DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/04/2025 has been entered.
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, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomarede (2013/0203267) in view of Sarigiannis (2009/0214779) and Kuznetsov (2003/0209200).
Pomarede teaches a remote source reactant delivery system comprising:
- a first bulk fill vessel remote from the reactor and configured to hold a first solid source chemical, see for example either one of 10A per Fig. 3, and reactor 50, and with reference to [0051] the source is solid though this is an intended use,
- a second bulk fill vessel – see either alternate vessel 10A or else 10B; per the related text, the material (solid) in 10A is the same as the first 10A vessel and 10B is not limited from being the same or different (the claim is not limited),
- a housing containing the first and second bulk fil vessels, this is not taught by Pomarede because there are environments 12A and 12B, but Sarigiannis teaches that it is operable to keep multiple chemical sources within a cabinet that includes multiple heating zones, see Figs. 1 and 5 and related text particularly. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to place the multiple vessels of Pomarede within a cabinet as taught by Sarigiannis as an operable manner of containing all of the ampoules. To include the 2 or 4 containers of Pomerado and Sarigiannis would have been a routine modification wherein the cabinet offers isolation from the outside environment (and further per Fig. 1 Sarigiannis discloses separate spaces within the cabinet and per Fig. 5 separate heating zones; in regard to the insulation, the cabinet includes a wall material which includes some level of insulation;
- an interconnect line fluidly connecting the reactor with each of the first and second bulk fill vessels – see source conduit 92,
- a line heater configured to heat at least a part of the interconnect line, see [0045] wherein the gas lines are heated, and
- a gas panel comprising a valve between the interconnect line and the bulk fill vessels, see 26 – as per [0051] the valve is configured to alternatingly supply the first and the second vaporized chemical to the reaction chamber.
The combined art teaches all elements of the claim but, while teaching different heating zones, does not explicitly teach specific heaters for the first, second and housings. However, Kuznetsov teaches that it is useful to include distinct heaters to control distinct heating zones, see [0035] and claims 6, 9 and 11 particularly. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply a first vessel heater, second vessel heater and housing heater in the combined apparatus of Pomarede and Sarigiannis as the teachings include multiple heater zones but do not specifically teach how the zones are separately heated – however, the distinct heaters of Kuznetsov would allow such control. In regard to the specific temperature – that is intended use of the apparatus and not limiting to the claim. The heaters can be set to any relative temperature – the claim is an apparatus claimed and not limited by the use as the prior art apparatus is useable in the same manner. it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the claims attempt to distinguish based on use and not based on any claimed structure.
Regarding claim 2, the valve controls the flow as claimed per [0051].
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the teachings include heating the vessels for a minimum temperature [0042-43], claim 6 is intended use and addressed as above. Sarigiannis further teaches different heating zones as noted and therefore would be understood to include multiple heaters.
Further Regarding claim 6, the same arguments hold for the temperature of the vessels as argued per claim 3 in regard to the gas lines.
Regarding claim 9, Examiner takes Official Notice that sensors, such as to control flow, are well known in the art and not patentable over the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 10, the teachings include an MFC at any or all of locations of valves 14, 16, 24, 26 and 28 thereby meeting the claim requirements.
Regarding claim 12, Pomarede teaches multiple valves on each vessel (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, all elements of the claim are met as addressed above:
- a plurality of bulk fill vessels with a body and a heater, with the temperature argued as above in both the 102 and 103 rejections
– in regard to the lids, the Office takes the dual positions:
- initially, there is necessarily a lid to refill the container – as per MPEP 2144.01 it is proper to take into account both the explicit and implicit teachings of a reference
- and the Examiner alternatively takes Official Notice that to include a lid on such vessels – this is well-known for the purposes of cleaning and/or refilling, furthermore, it is a mere different wherein the vessel is taught of making the container separable or integral, see MPEP 2144.04 V. B. and C. – in this case there would be advantages to both but wherein it is known to refill the containers, a separable lid would be useful;
- an interconnect line as described above per claim 1, with the distance argued as in claim 13 above (but with 5m versus 15m),
- a line heater as above, thereby teaching all elements of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 15, the system as described has multiple bulk fill systems either the other of 10A and/or 10B and includes the claimed lids.
Regarding claim 16, the second bulk fill vessel is addressed above as is the presence of multiple valves.
Claims 3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomarede et al in view of Huang (2021/0340671).
The teachings of Pomarede and Sarigiannis are described above, teaching a cabinet but not a reduced pressure. Huang teaches that it is useful to implement a reduced pressure in a source cabinet (claim 3) as well as modifications such as convection-enhancing devices (claim 8) and reflectors (claim 7). It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the modifications as taught by Huang to the apparatus of the combined art for the noted benefits of controlling heat/temperature.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomarede et al in view of DeDontney (2012/0289057).
The teachings of Pomarede are described above, including heating the gas lines, but not teaching how the heating is done. DeDontney teaches that it is known to use heater jackets to heat gas lines a semiconductor apparatus [0075]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the heater jackets of DeDontney as an operable means to heat the gas lines wherein Pomarede teaches such heating but is silent on the structure to carry it out.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomarede et al in view of Ferri (5,330,072).
The teachings of Pomarede are described above, the teachings include multiple vessels to supply the precursors but do not teach the claimed signal when one vessel is below a certain point the other is used. Ferri teaches, however, a system with multiple vessels used to supply chemical, it is useful to have a low level signal so that an alternate vessel can be used while the first one is refilled, see particularly col 9, lines 1-21). It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to implement the controller steps of Ferri with the apparatus of Pomarede as Ferri teaches that it is an advantage of having multiple vessels that you can keep the system in use while refilling one of the vessels when it gets too low (and likewise producing the signal).
Regarding claim 13, the system is capable of providing a signal and to have multiple signals based on different required fill levels is not patentable over the applied art. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but rather whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a prop-erly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). In this case, to have a minimum and maximum fill level and a related signal would have been obvious based on the level of skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the teachings do not include the claimed heaters and/or the claimed use of the different set points. As per above, Kuznetsov teaches the use of distinct heaters for heating distinct zones. As argued, the further temperature control is not limited as claimed in the apparatus claims.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.. 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 1712