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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 07/02/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-11, 16-20 from the non-final office action, mailed on 04/09/2026, by amending claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 16-20, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-15 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “unitary formed mass” across the claim list should be:
“unitarily formed mass” or “unitary mass”.
(2) The “at least one flow path defined by the at least one flow channel through which a carrier gas flows in contact with the semiconductor chemical precursor” of Claim 1 should be below, because of redundancy of the similar terms “flow path” and “flow channel”:
“the at least one flow channel through which a carrier gas flows in contact with the semiconductor chemical precursor”.
(3) Claim 16 raises the same issue at the item (2) above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regard to the “a container defining a cavity configured to hold volume of a semiconductor chemical precursor” of Claim 1 and other similar limitations,
The applicants’ specification discloses “The solid volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor 150 can be a precursor for use with a semiconductor manufacturing process”, see paragraph [0041] of the applicants’ published instant application.
Thus, when a container holding a precursor for use with a semiconductor manufacturing process, it will be considered meeting limitation.
Further note;
When a container is provided, holding semiconductor precursor or holding non-semiconductor precursor by the same container is mere different use of the container, thus mere different use of an apparatus does not add a patentable weight to the apparatus, see the MPEP citations below.
(2) In regard to the “unitary formed mass” of Claim 1 and other similar limitations,
The “unitary formed” does not exclude the “connected or combined”, thus it will be examined inclusive of “connected form or combined form”.
(3) In regard to the “molded” of Claim 4 and other similar limitations, and further “cast” and “machined” of Claim 6 and other similar limitations,
The terms are considered as product-by-process. When the solid volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor is provided, it is considered meeting the claim language, no matter how it is constructed.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, see MPEP 2113.
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114). 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) (See MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) The “wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary cast and machined mass” of Claims 6 and 20 is a new matter, see the details in the 112 rejection below.
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 1-11 and 16-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “a unitary formed mass defining the volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor, the unitary formed mass including a top edge, a bottom edge, a perimeter, and at least one flow channel” of Claim 1 is not clear.
First, it is not clear what the “unitary formed mass defining the volume” means, because the claim amendment is constructed such that it is an external component having a volume holding the volume.
Second, A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “perimeter”, and the claim also recites “top edge” and “bottom edge” which are the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“the volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor being a unitarily formed mass including a top edge, a bottom edge, a lateral perimeter, and at least one flow channel”.
The “a lateral perimeter” is replaceable with “a perimeter between the top edge and the bottom edge”.
(2) Claim 16 raises the same issue at the item (1) above,
Further, the “A volume of a semiconductor chemical precursor, comprising: a top edge, a bottom edge, and a perimeter defined by a unitary formed mass of the semiconductor chemical precursor and defining at least one flow channel, an ingress opening, and an outlet passage” of Claim 16 is also not clear, because of the “defining at least one flow channel…”
It is not clear which part of the prior cited limitations of Claim 16 is modified by the “defining…”. Does it modify the “mass”, “edges and perimeter” or “volume”?
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“A volume of a semiconductor chemical precursor, comprising:
a top edge, a bottom edge, and a perimeter defined by a unitary formed mass of the semiconductor chemical precursor, and the unitary formed mass including at least one flow channel, an ingress opening, and an outlet passage”.
(3) The “wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary cast and machined mass” of Claims 6 and 20 is not clear.
The applicants’ specification merely discloses “A block of the semiconductor chemical precursor is manufactured by casting or molding techniques. The block is then CNC-machined to form the solid volume”, see paragraph [0027] of the published instant application. It is considered that the applicants’ mass is manufactured by casting or molding then by machining.
However, the claim is constructed such that the unitary formed mass has both unitary cast and machined mass. It is not clear, in the claim, what difference is required between the claimed “unitary cast” and “machined mass”, and further the applicants claims and disclosures fail to provide how they are connected to form the unitary mass, thus the claimed subject matter is a new matter and further the metes and bounds for the subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“wherein the unitary formed mass is manufactured by casting or molding then machining”, and the same claim interpretation as the product by process discussed in the claim interpretation will be applied.
(4) The “wherein the one or more arcs are concentric arcs” of Claim 10 is not clear. Claim 10 is dependent from Claim 8.
To be concentric arcs, the arcs should be plural, but the claim requires one or more arcs, which means one or plurality, thus when only one arc is provided, how the concentric arcs are constructed.
For the purpose of examination,
The claim 8 will be examined as “wherein the at least one flow channel comprises a plurality of arcs”, as a result, the “one or more arcs” of Claims 9-10 will be examined as “the plurality of arcs”.
(5) The “wherein the at least one flow channel comprises a plurality of tortuous passages” of Claim 11 is not clear.
Claim 11 is dependent from Claim 8. Claim 8 recite “wherein the at least one flow channel comprises one or more arcs”.
Does the at least one flow channel has additional plurality of tortuous passages, in addition to the one or more arcs? or the one or more arcs forms the plurality of tortuous passages?
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of both interpretations above.
Further, if the applicants intend to mean that the one or more arcs forms the plurality of tortuous passages, it is still not clear, because of the “one or more arcs”.
The “one or more arcs” means one or plurality, thus when the only one arc is provided, it is not clear how the one arc forms plural tortuous passages.
Consequently, in case the applicants intend to mean that the one or more arcs forms the plurality of tortuous passages, it is respectfully requested the applicants to amend it as followings:
First, the claim 8 needs to be amended so to be “wherein the at least one flow channel comprises a plurality of arcs”, as a result, the “one or more arcs” of Claims 9-10 will be “the plurality of arcs”.
Second, the “wherein the at least one flow channel comprises a plurality of tortuous passages” of Claim 11 will be “wherein the plurality of arcs forms a plurality of tortuous passages”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 7-11, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Musarrat et al. (US 20190186002, hereafter ‘002).
Regarding Claim 1, 002 teaches:
The solid precursor 120 may be disposed in the precursor accommodating space 112 of the canister 110 (Fig. 2A, [0026]), and a technique for forming a thin film on a semiconductor substrate ([0003], the claimed “An ampoule comprising: a container defining a cavity configured to hold volume of a semiconductor chemical precursor”);
a gas inlet pipe 140 and a gas outlet pipe 150 ([0024], the claimed “the ampule body 302 includes a carrier gas inlet 304 and a vapor outlet 306 ([0063], the claimed “an inlet port and an outlet port, both in fluid communication with the volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor”);
A gas flow path 122 may be formed inside the solid precursor 120 ([0028]), and The solid precursor 120 may have a hollow therein to allow the carrier gas 18 to pass therethrough ([0026], note Fig. 2 clearly shows the precursor is unitary mass having an perimeter along the body of the precursor, the claimed “a unitary formed mass defining the volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor, the unitary formed mass including a top edge, a bottom edge, a perimeter, and at least one flow channel; and at least one flow path defined by the at least one flow channel through which a carrier gas flows in contact with the semiconductor chemical precursor”).
Regarding Claim 2,
‘002 teaches a gas flow path 322 formed on an inner circumferential surface of a solid precursor 120 may have different diameters D3 and D4. A ring-shaped trench may be formed in the gas flow path 322 (Fig. 3, [0044], the claimed “wherein the at least one flow channel defines a labyrinth such that the at least one flow path is tortuous”).
Regarding Claim 3,
Fig. 3 of ‘002 shows single inlet 140 and single outlet 150 (the claimed “wherein the ampoule further comprises a single inlet port and a single outlet port”).
Regarding Claim 7,
‘002 teaches a gas inlet 132 and a gas outlet 134 ([0024]), and The gas inlet 132 and the gas outlet 134 may guide movement of the carrier gas 18 ([0036], the claimed “wherein a first fluid connection extends from the inlet port to an ingress opening in the volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor, the ingress opening in fluid communication with both the first fluid connection and the at least one flow channel; and a second fluid connection extends from the outlet port to an outlet passage in the volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor, the outlet passage in fluid communication with both the second fluid connection and the at least one flow channel”).
Regarding Claims 8-10,
‘002 teaches A ring-shaped trench may be formed in the gas flow path 322 ([0044], note the ring-shape has a curved surface, further note the path of Fig. 5A also reads into an “arc”, the claimed “wherein the at least one flow channel comprises one or more arcs” of Claim 8, “wherein the one or more arcs are in fluid communication with the inlet port and the outlet port” of Claim 9, and “wherein the one or more arcs are concentric arcs” of Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 11,
Based on Fig. 3 of ‘002, the flow direction is changed, depending on the size difference of the rings of the flow path (the claimed “wherein the at least one flow channel comprises a plurality of tortuous passages configured so that flow of the carrier gas through the ingress opening diverts the carrier gas into a first section in a first direction and a second section in a second direction and out of the ampoule through the outlet passage”).
Regarding Claim 16, ‘002 teaches:
A gas flow path 122 may be formed inside the solid precursor 120 ([0028]), The solid precursor 120 may have a hollow therein to allow the carrier gas 18 to pass therethrough ([0026]), and The gas inlet 132 and the gas outlet 134 may guide movement of the carrier gas 18 ([0036], note Fig. 2A clearly shows the precursor is unitary mass having an perimeter along the body of the precursor, the claimed “A volume of a semiconductor chemical precursor, comprising: a top edge, a bottom edge, and a perimeter defined by a unitary formed mass of the semiconductor chemical precursor and defining at least one flow channel, an ingress opening, and an outlet passage, wherein the at least one flow channel is in fluid communication with the ingress opening and the outlet passage; and at least one flow path defined by the at least one flow channel through which a carrier gas flows in contact with the semiconductor chemical precursor”).
Regarding Claims 19-20,
‘002 teaches A gas flow path 122 may be formed inside the solid precursor 120 ([0028]) and The solid precursor 120 may have a hollow therein to allow the carrier gas 18 to pass therethrough ([0026]) ([0074], see also the claim interpretation, the claimed “wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary molded mass” of Claim 19, and “wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary cast and machined mass” of Claim 20).
Claims 1-3, 7, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hendrix et al. (US 20210147977, hereafter ‘977).
Regarding Claim 1, ‘977 teaches:
The preforms may be included in ampules for use in vapor deposition systems…The preforms may be made via pressing a powder of the solid sublimation material (abstract), and semiconductor manufacturing processes ([0002]), and Ampule 300 includes an ampule body 302 (Fig. 3, [0063], the claimed “An ampoule comprising: a container defining a cavity configured to hold volume of a semiconductor chemical precursor”);
the ampule body 302 includes a carrier gas inlet 304 and a vapor outlet 306 ([0063], the claimed “an inlet port and an outlet port, both in fluid communication with the volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor”);
Fig. 1A clearly show a unitary mass having the volume of the preform defined by the perimeter of the preform, further the plural preforms of Fig. 3 also reads into the unitary mass (the claimed “a unitary formed mass defining the volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor, the unitary formed mass including a top edge, a bottom edge, a perimeter”);
The channels 102 allow vapor to pass through or escape the preform 100 ([0051]), and certain through holes can also allow for vertical transport of the vapor from the volatile phase as well was the carrier gas ([0075], the claimed “and at least one flow channel; and at least one flow path defined by the at least one flow channel through which a carrier gas flows in contact with the semiconductor chemical precursor”).
Regarding Claim 2,
‘977 teaches the alignment of the plurality of preforms 308 may be to provide a tortuous path for carrier gas or vapor through the ampule ([0070], the claimed “wherein the at least one flow channel defines a labyrinth such that the at least one flow path is tortuous”).
Regarding Claim 3,
Fig. 3 of ‘977 shows single inlet 304 and single outlet 306 (the claimed “wherein the ampoule further comprises a single inlet port and a single outlet port”).
Regarding Claim 7,
Fig. 3 of ‘977 clearly shows channel 102 of the preform is open to the ampule bottom section where the carrier gas is distributed, thus there should be fluid connection from one end of the inlet 304 to bottom end of the channel 102, and further the channel is also open to ampoule top section, thus there should be fluid connection from top end of the channel 102 to one end of the outlet 306 (the claimed “wherein a first fluid connection extends from the inlet port to an ingress opening in the solid volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor, the ingress opening in fluid communication with both the first fluid connection and the at least one flow channel; and a second fluid connection extends from the outlet port to an outlet passage in the solid volume of the semiconductor chemical precursor, the outlet passage in fluid communication with both the second fluid connection and the at least one flow channel”).
Regarding Claim 16, ‘977 teaches:
Fig. 1A clearly show a unitary mass having the volume of the preform defined by the perimeter of the preform, further the plural preforms of Fig. 3 also reads into the unitary mass (the claimed “A volume of a semiconductor chemical precursor, comprising: a top edge, a bottom edge, and a perimeter defined by a unitary formed mass of the semiconductor chemical precursor”);
The channels 102 allow vapor to pass through or escape the preform 100 ([0051]), and certain through holes can also allow for vertical transport of the vapor from the volatile phase as well was the carrier gas ([0075], see also the claim 7 rejection above for the ingress opening and the outlet passage , the claimed “and defining at least one flow channel, an ingress opening, and an outlet passage, wherein the at least one flow channel is in fluid communication with the ingress opening and the outlet passage; and at least one flow path defined by the at least one flow channel through which a carrier gas flows in contact with the semiconductor chemical precursor”).
Regarding Claims 19-20,
‘977 teaches the preform may be prepared at 406 by closing the mold and applying pressure to form a pressed powder of the solid sublimation material ([0074]), and the channels may be formed by drilling. In an embodiment, the grooves may be milled into one or more surfaces of the preform ([0076], see also the claim interpretation, the claimed “wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary molded mass” of Claim 19, and “wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary cast and machined mass” of Claim 20).
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 4-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘977.
Regarding Claims 4-6 and 17-18, ‘977 teaches:
the preform may be prepared at 406 by closing the mold and applying pressure to form a pressed powder of the solid sublimation material ([0074]), the channels may be formed by drilling. In an embodiment, the grooves may be milled into one or more surfaces of the preform ([0076], the claimed “wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary molded mass of” of Claims 4-5, and “wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary cast and machined mass of” of Claim 6);
Channels 102 are holes or pores formed through the preform 100 ([0051], note when the preform has pores, the preforms is a porous material having a porosity in a range of 0-100 percent by volume, the claimed “a porous material having a porosity in a range of percent by volume” of Claims 4-6, and “wherein the unitary formed mass has a porosity in a range of percent by volume” of Claims 17-18).
Thus, ‘977 is merely silent about the cited percent ranges, in other words, ‘977 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 4: wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary molded mass of a porous material having a porosity in a range of 5-95 percent by volume.
Claim 5: wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary molded mass of a porous material having a porosity in a range of 30-95 percent by volume.
Claim 6: wherein the unitary formed mass comprises a unitary cast and machined mass of a porous material having a porosity in a range of 5-95 percent by volume.
Claim 17: wherein the unitary formed mass has a porosity in a range of 5-95 percent by volume.
Claim 18: wherein the unitary formed mass has a porosity in a range of 50-95 percent by volume.
However, ‘977 clearly teaches The channels 102 allow vapor to pass through or escape the preform 100 ([0051]), this means that more channels (hole or pores) result in more gas flow. Therefore, a porosity ratio of the preform with respect to the total volume of the preform controls the flow rate of the gas flow, in other words, it is a result effective parameter to control the flow rate passing through the preform.
Consequently, even if ‘977 is silent about the percent rages as recited, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a porosity as recited, to the preform of ‘977, for the purpose of controlling the flow rate, and/or since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘977, in view of Soininen (US 20070170604, hereafter ‘604).
Regarding Claims 8-10,
‘977 teaches channels 102 (the claimed “wherein the at least one flow channel comprises”).
‘977 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 8: wherein the at least one flow channel comprises one or more arcs.
Claim 9: wherein the one or more arcs are in fluid communication with the inlet port and the outlet port.
Claim 10: wherein the one or more arcs are concentric arcs.
Emphasized again, ‘977 clearly teaches provides a tortuous path for the vapor, improving the consistency of saturation of the vapor ultimately produced within an ampule including one or more of the preform 100 ([0053]), thus ‘977 clearly acknowledges needs of the tortuous path.
‘604 is analogous art in the field of vapor source containers ([0002]) having a tortuous path for the gas (abstract). ‘604 teaches As shown in FIG. 12b, a gas flow labyrinth within the inner compartment 1200 can be machined, for example, from a block of metal. Circular gas flow channels are separated from each other by additional flow dividers in the form of walls 1220 that extend a height 1206 from the bottom to the wall 1208 of the inner compartment 1200. Openings 1222 are machined into the walls 1220, preferably on alternated sides, so that gases flow along a tortuous path from one circular channel to the next one until the exit point 1204 of the inner compartment 1200 is reached. (Fig. 12b, [0068], note each circular gas flow channel has a curved shape, which is an arc, and the circular gas flow channels are concentric).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the preforms of ‘977, so to have circular gas flow channels separated from each other by walls and also having openings on alternated sides, thus gases flow along a tortuous path from one circular channel to the next one until the exit point, for the purpose of providing increased resident time, thus further providing gradually saturated gas flow.
Regarding Claim 11,
‘977 teaches The alignment of the plurality of preforms 308 may be to provide a tortuous path for carrier gas or vapor through the ampule. The vapor may travel along grooves formed in the surfaces of preforms, such as grooves 104 described above, to pass from the channels of one preform to the channels of the adjacent preform. The tortuous path may improve saturation of the vapor with the sublimated solid sublimation material ([0070], note the path comprises both vertical paths and horizontal paths, see the 112 rejection above, the claimed “wherein the at least one flow channel comprises a plurality of tortuous passages configured so that flow of the carrier gas through the ingress opening diverts the carrier gas into a first section in a first direction and a second section in a second direction and out of the ampoule through the outlet passage”).
Further, as discussed in the claims 8-10 rejection above, the arcs form plural tortuous passages, thus the teaching for the claims 8-10 rejection above also reads into the claim 11, as discussed in the 112 rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
Applicants argue that structure can be implied when the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product, see page 7, and the “molded mass” and “cast and machined” mass are capable of construction as structural limitations, see page 8.
The argument is found not persuasive and the examiner maintains the applicants’ manufacturing process steps does not impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product.
The applicants’ original claims and disclosures clearly present the applicants’ structure can be obtained by molding, casting, machining, or 3D printing, in other words, the “molding” is not an exclusive and unique way to make the applicants’ structure, and also the “cast and machined” is not an exclusive and unique way to make the applicants’ structure.
Further, “molding or casting then matching” is commonly well-known methods in the art, thus merely reciting those manufacturing process does not add a patentable weight to make the applicants’ structure to be distinctive from a prior art’ apparatus.
Lastly, the applicants’ recited structure does not have distinctive structural characteristics, as discussed in the claim rejection above. Therefore, the features as recited are not capable of construction as structural limitations.
In regard to the 35USC102 rejection of Claim 1 based on ‘977, the Applicants argue that ‘977 does not disclose a single formed precursor mass having a flow channel formed in or defined by the precursor material. A support tray, vessel wall, aperture, duct, heat transfer member, or other structure of the ampoule assembly is not the claimed solid precursor mass, and a solid reagent merely supported by or placed on a tray does not thereby become a unitary formed precursor body defining the claimed flow channel, see page 11.
The argument is found not persuasive, and the examiner maintains ‘977 clearly teach the feature as recited, because the preform of ‘977 is single mass precursor having a gas channel within the preform, see Fig. 1, and the preform is made via mold.
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 AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights