DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of Fig. 4 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are herein examined and 10-20 withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires that the system is “part of a reactor system” but it is not clear what exactly this requires. The claim is not drawn to structure not actually defined yet the wording implies an attempt to claim further structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterlaken (2010/0136772) in view of Huang (2021/0340671).
Oosterlaken teaches a reactant delivery system comprising:
- a first vessel (120) comprising an inlet and outlet, see Fig. 1 and related text, the system is “part of a reactor system” (see reactor 100) and “configured to retain a solid reactant” [0024-26], but, in any case the use of the system for solid material is intended use; it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). The system of Oosterlaken is used for solids but even if it were not, any prior art structure that is the same as the instant claimed structure would meet the claim requirements, and
- a first housing enclosing the first vessel – see heater 170 which is understood as a housing as it encloses the vessel and valves as depicted,
- a second vessel (130) comprising a second outlet, see outlet off of line 135, the vessel exterior to the first housing (also configured to retain a solid material),
- a conduit coupled to the second vessel outlet and first vessel inlet, see connection between the two vessels, unlabeled but depicted; and
- a flow control device within the conduit, see the valve at least leading into the first vessel from the second vessel, described as transporting the material in a heated state, particularly per [0023] the transfer would be in a liquid or vapor state, but in any case the transfer state is an intended use and the apparatus is capable of heating the material to any desired state.
The teachings do not include any manipulation of pressure in the first housing. While the use of any particular pressure is intended use, since the system does not teach the capability of controlling pressure, the teachings of Huang are applied. Huang teaches that it is effective to keep a precursor source vessel within a housing (i.e. cabinet) to contain the source and control the temperature (taught by Oosterlaken) – but also further Huang teaches that it is effective to control the pressure of the housing [0028]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include a housing (cabinet) as taught by Huang with the source of Oosterlaken as Oosterlaken generally teaches a heating enclosure but Huang further teaches that a cabinet is effective for maintaining conditions and further it is useful to control the pressure of the cabinet (to a reduced pressure as claimed). As per the intended use, the cabinet of the combined art is capable of being held at a pressure less than ambient.
Regarding claim 5, any particular pressure is intended use of the apparatus, the prior art apparatus is capable of including a reduced pressure and therefore capable of the same use, such as within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6, there is a heater/enclosure around the second vessel and the same arguments apply, but in regard to the actual pressure, that is again intended use.
Regarding claim 7, the teachings includes a heater controller [0023].
Regarding claim 9, the system of Oosterlaken includes refilling the first vessel when needed, which would be understood as below a threshold amount wherein that limitation is broad. The material is molten liquid, therefore it is understood as heated.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterlaken and Huang (2021/0340671) in view of Tolle (2020/0340138).
The teachings of Oosterlaken are described above, Oosterlaken teaches several valves at the top of the vessel, but does not teach a valve plate to hold the vales. Tolle teaches a vessel for holding a source and teaches that an appropriate manner to hold the valves is to use a valve plate, see Fig. 5 and related text, particularly [0056]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply a valve plate as taught by Tolle in the apparatus of Oosterlaken as Tolle teaches that such a plate is effective for arranging/holding valves, and Oosterlaken teaches at least two valves.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterlaken and Huang (2021/0340671) in view of Collins (2017/0335450).
The teachings of Oosterlaken are described above, Oosterlaken teaches several valves at the top of the vessel, but does not teach a pressure transducer. Collins teaches an apparatus include a solid precursor container (102) that feeds material to another section of a reactor system, see Fig. 1 and related text. The teachings include that an MFC and pressure sensor (i.e. transducer) are useful in the supply conduit in order to monitor the flow. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply a pressure sensor/transducer as taught by Collins in the apparatus of Oosterlaken as Collins teaches that the sensor can monitor flow and that would be understood as beneficial in such a system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterlaken and Huang (2021/0340671) in view of Ludviksson (2003/0211736).
The teachings of Oosterlaken are described above, and include a controller, but do not teach controlling the temperature of the bottom and top as claimed. Ludviksson teaches, however, that it is useful to keep the top portion of a source container at a higher temperature than the bottom to avoid condensation [0023]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the control of Ludviksson such as controlling the top of the source at a higher temperature than the bottom for the purposes of effectively vaporizing material but also avoiding condensation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterlaken and Huang (2021/0340671) in view of Chandrasekharan (2015/0145154).
The teachings of Oosterlaken are described above and include heating the second vessel as noted, but do not include any detection of an amount of reactant in the first vessel. But Chandrasekharan teaches that it is known to detect the amount of a source in a container in order to know when to further supply material [0030]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include the sensor of Chandrasekharan in the apparatus of Oosterlaken as Oosterlaken teaches refiling the first vessel from the second vessel and teaches heating both vessels but does not teach any indicator of when to refill, so the sensor would serve that purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights