DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 6, bottom of the page; regarding claim 9, now included in claim 1) that “Although Applicant's Specification does not explicitly define "heating element," Applicant submits that an ordinary and customary meaning consistent with Applicant's Specification is "A heating element is a device used for conversion of electric energy into heat”. The dip tube cited by the Office Action is not "a device used for conversion of electric energy into heat," rather, it is merely a cylindrical tube which may be heated solely by nature of a heated gas passing through it” (end quote).
This argument is found unpersuasive, for the following reasons. As a matter of evidence for Examiner’s assertion, and not as a matter of prior art, Examiner has performed a quick and dirty search – just the specific terms were used, without synonyms – to check the matter with actual evidence. The search string was “((heated gas) WITH tube) AND (CPC subclasses relevant to the invention; listed in search notes) AND @ad<20180816”.
Basically, the above search string searches for (1) “heated gas” and “tube” in a single sentence (with no synonyms at all; using exactly Applicant’s terms, and nothing else), (2) limited just to the specific subclasses of the current invention (so, the results are related art, by international CPC standards and definitions) and (3) the date (to make sure that the results qualify as prior art). This 30 second search resulted in finding some relevant references, including US-2004/0023517 (see Abstract: “heated gas circulates through … tube … to raise the temperature …”).
The point of the above exercise was to point out that in the relevant related arts, “heated gas” inside the “tube”, is a recognized way to “raise the temperature”, and thus qualify as “heating element”. Hence, Applicant’s definition of the terms (“conversion of electric energy into heat”) is found to be too narrow, and not meeting the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of terms, as applied within the relevant related arts, as evidenced by international classification of patents (CPC). Hence, Chaubey reads on limitations and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 7, bottom of the page and top of page 8; regarding claim 14, now included in claim 12) that the elements cited by Examiner (40/41/42) are spaced apart radially and/or annularly, not circumferentially.
This argument is found unpersuasive, for the following reasons. Please see FIG. 1 of Chaubey. Locate 42, in the bottom right corner of drawing. Now, see slightly above the object marked as 37 (it is “42”, but it has to do with Chaubey double-marking things [Wingdings font/0xE0] 42 and 45 point to same object). 42 is “circumferentially” spaced from 37, and then from 35, and then from 31 (the other “42’s”). Same thing applies to 41 (it has its counter-parts on the same vertical level as 37/35/31) and the same thing applies to 40 (it also has its counter-part on the same vertical level as 37/35/31). In other words, these walls are going from bottom to top. Therefore, as Examiner has written in his rejection “the 40/41/42 portions of protrusions are spaced apart circumferentially from each other “ [Wingdings font/0xE0] 40 is spaced apart from its counterpart 40 above, 41 from its counterpart 41 above, and 42 from its counterpart 42 above. Hence, Chaubey reads on limitations and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 8, middle of the page; regarding claim 17) that Chaubey does not disclose the newly amended limitations of claim 17.
This argument is found unpersuasive. The detailed explanation on how Chaubey reads on amended claim 17 is provided within the body of rejection of claim 17.
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 1-8, 10-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-2009/0181168) by Chaubey et al (“Chaubey”).
Regarding claim 1, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., a solid source chemical sublimator (Title and Abstract), comprising:
a housing (33) defining a housing axis extending along a length of the housing (going right down the middle of 55), the housing configured to hold a solid chemical reactant therein (par. 47; “solid precursor” is to be loaded into slots 47/48/49, for example; thus meeting limitations);
a base (bottom of 33) disposed at a distal end of the housing;
a lid (15) disposed at a proximal end of the housing, the housing axis being perpendicular to a face of the lid and to a face of the base (see FIG. 1);
a thermally conductive conduit (51; “interior passage”; gas flows through it; hence, it is “thermally conductive”, since gases are “thermally conductive”) extending from the base along the housing axis (see FIG. 1); and
a plurality of thermally conductive protrusions (50/40/41/42/44 together form a “conductive protrusion”; plurality of such protrusions are shown in FIG. 1) extending from the thermally conductive conduit (see FIG. 1), each of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions configured to heat the solid chemical reactant (see par. 47; “In operation, the carrier gas is preheated prior to introduction into the container 33 via dip tube 92. Alternatively, the carrier gas can be heated while it flows through the gas passageway 59 by the bottom surface 58. Bottom surface 58 is thermally coupled and/or heated by an external heater consistently with the teachings herein”; hence, as the result (1) all the protrusions get heated too and (2) all the protrusions are shaped such that gas heats precursor; hence, in either case (1, or 2), protrusions are “configured to heat”; thus meeting limitations two separate ways); and
a heating rod (55 is present; it can carry heated carrier gas per par. 47; hence, it gets heated; hence, it is a “heating rod” by definition) disposed approximately along the housing axis within the thermally conductive conduit (see FIG. 1; also, see the detailed explanation provided above, in “Response to Arguments” section).
Examiner’s Note: one of the possible points of disagreement regarding Chaubey’s teachings may be related to whether something is “configured to heat”, or whether something is “thermally conductive conduit”, or similar limitations existing in all of Applicant’s claims 1-20. Please note that Chaubey explicitly teaches in par. 30 that “An external heater, not shown, is used to provide heat to the sublimator. The external heater is coupled to the sublimator, and/or any internal components of the sublimator by any means known to one skilled in the art.” In short, according to Chaubey, everything is “configured to heat”, and is a “thermally conductive conduit”. So, if Applicant wishes to argue against rejection of claim above, or any of the claims below, based on anticipation, also consider that Chaubey makes it obvious to a POSITA to modify any portion of sublimator for heating function, per his explicit teachings in par. 30. Thus if Applicant wishes to argue against anticipation of a particular limitations, consider an obviousness rejection to be also included, based on Chaubey’s explicit teachings.
Regarding claim 2, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein at least one of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions is connected to the base (the bottom 50’s are in direct contact with base; hence, “connected to the base”).
Regarding claim 3, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein at least one of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions extends from the base (the bottom 50’s are in direct contact with base; hence, “extends from the base”).
Regarding claim 4, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein the at least one of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions extends axially from the base (FIG. 1 shows vertical axis; the 50’s are extending “axially” [Wingdings font/0xE0] along the axis [Wingdings font/0xE0] hence, meeting limitations).
Regarding claim 5, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein at least two of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions are spaced radially in relation to the housing axis (see FIG. 1; the bottom portion (marked 44) is spaced radially (Webster: “relating to, or adjacent to a bodily radius”).
Regarding claim 6, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein the at least two of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions extend orthogonal to the housing axis (the 44 portion of protrusion is orthogonal to axis).
Regarding claim 7, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., each of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions is spaced apart circumferentially relative to the housing axis from an adjacent protrusion of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions (the 40/41/42 portions of protrusions are spaced apart circumferentially from each other).
Regarding claim 8, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., further comprising a heat source (see par. 47; external heater or heated carrier gas would both qualify as “heat source”), wherein the thermally conductive conduit is in conductive thermal communication with the heat source (whether “carrier gas” travelling through 51 or heated base heating everything, the limitations are met).
Regarding claim 10, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein a portion of the housing is configured to remain between the heating rod and a solid source reactant of the solid source chemical sublimator (by considering 50 to be part of a housing (since it houses the channel 51 and dip tube 55) and considering 40/41/42/44 to be “protrusions”, the limitations are met, since 50 would be between 55 and 47/48/49 which contain “solid source reactant”).
Regarding claim 11, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein the lid is removably coupled to the housing (“sealable top 15” in par. 33; hence, “removably coupled”).
Regarding claim 12, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., solid source chemical sublimator (see claim 1), comprising:
a housing comprising a housing axis extending along a length of the housing, the housing configured to hold solid chemical reactant therein (see claim 1);
a thermally conductive conduit disposed within the housing and extending along the housing axis (see claim 1); and
a plurality of thermally conductive protrusions extending from the thermally conductive conduit (see claim 1), each of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions configured to heat the solid chemical reactant (see par. 44; “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the exterior disks 62, 78, 82, 86 should be tightly fit into the container 33 for a good contact for conducting heat from the container 33 to the disks 62, 78, 82, 86.”; please note that this means that the whole thing is heated and all touching parts are heated; hence, everything, including “thermally conductive protrusions” heats the “solid chemical reactant”),
each thermally conductive protrusion in the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions is spaced apart circumferentially relative to the housing axis from an adjacent thermally conductive protrusion in the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions (see claim 7; same logic applies; also, see the detailed explanation provided above, in “Response to Arguments” section).
Regarding claim 13, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein each of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions extends radially outward from the thermally conductive conduit (see claim 5; same logic applies).
Regarding claim 15, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., further comprising a heating rod disposed approximately along the housing axis within the thermally conductive conduit (see claim 9; same logic applies).
Regarding claim 16, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., a portion of the housing is configured to remain between the heating rod and a solid source reactant of the solid source chemical sublimator (see claim 10; same logic applies).
Regarding claim 17, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., a solid source chemical sublimator (see claim 1), comprising:
a housing comprising a housing axis extending along a length of the housing, the housing configured to hold solid chemical reactant therein (see claim 1);
a base (the very bottom of 33; horizontal portion) disposed at a distal end of the housing;
a plurality of thermally conductive protrusions extending from a thermally conductive conduit (see claim 1); and
an active heating element in thermal communication with the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions (external heater, for example, per par. 47; also, preheated carrier gas, per par. 47; either/or; everything is heated, as was discussed above, regarding claim 12, for example), wherein each of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions configured to heat the solid chemical reactant (see claim 12, for example),
wherein each of the plurality of thermally conducive protrusions are in direct thermal communication with the base (see the very bottom of 33, which is the base; it is in direct thermal communication with 50 by being in direct physical contact with it; please note that 50 and 40/41/42/44 are a single physical object; even though 40/41/42/44 have a different identification marking from 50, they are just different parts of one and the same object; hence, 40/41/42/44 are in direct thermal communication with the base, by virtue of being the same physical object as 50, overall).
Regarding claim 18, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g.,, wherein each of the plurality of thermally conductive protrusions is configured to conduct heat from the active heating element (as discussed above).
Regarding claim 19, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein the active heating element comprises a heating rod disposed within the housing (the carrier gas is preheated, per par. 47; hence, this heats heating rod 55/92; hence, heating rod 55/92 starts to actively heat other objects; thus meeting limitations).
Regarding claim 20, Chaubey discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., wherein the heating rod is disposed approximately along the housing axis within the thermally conductive conduit (see FIG. 1).
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
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 extension fee 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 Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. 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.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
06/29/26
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights