DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 have been cancelled and claims 17-36 are pending.
This action is in response to the amendment filed 6/22/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejection, applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, since the “or” limitation permits the reading of claim 17, which may also be read as “a controller configured to control a spray direction of a dispersion”, where this would not require the limitations preceding the “or” limitation, of, a temporally change, in the claim, and therefore is unclear.
Applicant’s argument that Mandal does not teach a controller that temporally changes a spray direction, is not persuasive, since due to the indefiniteness in the claim, Mandal teaches a controller (the controller that moves nozzle 54, col. 5, Ins. 60-col. 6, Ins. 6) configured to control a spray condition so as to temporally change a spray direction of the solution (“the nozzle 54 is moved substantially radially across the wafer 44”, col.5, lns. 66- col. 6, Ins. 6), and therefore the direction is changed since the nozzle moves across the wafer, where the spray direction moves from outer point A, to inner point B based on the position of the nozzle.
Since applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejection, the action is made Non-Final.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I, subspecies II in the reply filed on 9/18/2025 was acknowledged in the prior action.
Claims 31-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/18/2025.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the amendment in claim 1, for “temporally”, does not have support in the specification due to the preliminary amendment filed on 3/2/2023, but may be entered into the specification since the limitation was originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the prior objection.
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.
Claims 17-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "or" in line 7. The limitations prior to and following “or”, are unclear as to what limitations are required for the structural features required in the claim. As an example, it appears that claim 17 may also be read as “…, a controller configured to control a spray direction of a dispersion”, which would not require a temporally change in the claim, and therefore is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mandal et al. (US 5670210). The claims are being rejected as best understood.
Regarding claim 17, Mandal et al. disclose a raw material supply device comprising:
a container (14) configured to store a solution in which a solid raw material is dissolved in a solvent (col.4, Ins. 55-57) or a dispersion in which the solid raw material is dispersed in a dispersion medium;
an injector (54) configured to spray the solution or the dispersion to inject the solution or the dispersion into the container; and
as best understood, a controller (the controller that moves nozzle 54, col. 5, Ins. 60-col. 6, Ins. 6) configured to control a spray condition so as to temporally change a spray direction of the solution (“the nozzle 54 is moved substantially radially across the wafer 44”, col.5, lns. 66- col. 6, Ins. 6, where the spray direction moves from outer point A, to inner point B based on the position of the nozzle) or a spray direction of the dispersion.
Regarding claim 18, Mandal et al. disclose, the controller temporally changes the spray direction by continuously changing the spray condition (“the nozzle 54 is moved substantially radially across the wafer 44”, col.5, lns. 66- col. 6, Ins. 6, therefore in a time order of events the controller changes the spray direction by moving the nozzle across the wafer 44, and therefore is seen as meeting the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 19, Mandal et al. disclose the spray condition includes a spray pressure (col.5,lns. 8-10, since the flow rate is controlled by the valves, and pressure is a function of flow, then it is considered that the spray condition includes a spray pressure).
Regarding claim 20, Mandal et al. disclose the spray condition includes a pressure inside the container (col.5,lns. 8-10, since the flow rate is controlled by the valves, and pressure is a function of flow, then it is considered that the spray condition includes a pressure in the container).
Regarding claim 21, Mandal et al. disclose the spray condition includes a temperature inside the container (col.3,lns. 50-55) and an orientation of a nozzle central axis of the injector (col.5, lns. 60-col.6, lns. 6; as the dispensing head 42 is moved the nozzle 54 (not 52) is moved so a suitable distribution of the solution can be achieved (col. 6, lns. 3-6), therefore the orientation of a nozzle central axis as it moves is part of the spray condition).
Regarding claim 22, Mandal et al. disclose 22 a gas outlet (one of the outlets in 20) configured to discharge a gas toward the solution or the dispersion sprayed into the container.
Regarding claim 23, Mandal et al. disclose an evacuation port (at 48) configured to evacuate an inside (the inside of 14 within the path from 44-48) of the container, and a filter (the u-shaped channel 46) configured to divide the inside of the container into a first region (having the outlet at 50) including the injector and a second region (the stepped opening within 14 of path 48, above the valve 74) including the evacuation port,
Regarding claim 24, Mandal et al. disclose the filter is provided substantially horizontally (the “filter” is substantially horizontal within 46) inside the container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. ‘210 in view of Matsumoto (JP2009147356A as supplied by applicant).
Regarding claim 25, Mandal et al. disclose is silent to having the filter is formed of a porous material.
Matsumoto teaches the use of a filter (414, see Fig. 1, para.0030 in the translation provide) configured to divide the inside of the container (412) into a first region (412S) including the injector (411) and a second region (the area below 414 and above port 413) including the evacuation port, wherein the filter is provided substantially horizontally inside the container, wherein the filter is formed of a porous material (“mesh of fibrous material, para.0030), wherein the second region is located below the first region (as shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a filter as taught by Matsumoto into the device of Mandal et al. to have a filter being formed of a porous material, in order to suppress the generation of particles and increase the vaporization rate (Matsumoto, para.0012).
Regarding claim 26, Mandal disclose the second region is located below the first region (the stepped area of 48 within 14 is below the first region at 46, as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, Mandal et al. disclose the injector vaporizes the solvent or the dispersion medium before the solution or the dispersion reaches the filter (col.6, lns. 15-32).
Regarding claim 28, Mandal et al. disclose the evacuation port (48) is connected to a processing device (valve 74 is considered as a processing device in a broadest reasonable interpretation, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, Mandal et al. disclose the evacuation port (48) is connected to an exhauster (since continuous exhausting is occurring an exhauster is connected to the system) that evacuates the inside of the container (col. 7, lns. 34-38).
Regarding claim 30, Mandal et al. disclose the dispersion is a slurry or a colloidal solution (col. 6, lns. 47-49, this can be considered a slurry or colloidal solution, in the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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) Form at Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights