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 05/28/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 15-20 from the non-final office action, mailed on 03/30/2026, by amending claims 1, 5, 9, 16-17, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-8, 11-14 and 21 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the vaporizing section, the tubes, or both are formed from a stack of a plurality of plate members each having a hole, a groove, or both” of Claim 5 and other same claims across the claim list must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20100006033, hereafter ‘033) in view of Liu et al. (US 20050147749, hereafter ‘749) and Birtcher et al. (US 20200131630, hereafter ‘630).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘033 teaches:
Vaporizer (title, the claimed “A vaporizer”);
liquid material flow paths 320A to 320C where a liquid material flows (Fig. 8, [0065]), and the spray nozzles 360A to 360C ([0109], the claimed “comprising: a heat-exchanging section” and further “the heat-exchanging section including a branched section to which the liquid raw material is supplied and in which the liquid raw material is branched, and tubes, each connected to the branched section”);
the liquid droplets of the liquid source material which are discharged through the discharge openings 362 provided at the one ends of the respective vaporization chambers 370A to 370C and travel toward the other ends (deepest portions) thereof are completely vaporized before reaching the other ends, thereby generating a source gas ([0112], the claimed “and a vaporizing section configured to vaporize the liquid raw material to form a raw material gas”, and “wherein the vaporizing section includes piping having a cross-sectional shape”).
‘033 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: (1A) a heat-exchanging section configured to heat a liquid raw material,
(1B) wherein the vaporizing section includes piping having a polygonal cross-sectional shape.
In regards to the limitation of 1A,
‘749 is analogous art in the field of deposition (title). ‘749 teaches By heating the precursor liquid to a suitably high temperature, the liquid viscosity can be reduced ([0052]).
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 heating the liquid material flow path, for the purpose of reducing of viscosity of a liquid having high viscosity, thus making it easy to flow the high viscosity liquid. Consequently, in the combined apparatus, when the liquid of ‘033 passes through the heated liquid material flow paths, the liquid is heated.
In regards to the limitation of 1B,
‘630 is analogous art in the field of deposition (title). ‘630 teaches the term “conduit”, may be used in the specification and claims, refers to one or more structures through which fluids can be transported between two or more components of a system. For example, conduits can include pipes, ducts, passageways, and combinations thereof that transport liquids, vapors, and/or gases ([0058]), and The flow path can be tubular having a cross section (by making a straight cut through conduit at right angle to the surface of the cover) of any shape, such as a shape selected from the group consisting of at least partial of a circle, at least of an oval, at least partial of a square, at least partial of a rectangle, and combinations thereof or any other shape used in the art ([0067]).
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 flow path having a circular or polygonal shaped cross section, as the flow path in the vaporization chamber of ‘033, for its suitability as known structure with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claim 5,
Fig. 8 of ‘033 shows a stacked form of the vaporization modules 310A to 310C (the claimed “wherein the vaporizing section, the tubes, or both are formed from a stack of a plurality of plate members, each having a hole, a groove, or both”).
Regarding to Claim 6,
‘033 further teaches source gas flow paths 340A to 340C where a source gas flows ([0065], note the generated source gas is charged in the flow path before entering into a source gas supply line 132, thus it can be interpreted as a tank, the claimed “further comprising: a tank connected to the vaporizing section, wherein the raw material gas from the vaporizing section is charged into the tank”).
Regarding to Claim 9, ‘033 teaches:
The vaporized of Claim 1 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection with ‘033, ‘749 and ‘630 above (the claimed “A gas supply apparatus, comprising: the vaporizer of Claim 1”);
a liquid material supply source 110 (Fig. 1, [0052], the claimed “a liquid raw material supply source configured to supply the liquid raw material to the vaporizer”);
a liquid material flow rate control valve 114 ([0053], the claimed “a liquid supply valve that is provided in a supply path extending from the liquid raw material supply source to the vaporizer”);
The respective opening degrees of the liquid material flow rate control valve 114, the carrier gas flow rate control valve 124 and the source gas flow rate control valve 134 are controlled by control signals from the control unit 140. The control unit 140 preferably outputs control signals in accordance with the flow rates of the liquid material flowing in the liquid material supply line 112, the carrier gas flowing in the carrier gas supply line 122, and the source gas flowing in the source gas supply line 132 ([0053], note ‘033 does not explicitly disclose the “a pressure detector”, however, in order to detect the flow rate in each flow path, ‘033 should require a pressure detector, because the flow rate is measured based on a pressure in the flow path, thus ‘033 implicitly teaches the claimed “a pressure detector configured to detect a pressure of the raw material gas vaporized in the vaporizer”. Further note the “in accordance with the flow rates of the liquid material flowing in the liquid material supply line 112, the carrier gas flowing in the carrier gas supply line 122, and the source gas flowing in the source gas supply line 132” means “detected pressure result of the gas flow in the supply line”, therefore, it teaches the claimed “and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the liquid supply valve based on a detection result of the pressure detector”).
Further, this is commonly well-known feature, for instance, see ‘597, lines 9-12 of col. 6 disclosing “Pressure manometers 120 are used to monitor pressures in the vapor precursor delivery paths 106. The control module (as shown in FIG. 3) monitors outputs of the pressure manometers 120 and generates a pressure differential”, and line 64 of col. 7 to line 4 of col. 8 disclosing “the control module may control one or more of valves, filter heaters, pumps, and other devices based on the sensed values and other control parameters. The control module can receive the sensed values from, for example only, pressure manometers, flow meters, temperature sensors, and/or other sensors. The control module may also be employed to control process conditions during precursor delivery and deposition of the film”.
Regarding to Claim 10,
‘033 teaches the respective opening degrees of the liquid material flow rate control valve 114, the carrier gas flow rate control valve 124 and the source gas flow rate control valve 134 are controlled by control signals from the control unit 140. The control unit 140 preferably outputs control signals in accordance with the flow rates of the liquid material flowing in the liquid material supply line 112, the carrier gas flowing in the carrier gas supply line 122, and the source gas flowing in the source gas supply line 132 ([0053], note this intrinsically includes valve operation based on the pressure sensor, in other words, when a gas flow in the supply line is lower than a predetermined flow rate, which means a pressure of the gas flow is lower, then the valve for gas flow is opened to increase the gas flow, the claimed “wherein in response to the pressure detected by the pressure detector being equal to or lower than a predetermined pressure, the controller opens the liquid supply valve for a predetermined time”).
Claims 2, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘033, ‘749 and ‘630, as being applied to Claims 1 and 9 rejection above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 10147597, hereafter ‘597).
Regarding to Claim 2,
The flow path in each section of ‘033 intrinsically has a shape.
‘033, ‘749 and ‘630 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 2: wherein the tubes are formed in a helical shape or in a U shape.
‘597 is analogous art in the field of deposition (abstract). ‘597 teaches a flow path 640 formed by a helical tube 642 which can be embedded (Fig. 7, lines 66-67 of col. 10).
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 helical shape flow path form, to the flow paths of ‘033, for the purpose of more quickly providing a desired flow of vapor taking into account the liquid precursor and carrier gas.
Regarding to Claim 16,
Claim 16 is the same as Claim 5, thus claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 5 rejection with ‘033 above.
Further note, ‘597 also teaches a vaporizer 600 which comprises a stacked plate arrangement 602 including a top plate 604, a first plate 606, a second plate 608, a third plate 610, and a bottom plate 612 (Fig. 4, lines 11-14 of col. 9).
Consequently, claims 5 and 16-17 also can be rejected with ‘597, as discussed in the previous OA.
Regarding to Claims 18 and 20,
Claims 18 and 20 are the same as Claim 6, thus claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 6 rejection with ‘033 above.
Claims 4, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘033, ‘749 and ‘630, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Musarrat et al. (US 20190186002, hereafter ‘002).
Regarding to Claim 4,
‘033 teaches the vaporizing section, thus the path of the vaporizing section intrinsically has a cross-sectional area of a downstream flow path and a cross-sectional area of an upstream flow path.
‘033, ‘749 and ‘630 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 4: wherein a cross-sectional area of a downstream flow path in the vaporizing section is larger than a cross-sectional area of an upstream flow path in the vaporizing section.
‘002 is analogous art in the field of deposition (title). ‘002 teaches the gas flow path 122 may be formed to be gradually widened from the inflow surface 114 of the canister 110 toward the outflow surface 116 thereof (Fig. 2A, [0032]).
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 gradually widened flow path, to the flow paths of ‘033, for the purpose of compensating for a loss amount of the gas at the inlet.
Regarding to Claim 17,
Claim 17 is the same as Claim 5, thus claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 5 rejection with ‘033 above.
Regarding to Claim 19,
Claim 19 is the same as Claim 6, thus claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 6 rejection with ‘033 above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘033, ‘749, ‘630 and ‘597, as being applied to Claim 2 rejection above, further in view of ‘002.
Regarding to Claim 15,
Claim 15 is the same as Claim 4, thus claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 4 rejection with ‘002 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
In regards to the drawing objection, the applicants argue that the features of claim 5 are shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand and interpret the claim language consistent with the description in the specification of the present application.
The argument is found not persuasive.
First, as emphasized previously, MPEP 608.02 and 37CFR1.83(a) clearly mandate the “drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims”. The applicants’ current drawings fail to visually depict the specific feature recited in the claims.
Second, the applicants’ specification explicitly discloses that this feature of claim 5 is an “alternative” embodiment. Specifically, the specification states, “Alternatively…” for the feature of the claims. Because this recited feature defines a distinct, alternative embodiment of the claimed subject matter, a corresponding drawing is critical to aid in understanding the invention. The applicants’ Figs. 2A-2B do not illustrate this alternative configuration, thus fail to satisfy the requirement of 37CFR1.83(a).
Third, the applicants’ reliance on the argument by citing the MPEP that the claimed subject matter is “well-known in the art”, therefore the drawing is not necessary, is noted. If it is the applicants’ position that the feature is indeed conventional and well-known in the art, the applicants are respectfully requested to explicitly confirm the position in the next response. Upon receipt of the confirmation, the examiner will withdraw the drawing objection, and the feature will be treated as a known feature in the art for the remainder of the prosecution.
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