DETAILED ACTION
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, 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizato (2019/0161863) in view of Offermanns (2020/0033294).
Nishizato teaches a method for vaporizing a non-gaseous material comprising:
- transporting the liquid starting material into a vaporization chamber, see per Fig. 1 and related text, wherein it is understood that the material has been transported at some point into the vaporization chamber 10
- supplying heat to the material to vaporize it, see heaters 11,
- transporting the vapor through a conveying conduit, see pipe leading out of the chamber 10 through conduit 21 and past an absorbing surface (60), though Nishizato does not teach a QCM as claimed,
- feeding a conveying gas stream to chamber 10 through a first gas supply line, see carrier gas supplied through 20,
- controlling the carrier gas using a first mass flow controller – see 30 which includes a meter and a valve (meeting the requirement for a mass flow controller),
- flowing a gas stream with the vapor through the conveying conduit such that the vapor flows through the absorbing surface/sensor, in regard to the rate being a function of a partial pressure of the vapor, the act of “being a function of” is met as the claim requires one flow rate and the flow rate is necessarily related to the partial pressure; nonetheless and further, in any case Nishizato teaches that the flow rate is a function of the vapor pressure (and further that the vapor pressure is controlled [0049]),
- measuring by the sensor the partial pressure of the vapor [0049] and
- controlling the mass flow of the vapor through the conduit by varying the mass flow of the conveying gas stream – see wherein the carrier gas flow is controlled [0040] since the flow is controlled it is understood there is a nominal value, and
- feeding a compensating gas into the conveying conduit at a mixing point (see where two arrows meet to feed into conduit 21 in Fig. 1) between the vaporizer and sensor and
- controlling with a second mass flow controller (40) the compensating gas stream through the compensating gas line 22 such that the flow rate remains constant – this is understood as per the teachings particularly [0060-63] wherein a total flow rate Q is kept constant by the combined flow rates. In regard to the flow velocity – initially, the terms flow velocity and flow rate are generally considered equivalent, there is nothing to distinguish the claimed flow velocity from the flow rate as taught by the prior art. A flow velocity is a flow rate, and the pipe size would be understood to be constant so the flow velocity is equivalent. Furthermore, both the prior art and instant claims teach MFCs to control the flow – MFCs work on the same basis in each case.
The teachings include all elements of the claim except for the QCM to measure the concentration or partial pressure. Offermanns teaches that it is known to use a QCM to determine partial pressure of a vapor in an inert gas flow [0005]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the QCM of Offermanns to measure the partial pressure of the vapor as Offermanns teaches that such is useful and further Nishizato is not limited on the device used to measure the partial pressure but generally teaches that it is an “absorption-style” sensor which is in-line with a QCM.
Regarding claim 4, as described, the mass flow of the streams are kept constant – it would be understood to be within the tolerance as described.
Regarding claim 15, the inert source is common.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizato and Offermanns in view of Beccard (2017/0016859).
The teachings of Nizhizato are described above, including the formation and control of the vapor and inert streams as noted, the teachings though include a liquid and not a powder as claimed. Beccard, however teaches that it is known and useful to evaporate liquid and/or solid (i.e. powder) material for deposition process [0009], including organic starting materials [0025]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to use the powder of Beccard in the method of Nizhizato as Beccard teaches that a powder is useful in such a process. Beccard furter teaches a method and operability of vaporizing the same and using a QCM in the process [0009].
The material is organic as per above thereby meeting the requirements of claim 6 and the resultant deposited material is organic as per claim 9.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizato and Offermanns in view of Sun (6,409,839).
The teachings of Nishizato are described above, the teachings do not include the claimed transporting as an aerosol. Sun however teaches that it is useful to form a precursor as an aerosol before feeding it to a vaporizer, Fig. 1 and related text. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to form an aerosol as taught by Sun in the method of Nishizato as it would help to further allow complete vaporization. The carrier gas is shown per Sun but already taught by Nishizato, the feed between the aerosol generator (16) and vaporization chamber (24) of Sun meets the requirements of the reservoir – it would be understood that the region connected to 24 of Sun, since it is heated, would be a “hot” region relative to the “cold” region near 16.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizato (2019/0161863) and Offermanns (2020/0033294) in view of Andrew (2019/0230745).
The teachings of Nishizato and Offermans are described above, but do not teach a tooling factor. Andrew teaches that when applying a QCM, one applies a tooling factor [0122]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply a tooling factor such as taught by Andrew in the method of Nishizato and Offermans as the operation of a QCM includes such a factor in implementation. Further, Andrew teaches further that a single tooling factor is useful for multiple cases. The claims are not further limited to any specific cases that would require otherwise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants have changed the term “flow rate” in the specification and the claims to “flow velocity”. Applicants argue that the German original is closer to velocity than rate. The Office accepts the change but maintains the rejection and maintains that, as with the German language, the terms are effectively equivalent.
Initially applicants argue that the flow rate measures mass per unit time while velocity measures distance per unit time – this is not exactly correct. MFCs are required per the instant claims and taught in the specification. The literal term is MASS flow meter, but the measurements of such devices is often SCCM, i.e. volume per time.
But there is no reason to expect the prior art use of MFCs (mass flow controllers) to be different than the instant claimed use of MFCs. Examination is performed with the broadest reasonable interpretation – in this case, both terms infer a flow rate. There is no reason to presume that the prior art teaches or requires a mass per unit time.
The Office maintains that the teaching of maintaining the flow rate per the prior art sufficiently teaches maintain the flow velocity wherein the pipe is not further going to change size, it would be obvious further the prior art wishes to maintain flow conditions.
In regard to the arguments over Offermans, there is no evidence that one would not reasonably apply the QCM for the same purpose as the sensor of Nishizato. Examples of substitution rationale include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
Any of these rationale meet the basic requirements for substitution of the sensor/method of detecting of Offermans for that of Nishizato. There is no evidence to contradict the substitution. There is no support particularly for a loss of accuracy. QCMs are generally known in the field of endeavor.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Prosecution Insights