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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 2/6/2026. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-18, and 24-26 are currently pending. The cancelation of claims 21-23 is acknowledged. Claims 2-3, 10 and 19-20 have been previously canceled.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everman (US 4782865) in view of Jin (CN 215323361 U) and Leonard (US 5300273). Note that for convenience, citations to Jin refer to the previously provided translation dated 1/10/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Everman discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising: a vessel (B – Fig. 1) for containing a fill material (col. 2, lines 14-16) comprising granular powder material (col. 2, lines 55-58) and a vibration source (40 – Fig. 2) connected to the vessel, wherein the vibration source is configured to increase a bulk density of the fill material (col. 1, lines 29-34).
However, Everman does not expressly disclose that the fill material comprises a solid precursor for vapor deposition.
Jin teaches storing a fill material comprising a solid precursor for vapor deposition in a vessel (pg. 2, lines 14-15; Note that aluminum trichloride is a solid precursor for vapor deposition), wherein the fill material is a granular powder material (pg. 1, lines 4-5 from bottom). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Jin, would have recognized that since Everman discloses a fill material in the form of a granular powder material and the fill material of Jin is also a granular powder material, the system of Everman would be fully capable of filling the fill material of Jin in a vessel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have used the solid precursor for vapor deposition of Jin as the fill material in the system of Everman since the solid precursor for vapor deposition of Jin and the fill material of Everman are both granular powder material and the system of Everman would be fully capable of filling the solid precursor for vapor deposition in a vessel.
However, Everman, as modified by Jin, does not teach that an interior of the vessel is a controlled atmosphere.
Leonard discloses a vessel (any of 94, 12, 14, or 16 – Fig. 1) containing a fill material (aluminum trichloride; col. 5, lines 51-53; col. 4, lines 56-58), wherein an interior of the vessel is a controlled atmosphere to reduce reaction of the solid precursor for vapor deposition (col. 5, lines 60-63; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 11; note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that storing aluminum trichloride in a nitrogen atmosphere is to reduce the humidity in the air since aluminum trichloride is sensitive to humidity). Since both Leonard and the combination of Everman and Jin teach storing a fill material in the form of aluminum trichloride in a vessel, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Leonard, would have recognized that the atmosphere of the vessel of Everman and Jin may be controlled in the manner taught by Leonard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the vessel of Everman and Jin to have an interior that is a controlled atmosphere as taught by Leonard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that aluminum trichloride is heavily reactive to humidity and Leonard teaches a known solution for controlling the humidity.
Everman, as modified by Jin and Leonard, further teaches:
Claim 5, a funnel (H – Fig. 1, Everman).
Claim 6, the funnel (H – Fig. 1, Everman) connected to a top portion of the vessel (the top portion of B is connected to H via F – Fig. 1, Everman), and wherein the funnel is configured to direct the fill material into the vessel (col. 2, lines 55-58, Everman).
Claim 7, the vessel (B – Fig. 1, Everman) comprises a fill port (although not expressly disclosed, it is clear from Fig. 1 that there is an opening, interpreted to be a fill port, at the top surface of B where F is connected, Everman).
Claim 8, the fill material enters the vessel through the fill port (since the fill material is transferred to B from F and H, col. 2, lines 50-58, it is clear from Fig. 1 that the fill material enters the vessel through the fill port, Everman).
Claim 9, a vessel (B – Fig. 1, Everman) comprising a sidewall (the left wall of B – Fig. 1, Everman) and a bottom (the bottom wall of B, Everman) defining an interior volume (the volume in the interior of B – Fig. 1, Everman); and a solid precursor material for vapor deposition (pg. 2, lines 14-15, Jin) contained in the interior volume of the vessel (col. 4, lines 58-61, Everman), wherein the solid precursor material is increased in density using vibration (col. 1, lines 29-34, Everman) and wherein the interior volume of the vessel is a controlled atmosphere during filling (col. 5, lines 60-63; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 11, Leonard).
Claim 11, a method comprising: filling an interior volume of a vessel (B – Fig. 1, Everman) with a fill material (col. 1, line 29-34, Everman), wherein the interior volume of the vessel is defined by a sidewall (the left wall of B – Fig. 1, Everman) and a bottom (the bottom wall of B, Everman) of the vessel; and vibrating the vessel (col. 1, lines 29-34, Everman), thereby increasing a bulk density of the fill material (col. 1, 29-34, Everman), wherein a fill material comprises a solid precursor material for vapor deposition (pg. 2, lines 14-15, Jin) and the interior volume of the vessel is a controlled atmosphere (col. 5, lines 60-63; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 11, Leonard).
Claim 12, vibrating the vessel comprises directly vibrating a body of the vessel (since B is vibrated, col. 1, lines 29-34, the body of the vessel is necessarily directly vibrated, Everman).
Claim 13, vibrating the vessel comprises vibrating the vessel via one vibration device (40 – Fig. 2, Everman).
Claim 15, vibrating the vessel comprises continuously vibrating the vessel of applying vibration in a step-wise function (col. 4, lines 40-46, Everman).
Claim 16, filling the interior of the volume of the vessel with the fill material comprises introducing the fill material through a fill port (although not expressly disclosed, it is clear from Fig. 1 that there is an opening, interpreted to be a fill port, at the top surface of B where F is connected, Everman) of the vessel (since the fill material is transferred to B from F and H, col. 2, lines 50-58, it is clear from Fig. 1 that the fill material enters the vessel through the fill port, Everman).
Claim 17, essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 16.
However, Everman, as modified by Jin and Leonard, does not expressly teach the diameter of the fill port.
In this case, the diameter of the fill port is a result effective variable because the diameter of the fill port has the effect of impacting the flow rate of the fill material into the vessel.
Since the diameter of the fill port is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have made the diameter of the fill port any functional diameter including a diameter range from 0.25 inches to 0.75 inches, since it has been held that where the prior art teaches the general condition of a claim, discovering the functional range involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 18, vibrating the vessel reduces a void ratio of the vessel with the fill material (col. 1, lines 29-34, Everman).
Claim 24, the solid precursor is water sensitive (the solid precursor is aluminum trichloride, pg. 2, lines 14-15, Jin, which is unstable in the presence of water, hence it is water sensitive).
Claim 25, the controlled atmosphere contains limited or no water vapor (col. 5, lines 51-53; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 11, Leonard; although not expressly disclosed, the purpose of using a nitrogen atmosphere is to limit the water vapor since aluminum trichloride is heavily reactive to water).
Claim 26, the controlled atmosphere contains limited or no water vapor (col. 5, lines 51-53; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 11, Leonard; although not expressly disclosed, the purpose of using a nitrogen atmosphere is to limit the water vapor since aluminum trichloride is heavily reactive to water).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everman (US 4782865) in view of Jin (CN 215323361 U), Leonard (US 5300273), and Torii (US 2016/0236803 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Everman, as modified by Jin and Leonard, teaches essentially all of the claimed elements in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
However, Everman, as modified by Jin and Leonard, does not teach that the vibration source comprises more than one vibration device.
Torii teaches that it is known in the art to vibrate a vessel using a vibration source comprising more than one vibration device (para. 0251).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the vibration source of Everman such that it comprises more than one vibration device as taught by Torii. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide redundancy in case one vibration device failed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 11, applicant argues that the combination of Everman, Jin, and Leonard does not teach the limitation “wherein an interior of the vessel is a controlled atmosphere to reduce reaction of the solid precursor for vapor deposition” since the combination of Everman and Jin is incompatible with the method of controlling the atmosphere of Leonard. Leonard does not teach or suggest a way that would allow filling of a container while preserving the inert atmosphere and Everman and Jin leave the flowing powder open to the atmosphere.
In response, it is first noted that Everman does not leave the flowing power open to the atmosphere. See Fig. 1 of Everman where the vessel (B – Fig. 1) has a top clearly depicted with the spout filling mechanism (F – Fig. 1) engaged to a port in the top of the vessel. Since the vessel of Everman is closed, it is not clear why the interior would not be capable of sustaining a controlled atmosphere. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claim 6, applicant argues that the combination of Everman, Jin, and Leonard does not teach the limitation “wherein the funnel is connected to a top portion of the vessel” since Everman shows the box on a conveyor assembly to roll into the filling station and then roll out, it follows that there is no connection between the box and the end of the tube descending from the hopper.
However, it is not clear how applicant comes to this conclusion. Fig. 1 clearly shows the spout filling mechanism (F – Fig. 1) of the hopper (H – Fig. 1) engaged with the top surface of the vessel (B – Fig. 1). Why would the fact that the vessel is delivered on a conveyor prevent the spout filling mechanism from connecting to the vessel? In Fig. 1 there is even depicted a circular object on the top of the vessel that appears to be a cap removed from a port in the top of the vessel. Since it is not clear why a conveyor would prevent the spout filling mechanism from connecting to the vessel, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claim 17, applicant argues that the combination of Everman, Jin, and Leonard does not teach the limitation “wherein a diameter of the fill port ranges from 0.25 inches to 0.75 inches” since Everman never establishes that the size of the fill port is a result effective variable. Furthermore, applicant is surprised that the previous Office action would assert that “moisture-free aluminum trichloride is a powder and it would be expected to flow easily through any port bigger than its individual grain size” since there are other factors that impact powder flowing through an opening as discussed in a website that applicant visited.
However, applicant has not set forth why the fill port size is not a result effective variable and simply asserts that narrow ports such as those of 0.25 and 0.75 inches would clog. Furthermore, although other factors may affect the flowability of powders, applicant has not explained why aluminum trichloride would not be able to flow through a fill port with a 0.25 to 0.75 inch diameter. The grain size of aluminum trichloride powder is significantly smaller than 0.25 inches at approximately 0.017 inches. Furthermore, there is no evidence in Everman, Jin, or Leonard that any other factors would affect the flowability. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
3/6/2026