the rejection does not inclusion of the outer circular container, nor does it seem to be necessary. In the combination of Gregg and Buffington, only the modular trays of Buffington are specifically relied upon. In theory, the ampoule itself would effectively perform a similar function of the outer circular container, such that it is not necessary, or advisable. Also, maybe more importantly, Applicant has not chosen to include the ampoule as a part of claims 1 and 27 (contrast with claim 18, for example). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant has also argued that the handles/overhangs (13) of Buffington overhang the container and, similar to above, would prevent necessarily contact with the ampoule. Also, similar to above, there is no requirement that the handle be incorporated into the combination, nor does the rejection rely on the same. Also, again, maybe more importantly, Applicant has not chosen to include the ampoule as a part of claims 1 and 27 (contrast with claim 18, for example). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Final
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.
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 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