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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 28 January 2026. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are under full consideration.
Summary
This non-final office action is a reply to Applicant’s response, filed 28 January 2026, to an election/restriction requirement filed 03 December 2025. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are under full consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR-101313877-B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a reactor system (source container… and a reactor; see [0001]), comprising: a reaction chamber (reactor; see [0029]); a source enclosure (source container 100; see [0022]); a source vessel positioned in the source enclosure (container 100 may include a container 10; see [0022] and Fig. 1), the source vessel comprising an interior space adapted for receiving a volume of a source material (the upper surface of the vessel member defines a source receiving space; see [0027] and Fig. 1), wherein the interior space is coupled to the reaction chamber (diffused into the gas dispersion space V1 and is transferred to the reactor through the gas discharge flow path 13; see [0029]); and a vessel weight monitoring assembly (the control unit 60 derives the weight loss of the source material SM; see [0048]) comprising a sensor assembly (“from the change in vapor pressure or the load of the container 10 sensed by the source amount sensing unit 50”; see [0048]; and “sensing portion 50 may include a load cell 51”; see [0044])) positioned between a bottom wall of the source vessel (lower surface of the vessel member 20; see [0044]) and a support element of the source enclosure (support plate 52; see [0044] and Figs. 1-2, parts 51, 52, and 20), wherein the source assembly comprises a plurality of force sensors (sensing portion 50 may include a load cell 51 for sensing the load of the vessel member 20 that receives the source material… the load cell 51 may be one or two or more; see [0044]) configured to sense a combined weight of the source vessel and the source material (a load cell 51 for sensing the load of the vessel member 20 that receives the source material SM; see [0044]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses the reactor system of claim 1, wherein each of the force sensors is configured to output a signal indicative of a force applied by the source vessel on the one or more force sensors (The load cell 51 includes a transducer that converts a physical quantity such as a force or a load into an electrical signal and measures a force or a load; see [0044]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses the reactor system of claim 1, wherein each of the force sensors comprises a load cell (sensing portion 50 may include a load cell 51; see [0044]) and the load cells are arranged in a circular pattern (The container 10 may be cylindrical; see [0022] and Fig. 2). Regarding the pattern and 120-degree offsets of the load cells, this is merely optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation. The courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929): “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” It would have therefore been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distribute the load cells with 120-degree offsets as this degree of separation necessarily occurs when disposing the load cells with equal spacing.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses the reactor system of claim 2, wherein the vessel weight monitoring assembly further comprises a controller (The control unit; see [0045]) configured to process the signal of each of the plurality of force sensors (connected to the source amount detection unit; see [0045]) and calculate a weight of the source material according to the processed signals (monitors the remaining amount of source material contained in the container based on the amount of change in load detected by the source amount detection unit; see [0045]).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses the reactor system of claim 2. The limitation claiming, “wherein an inner space of the source enclosure has an operating temperature of greater than 150oC”, this is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Further, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR-101313877-B1), in view of Verghese et al. (US-20180094350-A1), hereinafter “Verghese”, and Realpar (What is a Load Cell? |Types of Load Cells).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses the reactor system of claim 1.
Lee discloses a heater, but does not explicitly teach a base heater. However, Verghese discloses a vessel base heater (heater can be adapted to heat the housing base; see [0016]) positioned between the bottom wall of the source vessel (heater plate that is disposed below the housing of the SSCV vessel 104; see [0099]) and the support element (When modifying Lee by incorporating the vessel base heater of Verghese, it would naturally follow that they would be disposed in the same relative position, and would therefore result in the heater being disposed between the bottom of the vessel and the support).
Lee and Verghese are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a source container system for deposition processes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by incorporating the teachings of Verghese and providing a vessel base heater. Doing so would enable heating of the vessel housing base (see Verghese [0100]).
Modified Lee does not explicitly teach the load cells being pneumatic. However, pneumatic load cells are one of a few commonly used types of load cells, as exemplified by Realpars (see bottom of Pg. 2). KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a pneumatic load cell from the list of common load cells taught by Realpar.
Regarding the limitation claiming “the load cell is embedded in an outer surface of the vessel base heater”, this is simply making integral and/or rearranging two parts already disclosed in the prior art and which are disposed in the relatively same positions as that claimed. The courts have held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” (See In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)) and that shifting the position of a part is unpatentable if shifting the position would not have modified the operation of the device (See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). The specification does not teach any criticality of the claimed positioning, new or unexpected results over the prior art, or a modification to the operation of the device. Therefore, this rearrangement is considered a matter of obvious engineering design choice.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR-101313877-B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses the reactor system of claim 5. Lee does not explicitly teach wherein processing the signal comprises applying a conversion factor to the combined weight to remove a weight of the source vessel and forces applied on a lid of the source vessel by lid-attached hardware. However, Lee does disclose the controller calculating the amount of source material (amount of source material derived by the control unit; see [0049]) through arithmetic operations or a pre stored data table (see [0048]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a correction factor or offset when processing the load signal, because the measured load inevitable includes contributions from the source vessel and any external forces acting on the system. Removing such known contributions (e.g. via a conversion factor, tare, or calibration) represents a routine and well-understood signal processing technique in load-based measurement systems as it is required in order to achieve accurate results of source material weight.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses the reactor system of claim 5, wherein the controller generates an indicator indicative of the weight (The display unit can display the remaining amount of source material… derived by the control unit; see [0049]). Lee does not explicitly teach “based on a comparison of the calculated weight of the source material to a minimum threshold”. However, Lee does disclose that the display unit is capable of displaying various messages transmitted from the control unit, including when replacement of the source material is required (see [0049]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in order to process and display replacement timing of the source material, the controller must take into account a minimum threshold of source material in the vessel. Therefore, by indicating both the amount of source material in the vessel, and the replacement timing of the source material, the controller is implicitly communicating a comparison of the calculated weight to a minimum threshold.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR-101313877-B1), in view of Verghese et al. (US-20180094350-A1), hereinafter “Verghese”, and Takoudis et al. (US-20150104575-A1), hereinafter “Takoudis”.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses the reactor system of claim 5, wherein the lid-attached (lid portion; see [0060] hardware comprises an output line (gas discharge channel positioned in the center of the lid portion; see [0061]) and wherein each of the input line and output line comprises a bellow or a coil.
Lee does not explicitly teach the lid comprising an input line. However, Verghese discloses valves of the lid attachment include a number of lines, including an input line to flow into one or more of the valves (a first inlet valve mounted on the lid and in fluid communication with the first serpentine path; see Claim 7). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it enables control of the gas flow (see Verghese [0074]).
Modified Lee does not explicitly teach a bellow or coil in the claimed context. However, Takoudis discloses each line comprising a bellow (each line has two bellow-sealed pneumatic valves; see [0096]).
Lee and Takoudis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a system for deposition processes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by incorporating the teachings of Takoudis and providing a bellow. Doing so would have enables actuation and control of the flow of gas (see Takoudis [0047]).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee, Verghese, and Takoudis together disclose the reactor system of claim 8. Verghese further discloses wherein the valve is positioned between the lid of the source vessel and an upper wall of the source enclosure (see Fig. 14, Parts 104 (vessel), 420, 424, 428, 432, 436 (lid valves), and 1350 (enclosure)). When modifying with the bellows of Takoudis, because the bellows are associated with the lid valves, it would have naturally followed that the bellows would be placed between the lid and source enclosure upper wall, as disclosed by Verghese. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would have allowed the valves to be heated by additional heating elements disposed above the housing lid (see Verghese [0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights