DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Readinger et al (US 2014/0373785) in view of Lee et al (KR 10-2017-0031560), an English computer translation is provided.
Readinger et al teaches an effusion cell with a retractable crucible (retractable/extendable effusion source assembly) for molecular beam epitaxy ([0002]-[0005]), wherein comprising a crucible bracket ([0004], [0070], [0071] teaches a source crucible 14 connected to a source base plate 34), a mounting flange, a heat shielding cylinder (cooling housing 24) arranged on an upper side of the mounting flange, a gate valve 16 arranged on a lower side of the mounting flange, an outer cylinder 20 arranged on a lower side of the gate valve 16 and a driving device for driving the crucible bracket to move between the heat shielding cylinder and the outer cylinder ([0046]-[0055] teaches the source base plate is fixed to a first carriage, and the first carriage is slideable along a guide rail and driven by a rotary drive 32), the outer cylinder is connected to a vacuum pump, and the driving device is hermetically connected to the outer cylinder ([0042]-[0056] teaches vacuum port 30 connected to pump within outer cylinder 20 and maintains vacuum of the driven shaft 38 driven by rotary drive 32. (See Figs 1-27; [0039]-0050], [0055]-[0059], [0062]-[0076]). Readinger et al also teaches the source 14 is movable between retracted and extended positions, and when extended, the end of the source 14 preferably is at or near the end of the cooling housing 24 so as to be positionable within a growth chamber ([0043]; Fig 7-8), which clearly suggests the mounting flange is connected to a growth chamber because cooling housing is mounted on a flange adjacent the gate valve 16.
Readinger et al does not teach the heat shielding cylinder is internally provided with a heater. Readinger et al teaches a cooling housing 24, however does not teach a heater.
In an apparatus for evaporating a source, Lee teaches an evaporation source comprising a crucible 10, a heater 50 surrounded by a cooling jacket 20 and a lower casing 30; and separate external shield may be provided between the outer surface (21) of the cooling jacket or the cooling jacket and the heater to shield them (Fig 1-4; CT [0032]-[0066]). Lee teaches the cooling jacket is for cooling and serves to lower the ambient temperature around the heater and cooling jacket may include a refrigerant connection pipe for circulating the refrigerant and then discharging it to the outside (CT [0033]-[0034]). Lee also teaches a vacuum flange is provided at a lower portion of a lower casing 30, a supply port (IP) for supplying refrigerant to the cooling jacket (20) and a discharge port (OP) for discharging the circulated refrigerant are installed at the lower portion of the vacuum flange; a connector for supplying power to a heater (50) electrode for heating the heater (50) may be connected to the lower portion of the vacuum flange (CT [0035]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Readinger et al by including a heater and cooling jacket, as taught by Lee, to evaporate the source material and lower the ambient temperature around the heater.
In regards to the mounting flange is connected to the growth chamber so that the heater does not move with the crucible bracket, Lee et al teaches the a crucible 10, a heater 50 surrounded by a cooling jacket 20 and a lower casing 30 mounted on a lower flange (Fig 1-4) and Readinger et al teaches the (cooling housing 24) arranged on an upper side of the mounting flange, a gate valve 16 arranged on a lower side of the mounting flange, an outer cylinder 20 arranged on a lower side of the gate valve 16 and a driving device for driving the crucible bracket to move between the heat shielding cylinder and the outer cylinder ([0046]-[0055] teaches the source base plate is fixed to a first carriage, and the first carriage is slideable along a guide rail and driven by a rotary drive 32). Therefore, the combination of Readinger et al and Lee would teach the mounting flange is connected to the growth chamber so that the heater does not move with the crucible bracket because the cooling jacket of Readinger is mounted on the flange and does not move with the crucible bracket, and Lee teaches the heater and cooling jacket are mounted together on a flange; therefore the combination of Readinger et al and Lee would clearly suggest a cooling jacket and heater mounted on the flange together and fixed relative to the moving crucible.
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Readinger et al and Lee teaches a separate external shield may be provided between the outer surface (21) of the cooling jacket or the cooling jacket and the heater to shield them (Lee Fig 1-4; CT [0036]).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Readinger et al and Lee teaches cooling jacket may include a refrigerant connection pipe for circulating the refrigerant and then discharging it to the outside (Lee CT [0033]-[0038]); and a power feedthrough 26 and a thermocouple feedthrough 28 are preferably provided to allow power wire and thermocouple wire access from external of the first housing (Readinger Fig 3-6; [0042]). It is noted that the placement and location of the ports would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Readinger et al and Lee teaches cooling jacket may include a refrigerant connection pipe for circulating the refrigerant and then discharging it to the outside (Lee CT [0033]-[0038]); and a power feedthrough 26 and a thermocouple feedthrough 28 are preferably provided to allow power wire and thermocouple wire access from external of the first housing; and a plurality of separable cylindrical components connected by flanges (Readinger Fig 3-6; [0042]). It is noted that the placement and location of the ports would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Readinger et al and Lee teaches a power feedthrough 26 and a thermocouple feedthrough 28 are preferably provided to allow power wire and thermocouple wire access from external of the first housing 18 to an internal cavity with fixed thermocouple wires; and cables 52 are provided to provide power and functionality to the source 14 (Fig 3-6, 18-22; [0042]-[0048, [0063]-[0065]). The combination of Readinger et al and Lee also teaches deposition sources, systems, and methods described herein can efficiently and controllably provide vaporized material for deposition of thin-film materials, which clearly suggests a controller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Readinger et al and Lee by connecting the thermocouple and power to a controller to efficiently and controllably provide vaporized material by controlling temperature and heater power.
Referring to claims 6 and 8-9, see claim 5. Also, the placement of thermocouples to measure different portions of the apparatus and controlling the temperature of the measured portions of the apparatus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to efficiently and controllably provide vaporized material for deposition of thin-film materials.
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Readinger et al and Lee teaches a bellows and driving device are conventionally known in the art to retract a cell from a growth module into a small chamber and separated by a valve (Readinger [0004]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Readinger et al (US 2014/0373785) in view of Lee et al (KR 10-2017-0031560), an English computer translation is provided, as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Inaba (JP 63-310792), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided.
The combination of Readinger et al and Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, except the driving device is a magnetically coupled motion transmitting mechanism.
In a molecular beam source cell apparatus, Inaba teaches a molecular beam source crucible 11 attached to an operating rod 8 can move longitudinally within the auxiliary chamber 6 by means of a magnetic coupling type operating mechanism 7, and a driven magnet 18 is attached to the rear end of the operating rod 8, wherein these can be moved within the pre-chamber 6 (CT2 pg 3-5), which clearly suggests driving device is a magnetically coupled motion transmitting mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Readinger et al and Lee by driving device is a magnetically coupled motion transmitting mechanism, as taught by Inaba, to provide an equivalent mechanism suitable for moving a source crucible longitudinally. Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach the mounting flange is connected to the growth chamber so that the heater does not move with the crucible bracket is noted but not found persuasive. As discussed above, Lee et al teaches the a crucible 10, a heater 50 surrounded by a cooling jacket 20 and a lower casing 30 mounted on a lower flange (Fig 1-4) and Readinger et al teaches the (cooling housing 24) arranged on an upper side of the mounting flange, a gate valve 16 arranged on a lower side of the mounting flange, an outer cylinder 20 arranged on a lower side of the gate valve 16 and a driving device for driving the crucible bracket to move between the heat shielding cylinder and the outer cylinder ([0046]-[0055] teaches the source base plate is fixed to a first carriage, and the first carriage is slideable along a guide rail and driven by a rotary drive 32). Therefore, the combination of Readinger et al and Lee would teach the mounting flange is connected to the growth chamber so that the heater does not move with the crucible bracket because the cooling jacket of Readinger is mounted on the flange and does not move with the crucible bracket, and Lee teaches the heater and cooling jacket are mounted together on a flange; therefore the combination of Readinger et al and Lee would clearly suggest a cooling jacket and heater mounted on the flange together and fixed relative to the moving crucible. Furthermore, JP 09-110587 also teaches a slide transfer-type Knudsen cell, wherein the crucible 6 is raised into a chamber, wherein an upper heater 28a and heat-reflective board 29a are fixed in the film forming position; and lowering the crucible to a degassing position (computer translation [0019]-[0022]). Therefore, the examiner maintains that having a fixed heat shield and a fixed heater in an upper film forming position, and a moving crucible that does not move a heater is well known in that art time of filing and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
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). While Readinger may teach the source is an integrated assembly. Readinger teaches the cooler 24 is fixed on flange adjacent the gate valve 16, and the crucible moves in and out of the cooler through the gate valve. Lee teaches power for the heater and inlets for the cooler housing through a flange; and the cooler and heater is fixed. Furthermore, making elements separable is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 V. C.); therefore, making elements of the crucible assembly separate from each other would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al (US 6,063,201) teaches an effusion cell apparatus comprising a bellows, an upper cylinder, a lower chamber separated by a valve (Fig 4-5).
Yamamoto et al (US 2010/0218723) teaches a molecular beam cell comprising a crucible 2, coil heater 3, reflector 5 and a base 7 with a flange 9 having current feed throughs 25 and a thermocouple 8 (abstract; Fig 2).
JP 09-110587 teaches a slide transfer-type Knudsen cell, wherein the crucible 6 is raised into a chamber, wherein an upper heater 28a and heat-reflective board 29a are fixed in the film forming position; and lowering the crucible to a degassing position (computer translation [0019]-[0022]).
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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714