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 Request for Continued Examination filed 6/9/2026. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-18, and 24-32 are currently pending. Claims 2-3, 10 and 19-23 have been previously canceled. Claims 27-32 are newly added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/9/2026 has been entered.
Specification/Drawings
The amendment filed 6/9/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
the last line of para. 0052 which reads “In some embodiments, the system 200 is contained in a glovebox 280; and
Figure 2 which places the entire system within glovebox 280.
These amendments constitute new matter because previously applicant has only disclosed that a glovebox holds internal vessel components in para. 009 of the written description and that the glovebox contains the vessel and the controlled atmosphere in claims 21-23 in the amendments dated 5/6/2025. In neither of these disclosures does applicant indicate that the entire system is within the glovebox.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 24-28, and 32 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).
Claim 27, the vibration source (see following note) is attached directly to a body (the body of B – Fig. 1, Everman) of the vessel (B – Fig. 1, Everman). This rejection relies on an alternative interpretation of Everman in which the vibration source is interpreted to be element 40 and each connected mechanical element up to and including 68. As can be seen in Fig. 4 of Everman, 68 is attached directly to the body of B.
Claim 28, wherein vibrating the vessel (B – Fig. 1, Everman) comprisesvibrating the vessel be a vibration source (note that vibration source is interpreted to be 40 and each connected element up to and including 68 – Fig. 4, Everman, under the same alternative interpretation discussed above in claim 27) attached directly to a body (the body of B – Fig. 1, Everman) of the vessel (see Fig. 4, Everman, 68 is attached directly to B).
Claim 32, essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 7.
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.
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.
Claims 29-31 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 Cerles (WO 2022/136494 A1).
Regarding claims 29-31, Everman, as modified by Jin and Leonard, teaches essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 1, 9, and 11, respectively.
However, Everman, as modified by Jin and Leonard, does not expressly teach that the vessel is filled within a glovebox.
Cerles teaches an apparatus for handling volatile powders, wherein vessels (24, 52 – Fig. 1) are filled with volatile powders in a glovebox (12 – Fig. 1; pg. 4, lines 9-23 and pg. 6, lines 17-21). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Cerles, would have recognized that the filling of a vessel in Cerles is analogous to the filling of a vessel in the combination of Everman, Jin, and Leonard, since both fill a vessel with a volatile powder (note that aluminum trichloride is a volatile powder because it reacts with only a minimal amount of water to undergo an exothermic reaction that produces hydrogen chloride fumes).
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 system of Everman, Jin, and Leonard such that the vessel is filled within a glovebox as suggested by Cerles. Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the safety of the system.
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 is a different type of system and modifying Everman would require sealing the box of Everman and essentially the items within 22 of Fig. 1 of Everman.
In response, three points are made. First, Everman, simply notes that the box “may be formed” of paperboard. It does not necessarily need to be made of paperboard. The examiner takes the position that if a container, such as one made of the material of Leonard’s containers is required, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite knowledge and creativity to make this modification. Second, as acknowledged by applicant, Everman also discloses a plastic liner. Plastic would allow for a controlled atmospheres since plastic is not permeable to gas. Third, it is not clear why applicant asserts nearly the entire system disclosed by Everman would be required to be in a controlled atmosphere. Only the box is being filled and thus only the interior of the box is required to be a controlled atmosphere. Note that this is consistent with claims 1, 9, and 11 which simply require the interior of the vessel to be a controlled atmosphere. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claim 17 and as also now pertains to claim 32, applicant argues that the rejection is not proper because the prior art does not realize that the fill port is a result-effective variable. Furthermore, applicant argues that Jin indicates that aluminum trichloride cannot flow through a fill port with a 0.25 to 0.75 inch diameter since aluminum trichloride agglomerates to a degree that an auger is required.
In response, it is noted that the prior art does not need to recognize a variable as a result-effective variable. A variable simply needs to be known in the art as a result-effective variable. Is applicant arguing that someone in this line of work would not understand that changing the size of a fill port would affect flow rate? Furthermore, simply because aluminum trichloride would cake does not mean that it would not flow. Jin uses an auger precisely because it does flow. Certainly one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Jin that if the aluminum trichloride cakes, then they can use some means to break it up to allow it to flow. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, applicant simply argues that Torii is not suitable for use with atmospherically sensitive materials which need to be handled in a controlled environment.
In response, applicant has simply asserted that Torii is not suitable but has provided no substantive argument. Therefore, applicant’s assertion is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Westarp (US 2022/0033114 A1) teaches vibrating during filling (para. 0028).
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
7/31/2026
Prosecution Insights