Detailed Correspondence
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 Amendment
Applicants’ amendment of the claim, filed on 6/24/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-16 from the non-final office action (03/30/2026), by amending claims 1 and 14 and cancelling claims 13 and 16 is entered and will be addressed below.
The examiner notices Applicants incorporated cancelled claims 13 and 16 into claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in continuous gas-tight 5 sealing contact over …“ (5th last line) should be ““in continuous gas-tight sealing contact over …“ and “a flow through the injector 10 tube in the blocking position” should be “a flow through the injector tube in the blocking position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The “a vacuum feedthrough” of claim 2, Applicants’ vacuum feedthrough can be 18 or 19 at different position. Claim 2 will be examined inclusive any location for the vacuum feedthrough”.
The “wherein a chamber wall element forms the at least one removal chamber and seals it off against the at least one spray head, which is movable from the operating position into the removal position and back, by means of a sealing element” of claim 6, this requires sealing element aids the seals off the spray head in any position relative to the spray head.
The ”a flange” of claim 3 and “a flange” of claim 7 are independent to each other, therefore no antecedent issue. As such, claim 3 and claim 7 may be different flanges. Also, the location and shape of the flange is not defined and can be in different location and various shape (e.g. and L-shaped flange).
The “in the blocking position of the shutoff valve, the at least one spray head is arranged in portions within the injector tube” of claim 14, although none of the Figs. 1-4 show this relationship (Figs. 2-3 show shutoff valve is in blocking position but the spray head is away from the injector tube, Figs. 1 and 4 show the spray head in within the injector tube but the shutoff valve is not in the blocking position). However, as this is the operation condition, this is considered as an intended use of the apparatus and not subject to 112(a) rejection.
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, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20100128479, hereafter ‘479), in view of Honma (US 20140366808, hereafter ‘808) and Remondiere et al. (US 4880960, hereafter ‘960).
‘479 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: FIG. 2 illustrates a thin film deposition apparatus in which the deposition chamber 20 and the evaporation source chambers A and B (21, 22) are connected to the left and right. That is, the vapor deposition chamber and the evaporation source chamber are connected to the valve port 24 to meet each other, the gate valve 25 is provided therebetween. The deposition chamber and the evaporation source chamber are both high vacuum chambers, and pump ports 23 are formed on the upper and lower sides thereof. A substrate tray 36 carrying a substrate 35 is positioned below the deposition chamber, and the substrate trays are mounted on rollers 37 at both ends thereof to be transferred in a linear direction. The tube evaporator A 32 is fixed on the upper part of the deposition chamber in a horizontal direction at a predetermined height by the tube evaporator fixed shaft 26. The barrel evaporator A, B (30, 31) is positioned in each evaporation chamber. The barrel 33 formed in the evaporation source is inserted into a cylindrical inlet formed in the tube evaporation source, as shown in FIG. In the lower part of the tube evaporation source, a plurality of nozzle holes 34 are formed along the line, and the metal gas is injected downward through the nozzle holes, thereby producing a metal thin film on the substrate (Bridging paragraph between pages 4 and 5, includes the claimed “A coating device for depositing a coating material on a substrate, having a vacuum chamber”, the tube evaporator A 32 reads into the claimed “a crucible, which is arranged within the vacuum chamber” see illustration below of part of Fig. 3 for the claimed “at least one spray head for preparing the coating material and an injector tube arranged within the vacuum chamber, wherein the injector tube is designed to conduct the coating material prepared in the at least one spray head to the crucible and is connected to the crucible, wherein the at least one spray head has an outlet opening for the prepared coating material”, and Fig. 6 shows barrel evaporator retracted evaporation source chamber, reads into the claimed “and is designed to be movable between an operating position, in which the at least one spray head is arranged to supply the injector tube with the prepared coating material, and a removal position, and wherein at least one removal chamber designed to be accessible from outside the vacuum chamber is provided which in the removal position is able to be sealed off from the vacuum chamber in a gas-tight manner and in which at least the outlet opening of the at least one spray head in the removal position of the spray head is separated in a gas-tight manner from the vacuum chamber” as deposition chamber and the evaporation source chamber are both high vacuum chambers and gate valve 25 is in a gas-tight manner),
Fig. 3 also shows the claimed “wherein the at least one spray head projects in its operating position at least in portions into the injector tube and the at least one spray head is coaxially movable in the injector tube and guided in a gas-tight manner during a movement from the operating position in the direction of the removal position” as opposed to Fig. 6, see also Fig. 7, See Fig. 5 for a gas-tight manner, note this is a different gas-tight mechanism than the gate valve 25.
‘479 is vaporizing the metal power 55 in the crucible 40 (Fig. 4) and delivery the vaporized metal into the tube evaporator 32. In other words, the crucible 40 is the source that supply the vaporized material to the “spray head” and the tube evaporator A 32 corresponds to the “claimed crucible”.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Spray
head
with
outlet
opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Injector
tube)][AltContent: textbox (Crucible
32)][AltContent: arrow]
‘479 does not expressly teaches the limitations of:
Claim 1: (1A) and wherein, in the operating position, the at least one spray head is received within the injector tube and forms a vapor-tight seal against the injector tube, the vapor-tight seal being maintained while the spray head remains received within the injector tube during axial movement between the operating position and the removal position,
wherein the at least one spray head comprises an outer circumferential surface received within an inner circumferential surface of the injector tube, the outer and inner circumferential surfaces being in continuous gas-tight 5 sealing contact over an axial overlap length during axial displacement of the at least one spray head, and
(1B) wherein the injector tube has a shutoff valve which is movable between a release position and a blocking position, wherein the shutoff valve blocks a flow through the injector 10 tube in the blocking position.
‘808 is analogous art in the field of GAS PROCESSING APPARATUS (title), Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) ([0005]). ’808 teaches that supplying gas in a chamber from an injector that is air-tightly inserted into the chamber ([0003]), An annular sleeve 76 for pressing (fastening) the sealing member 75 with respect to the flange part 70a is provided more toward the rotation table 2 than the sealing member 75 in a manner that the sleeve 76 engages the outer peripheral surface of the nozzle 31. Then, in a state where the nozzle 31 is accommodated inside the sealing member 75 and the sleeve 76, the nozzle 31 is configured to air-tightly contact the inner peripheral surface (opposed surface) of the insertion hole 74 via the sealing member 75 when the sealing member 75 is extended in a vertical direction by fastening the sleeve 76 to the sealing member 75 (Fig. 4, [0038]), for the purpose of avoiding vacuum leak ([0007], 2nd last sentence).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added sleeve and sealing members 75 of ‘808, between the barrel 33 and tube evaporator A 32 of ‘479 (the limitation of 1A), for the purpose of avoiding vacuum leak, as taught by ‘808 ([0007], 2nd last sentence). Note the imported sleeve is considered part of the injector tube.
‘960 is analogous art in the field of Continuous Vacuum Evaporation Device For Metal (title), A deposition material in particle form is stored in a reservoir closed on its lowermost part by a plate (abstract). ’960 teaches that Funnel 50 is closed on a lowermost portion by a closure means such as plate 54 mounted at one end of a rigid arm 56 able to pivot around a horizontal axis 58 (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 26-28, corresponds to the gate valve 25 of ‘’479), crucible 18 is closed at its uppermost part by a wall 36 equipped at its center with a round opening 38. The latter may be sealed by a stopper or valve 40 movable between a closed position 40a and an open position 40b (shown in phantom lines) (col. 4, lines 35-38), for the purpose of high yield and eliminating the risks of clogging (col. 2, lines 42-44).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a valve 40 of ‘960, between the barrel 33 and the tube evaporator 32 of ‘479 (the limitation of 1B), for the purpose of high yield and eliminating the risks of clogging, as taught by ‘960 (col. 2, lines 42-44).
‘479 further teaches the limitations of:
Claims 10-11: When the separation of the evaporation source is completed, the gate valve 25 is closed to separate the vacuum atmosphere of the deposition chamber 20 and the evaporation source chamber, and the evaporation source chamber breaks the vacuum and fills the crucible in the evaporation source under atmospheric pressure (5th paragraph of page 4, includes the claimed “wherein a shutoff device is movably arranged within the vacuum chamber between a release position and a blocking position, wherein, in the blocking position, the shutoff device separates the at least one spray head arranged in its removal position from the vacuum chamber in a gas-tight manner” of claim 10 and “wherein the at least one removal chamber has a ventilation valve” of claim 11).
The combination of ‘479, ‘808, and ‘960 is capable of the claimed:
Claim 14: the imported valve 40 from ‘960 needs to be operable as shown in Fig. 3 of ‘479 (therefore, to the inner side of the spray head, the barrel 33 can be fully or partially withdrawn from the tube evaporator A 32, includes the claimed “wherein, in the blocking position of the shutoff valve, the at least one spray head is arranged in portions within the injector tube”).
Alternatively, claims 1, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘479, in view of Boroson et al. (US 20070104864, previously cited from IDS, hereafter ‘864) and ‘960.
‘479 teaches some limitations of claim 1 and does not teach the other limitations of claim 1 and claim 16 as discussed in item 1 above.
‘864 is analogous art in the field of Deposition System Using Sealed Replenishment Container (title), A method for vaporizing particulate material and depositing it onto a surface to form a layer, includes providing a supply of particulate material in a replenishment container, the replenishment container having a sealed interface fitting; mounting the replenishment container to a supply hopper defining at least one feed opening, and breaking the seal at the interface fitting; transferring particulate material from the replenishment container to the supply hopper; and transferring such particulate material through the feed opening along a feeding path to a vaporization zone where at least a component portion of the particulate material is vaporized and delivered to the surface to form the layer (abstract). ’864 teaches that A loaded bottle 422 is fitted into an adapter 424 that is fitted with O-ring seals 423 and 425 ([0124], 2nd sentence, Fig. 12A shows the bottle 422 is capable of “the vapor-tight seal being maintained while the spray head remains received within the injector tube during axial movement between the operating position and the removal position”), for the purpose of reducing contamination ([0026]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an adapter 424 and O-ring seals 423 and 425 of ‘864, between the barrel 33 and tube evaporator A 32 of ‘479 (the limitation of 1A), for the purpose of reducing contamination, as taught by ‘864 ([0026]). Note the imported adapter is considered part of the injector tube.
‘960 is analogous art in the field as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a valve 40 of ‘960, between the gate valve 25 and the tube evaporator 32 of ‘479 (the limitation of 1B), for the purpose of high yield and eliminating the risks of clogging, as taught by ‘960 (col. 2, lines 42-44).
‘479 further teaches the limitations of claims 10-11 as discussed above.
The combination of ‘479, ‘864, and ‘960 is capable of the claimed:
Claim 14: the imported valve 40 need to be operable as shown in Fig. 3 of ‘479 (therefore, to the inner side of the spray head, includes the claimed “wherein, in the blocking position of the shutoff valve, the at least one spray head is arranged in portions within the injector tube”).
Alternatively, claims 1, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘479, in view of ‘808 (or ‘864) and Allovon et al. (US 4607152, hereafter ‘152).
‘479 teaches some limitations of claim 1 and does not teach the other limitations of claim 1 and claim 16 as discussed in item 1 above.
‘808 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added sleeve and sealing members 75 of ‘808, between the barrel 33 and tube evaporator A 32 of ‘479 (the limitation of 1A), for the purpose of avoiding vacuum leak, as taught by ‘808 ([0007], 2nd last sentence). Note the imported sleeve is considered part of the injector tube.
Alternatively, ‘864 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an adapter 424 and O-ring seals 423 and 425 of ‘864, between the barrel 33 and tube evaporator A 32 of ‘479 (the limitation of 1A), for the purpose of reducing contamination, as taught by ‘864 ([0026]). Note the imported adapter is considered part of the injector tube.
‘152 is analogous art in the field of Vacuum Evaporation Device (title), A sealing valve provided with a slide is provided for the main enclosure from the auxiliary chamber, whereby the material of the evaporation cell can thus be changed without placing the main enclosure under atmosphere again (abstract), recharging of these cells (col. 1, line 15). ’152 teaches that Cell 22 is retractable by the mechanical means essentially constituted by a bellows 40 associated with a bellows guidance mechanism 42 … A slide valve 50 makes it possible to insulate the main enclosure 10 from the auxiliary chamber 20, when the cell is retracted (Figs. 1-2, col. 2, lines 37-43), for the purpose of solving problems with recharging materials (col. 2, lines 1-9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a slide valve 50 of ‘152, to the tube evaporator A 32 of ‘479 (the limitation of 1B), and then combined with ‘808 or ‘864, for the purpose of the material of the evaporation cell can thus be changed without placing the main enclosure under atmosphere again and solving problems with recharging materials, as taught by ‘152 (abstract and col. 2, lines 1-9).
‘479 further teaches the limitations of claims 10-11 as discussed above.
The combination of ‘479, ‘808 (or ‘864), and ‘152 is capable of the claimed:
Claim 14: the imported valve 40 need to be operable as shown in Fig. 3 of ‘479 (therefore, to the inner side of the spray head, includes the claimed “wherein, in the blocking position of the shutoff valve, the at least one spray head is arranged in portions within the injector tube”).
Claims 2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘479, ‘808 (or ‘864), and ‘960 (or ‘152), as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Negishi (US 20090061090, hereafter ‘090).
‘479 is vaporizing the metal power 55 in the crucible 40 (Fig. 4) and delivery the vaporized metal into the tube evaporator 32. ‘479 does not teach feeding solid material from the crucible, as storage, and vaporized the solid material in the tube evaporator 32 by heater 51, therefore, the combination ‘479, ‘808 (or ‘864), and ‘960 (or ‘152) does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 2: wherein the at least one spray head has at least one coating material feed and at least one gas supply, wherein, in the operating position of the at least one spray head, the at least one coating material feed and the at least one gas supply are guided through a vacuum feedthrough from outside the vacuum chamber into the vacuum chamber.
Claim 9: wherein the vacuum feedthrough is formed and arranged within the at least one spray head.
‘090 is analogous art in the field of VAPOR DEPOSITION APPARATUS FOR AN ORGANIC VAPOR DEPOSITION MATERIAL (title), The organic vapor deposition material is placed on a conveying unit by an amount for a single substrate, and conveyed into a vapor deposition vessel preliminarily heated. Since a small amount of the organic vapor deposition material is heated and exhausted through generation of an organic material vapor under heating condition for each substrate, neither decomposition nor quality change with moisture occurs because heating time is short (abstract). ’090 teaches that Conveying units (boats) 30a and 30b are arranged inside the loading chambers 32a and 32b, respectively. Receiver portions 31a and 31b are formed in upper portions of the conveying units 30a and 30b, respectively. Here, the receiver portions 31a and 31b are concaves formed in the conveying units 30a and 30b, but they may be constructed by receiving trays which are placed on the conveying units 30a and 30b (Fig. 2, [0049]), The receiver portions 31a and 31b are directed vertically upwardly, and positioned under connecting portions between the loading chambers 32a and 32b and the pooling tanks 34a and 34b. The organic vapor deposition materials fall inside the loading chambers 32a and 32b drop and are placed onto the receiver portions 31a and 31b ([0050]), A gas feeding system 17 is connected to the loading chambers 32a and 32b; and a cooling gas (inert gas such as a rare gas including argon gas or nitrogen gas) is introduced into the loading chambers 32a and 32b so that the conveying units 30a and 30b are cooled to be temperatures lower than the vapor generating temperature by the heat conduction of the gas ([0075]), Each of the chambers 11, 32a and 32b and the tanks 34a and 34b may be evacuated by the same vacuum evacuating system 15 ([0063], therefore, loading chamber has vacuum feedthrough for both the powder and gas feeds).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the crucible 40 that heat the entire metal powder 55 in ‘479 with the conveying units 30a of ‘090, including the receiver portions 31a in loading chamber 32a, pooling tanks 34a, and gas feeding system 17 with a vacuum feedthrough of ‘090, for the purpose of decomposition nor quality change with moisture, as taught by ‘090 (abstract).
‘090 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 6: The cooling gas introduced into the loading chambers 32a and 32b does not enter the vapor deposition vessel 12 in such a state that the interiors of the loading chambers 32a and 32b are shielded from that of the vapor deposition vessel 12 by the sealing plates 33a and 33b ([0075], see also Figs. 3(a), 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b), includes the claimed “wherein a chamber wall element forms the at least one removal chamber and seals it off against the at least one spray head, which is movable from the operating position into the removal position and back, by means of a sealing element”).
Claims 3-5, 7-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘479, ‘808 (or ‘864), ‘960, and ‘090, as being applied to claims 2 and 6 rejection above, further in view of ‘152. Claims 3-5, 7-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘479, ‘808 (or ‘864), ‘152, and ‘090.
The combination of ‘479, ‘808 (or ‘864), ‘960, and ‘090 does not teach limitations of:
Claim 3: wherein the at least one spray head is attached to a flange which is connected to a wall portion of the vacuum chamber by means of a bellows-like connecting element.
Claim 4: wherein the bellows-like connecting element forms the at least one removal chamber.
Claims 5 and 15: wherein, in the removal position, the at least one spray head is arranged completely within the bellows-like connecting element.
‘152 is analogous art in the field of Vacuum Evaporation Device (title), recharging of these cells (col. 1, line 15). ’152 teaches that Cell 22 is retractable by the mechanical means essentially constituted by a bellows 40 associated with a bellows guidance mechanism 42 … A slide valve 50 makes it possible to insulate the main enclosure 10 from the auxiliary chamber 20, when the cell is retracted (Figs. 1-2, col. 2, lines 37-43).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the rigid loading chamber 32a of ‘090 with bellows of ‘152, and then combined with ‘479 and ‘808 (or ‘864), for its suitability for recharging with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of ‘479, ‘808 (or ‘864), ‘090, ‘960, and ‘152 further teaches the limitations of:
Claims 7-8: by replacing the rigid loading chamber 32a of ‘090 with bellows of ‘152, the connection unit 39a and the gas inlet have to be re-arranged away from the bellow, there is only limited choice of the location of the connection unit 39a and the gas inlet to be close to the sealing plate 33a or away from the sealing plate, includes the claimed “wherein the at least one spray head is attached to a flange at its longitudinal end facing away from the outlet opening and wherein the vacuum feedthrough is formed on the flange” of claim 7 and “wherein the vacuum feedthrough is formed on the flange” of claim 8).
Similarly, claims 3-5, 7-8 and 15 are also rejected over ‘479, ‘808 (or ‘864), ‘152, and ‘090.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicants argue that
A) ‘479 already provides a complete and self-contained solution, by introducing a continuously sealing sliding interface would not improve the operation of ‘479, and therefore, cannot be combined with either ‘808 or ‘864, see the middle of page 7.
This argument is found not persuasive.
Every patent application is a complete and self-contained solution. Just because it is a complete and self-contained solution is not a reason for prohibiting future improvement.
The motivation to combine is avoiding vacuum leak, as taught by ‘808 ([0007], 2nd last sentence), or for the purpose of reducing contamination, as taught by ‘864 ([0026]), as clearly set forth in this OC.
B) ‘808 does not provide a seal maintained during axial displacement, it is static compression seal, see the 479 bridging paragraph between pages 7-8.
This argument is found not persuasive.
During the axial movement of nozzle 31 into the sleeve 76, the sealing member provides a seal during this axial displacement.
Note that Applicants’ continuous sealing during axial displacement occurs only at small movement range as shown in Fig. 1. The movement as shown in Fig. 2 is clearly not maintaining a seal.
C) the combination of ‘479 and ‘864 is improper because elastomeric O-ring of ‘864 will not survive the high temperature metal evaporator of ‘479, see the middle of page 8.
This argument is found not persuasive for so many reasons.
First of all, nowhere in ‘864 (nor in ‘808) specifies elastomeric O-ring. It is well-known that specialty O-ring, such with metal outer layer, can withstand a higher temperature.
Secondly, ‘479 is capable of evaporating many different materials, not limited to metal.
Thirdly, even for metal ‘479’s operational temperature range is 200 to 2000 degrees. The elastomeric O-ring can clearly withstand the lower range.
Fourthly, even for metal, such as gallium or lithium, the operation temperature is clearly below the elastomeric O-ring.
Fifthly, instant application, either in claim or in Specification, does not require operating at temperature above the elastomeric O-ring temperature. It further does not exclusively require operation at temperature above the elastomeric O-ring temperature.
Even if instant application requires 1200o C and above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to adopt a metal gasket for sealing instead of an O-ring.
D) ‘960 does not disclose a shutoff valve within the injector tube, and ‘479 already controls its vacuum conditions by closing the gate valve 25, see the bridging paragraph between pages 8 and 9.
This argument is found not persuasive.
This is attacking reference individually at best.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
‘479’s tube evaporator A 32 corresponds to the claimed injector tube. The gate valve 25 corresponds to the shutoff device 15 of instant application and in claim 10.
The valve 40 of ‘960 is used to control the amount of material delivery (Fig. 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known it can be used to control the vapor flow from the barrel 33 to the tube evaporator A 32 of ‘479.
Because of this argument, the examiner also adds ‘152 slide valve 50 that allow the evaporation cell 22 to be connected with the mechanical holding tube 64 (corresponding to the claimed “injector tube”) as alternative rejection. See also reference 20080107811 cited in the conclusion.
E) the rejection with various references in only from hindsight, see the middle of page 9.
This argument is found not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The motivations to combined have clearly set forth for each of the secondary references.
In regarding to 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 10, Applicants argue that the gate valve 25 of ‘479 is position between the deposition chamber and the evaporation source chamber, it does not seal the spray head in its removal position while the spray head remains with the same vacuum chamber, see the bottom of page 9.
This argument is found not persuasive.
Fig. 6 of ‘479 clearly shows the spray head in its removal position and is in sealed for both the vacuum chamber and for the spray head (barrel 30).
Note Applicants’ argument wording is also confusing, when the spray head 7 is in its removal position, it is not and cannot be “remains with the vacuum chamber 8” (see Applicants’’ Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20080107811 is cited for valve 20 (Fig. 1) which controls the vapor flow after material being evaporated.
US 6037241 is cited for carrier gas mixed with powder supply (Fig. 5).
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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 at 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights