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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 04/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-9 are pending. In the amendment filed 04/15/2026, claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 9 were amended, claim 2 was canceled, and no claims were newly added. Claim 9 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/22/2025.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-8 are under examination on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 remains acknowledged.
Claim 9 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/22/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The term “adjacent” is interpreted inclusive of “close” or “nearby”. The term does not require the structures to be contacting. Further, the term allows for intervening structures because between the first valve (14A Fig 1) and the first vaporization supply (12A Fig 1) there is a pressure sensor (16A).’
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first vaporization portion" in lines 5, 21-22, and 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously refers to “a first vaporization supply device” and “a first vaporization section”, but there is no prior reference to a “first vaporization portion”. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim term “the first vaporization portion” is being examined inclusive of referring to the “first vaporization section” applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity by either first claiming a first vaporization portion or amending lines 5, 21-22, and 27 to replace “portion” with “section”. Note that any amendment to add a reference to a vaporization portion should ensure it is clear how this differs from the vaporization supply device and the vaporization section.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second vaporization portion" in lines 10, 24, and 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously refers to “a second vaporization supply device” and “a second vaporization section”, but there is no prior reference to a “second vaporization portion”. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim term “the second vaporization portion” is being examined inclusive of referring to the “second vaporization section” applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity by either first claiming a second vaporization portion or amending lines 10, 24, and 29 to replace “portion” with “section”. Note that any amendment to add a reference to a vaporization portion should ensure it is clear how this differs from the vaporization supply device and the vaporization section.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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, 3, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana (prev. presented US 2009/0266296) in view of Yamaguchi (prev. presented US 5,803,938) and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0189559 of Hohn et al., hereinafter Hohn.
Regarding claim 1, Tachibana teaches first vaporization supply device including a first vaporization section for storing a raw material and having a heater (151 Fig 1), a first valve provided in a flow path downstream of the first vaporization section (154a Fig 1), and a first supply pressure sensor for measuring a gas pressure between the first vaporization section and the first valve (P on buffer tank 152a Fig 1), the first vaporization section and the first valve being located adjacent to each other (Fig 1); a second valve provided in a flow path downstream of the vaporization section (154b Fig 1), and a second supply pressure sensor for measuring a gas pressure between the vaporization section and the second valve (P on 152b Fig 1); and a control circuit (156 Fig 1) connected to the first vaporization supply device (Fig 1 and [0019-0021]); wherein a downstream flow path of the first vaporization supply device and a downstream flow path of the second vaporization supply device are communicated with a common flow path (line having valve 155 Fig 1), and the control circuit is configured to control the opening/closing of the first valve and the second valve to shift a timing of opening the first valve and a timing of opening the second valve [0019-0025], [0032-0038], and to flow the gas from the first vaporization section and the gas from the second vaporization section sequentially to the common flow path [0019-0025], [0032-0038]. Tachibana teaches the control circuit is configured to start flowing the gas from the first vaporization section to the common flow path by opening the first valve from a closed state when an output of the first supply pressure sensor is a set value or more [0023].
Tachibana fails to teach a second vaporization supply device because Tachibana teaches only one material vaporizer (151) and therefore fails to teach the second vaporization section and the second valve being located adjacent to each other. Initially it is noted that this represents a mere duplication of parts. Further, Yamaguchi demonstrates a plurality of vaporizers (10a-c Fig 43) connected to a shared supply line (line 8 Fig 43), which further demonstrates it would have been obvious to include 2 vaporization supply devices in the apparatus of Yamaguchi. The combination in which a second vaporizer is added to Tachibana instead of merely using one vaporizer renders obvious the second vaporization section and the second valve being located adjacent to each other because Tachibana teaches the first vaporizer is adjacent to the second valve (Fig 1 of Tachibana see first vaporizer and second valve 154b). In this combination as applied in which an additional vaporizer is added, Tachibana teaches to start flowing the gas from the second vaporization section to the common flow path by opening the second valve from a closed state when an output of the second supply pressure sensor is a set value or more [0022]. Tachibana additionally fails to teach an upstream pressure of the first valve starts recovering soon after closing the first valve due to a generation of a gas in the first vaporization portion and an upstream pressure of the second valve starts recovering soon after closing the second valve due to a generation of a gas in the second vaporization portion. Tachibana teaches closing the first valve (154a Fig 1) while opening the upstream valve (153a) to increase the upstream pressure of the first valve [0033] but fails to teach due to a generation of a gas in the first vaporization portion because it is due to generation of gas in the first vaporization portion and opening of the valve 153a. Tachibana also teaches closing the second valve (154b Fig 1) while opening the upstream valve (153b) to increase the upstream pressure of the first valve [0023] but fails to teach due to a generation of a gas in the first vaporization portion because it is due to generation of gas in the first vaporization portion and opening of the valve 153b. In the combination as applied of Tachibana in view of Yamaguchi, the additional vaporizers may replace the buffer tanks (152a,b Fig 1) because Yamaguchi demonstrates direct flow from a plurality of vaporizers to a common line to the chamber (10a-c Fig 43). However Tachibana in view of Yamaguchi fails to teach that the pressure in the vaporizer will rise when an outlet valve is closed. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing device with discontinuous vapor supply (abstract, Fig 1), Hohn teaches that pressure in the evaporator (vaporizer) will increase if the downstream valve is closed (when not supply vapor from the vaporizer) [0026]. Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tachibana in view of Yamaguchi to include that in the combination in which the vaporizers replace the buffer tanks, the pressure in the vaporizers will rise when the outward flow valve is closed because Hohn teaches a vaporizer which functions in this manner and Tachibana has taught increasing pressure upstream of the valve after closing it. Additionally and/or alternatively note that Hohn teaches a buffer tank (5 Fig 1) without a valve upstream of the buffer tank (Fig 1) and teaches that the pressure in this tank increase when valve 6 is closed (“during the interruption” [0037]). Therefore Hohn additionally and/or alternatively renders obvious modifying the combination to remove the valves (153a,b Fig 1) upstream of the buffer tank such that the pressure upstream of the first valve (154a Fig 1) or second valve (154b Fig 1) is increased due to a generation of a gas in the first vaporization portion (note the combination of Tachibana in view of Yamaguchi has already taught separate vaporizers for each line rather than the single shared vaporizer of Tachibana).
Regarding claim 3, Tachibana teaches the second valve is maintained in a closed state during the opening period of the first valve, and the first valve is maintained in a closed state during the opening period of the second valve [0022-0023].
Regarding claim 5, Tachibana teaches the opening period of the first valve and the opening period of the second valve are provided so as to repeat alternately (Fig. 2, 4 and [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. In the combination as applied, the first and second vaporization sections have the same shape and volume (note the duplication of parts or Yamaguchi which demonstrates same size and volume vaporizers) and the opening degree at the time of opening the first valve and the opening degree at the time of opening the second valve are same, and the opening period of the first valve and the opening period of the second valve are same length (Fig 2, 4).
Regarding claim 7, Tachibana teaches using a liquid organometallic material [0005] as the source material in the vaporizer.
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Tachibana teaches three or more buffer tanks with lines may be used [0042]. Further, Yamaguchi has taught three vaporizers (10a-c Fig 43). Therefore the inclusion of a third vaporization supply device with the corresponding third valve and third pressure sensor represents a mere duplication of parts and is obvious over the teaching of Tachibana and Yamaguchi which recognize the possibility of a third vaporizer and the corresponding alternating control.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana in view of Yamaguchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Doan (prev. presented US 2005/0260854).
Regarding claim 4, Tachibana teaches the timing of the valve control can be modified [0033-0034] but fails to teach an overlap period at time of switching is provided between the opening period of the first valve and the opening period of the second valve. In the same field of endeavor of gas supply system (abstract), Doan teaches gas supply valves may be operated to alternate with no overlap or with an overlap [0049]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve control of Tachibana to include overlapping of the opening of the first and second valves because Doan teaches this is a known configuration and additional control programs increase the number of processes that can be performed on the same apparatus and thereby increase the market value of the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations (reply p5-6). As explained above, the term “adjacent” is inclusive of “close” or “nearby” which are relative terms and the apparatus of Tachibana has the positions such that they may be considered “close” or “nearby”. The inclusion of a buffer tank does not remove the use of adjacent because applicant’s own use of adjacent allows for intervening structures such as flow conduit and the pressure gauge. Regarding the amendment regarding the pressure change (reply p5-6), this limitation is taught by newly introduced reference Hohn that was identified during a search of the amended limitation. Therefore the arguments that Tachibana in view of Yamaguchi do not teach this limitation are moot.
The argument that there is no motivation to modify Tachibana to include the direct vaporizer of Yamaguchi is not persuasive because the additional vaporizers represent a mere duplication of part of the vaporizer of Tachibana and Yamaguchi demonstrates such a supply configuration with a plurality of vaporizers is known in the art. 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).
For all of these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0132069 teaches increasing the pressure in buffer tank 139 when valves 148g and 148i are closed due to vaporization in vaporizer 152 (all Fig 4) [0077]. US 4.061,800 teaches allowing pressure to build in a closed vaporizer prior to supplying to the chamber (col 1, ln 30-40).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights