DETAILED ACTION
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 drawn to “a reactant delivery system” but then references that the “first vessel being comprised in a reactor system”, if the claim is only drawn to the reactant delivery system per the preamble so it makes the claim indefinite to include the broader “reactor system” because it appears an attempt to suggest a broader system without making it clear that it is actually being claimed. Furthermore, what exactly is required for the first vessel being “comprised in a reactor system”. Is it required to be within the same enclosure as a chamber, for example?
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, 5-7 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 “comprised in 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 (previous citation to caselaw). It is noted that being comprised in a reactor system is not particularly limiting – it does not require a particular structure such as the first vessel within a common housing of a reactor (as “reactor system” is also not limited). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, the Office does not consider the amendments to overcome the 112 rejection. Applicants are still attempting to claim the location of the reactant delivery system relative to a reactor system – but without the reactor system being actively claimed, it is still not part of the system. Applicants do not make it clear whether the reactor system is required. As noted, there is no clarity on the metes and bounds of the reactor system or exactly how the first vessel is comprised in a reactor system. A pump that is external and downstream, for example, would be reasonably considered also as being “comprises in a reactor system”.
Based on this lack of clarify surrounding the composition or even whether the reactor system is actually required, the teachings of Oosterlaken are held as teaching the claims. The entirety of Fig. 1, for example, or any part thereof, is reasonably considered part of the reactor system wherein it is broadly described.
Further, the requirement that the reactant delivery system is “being comprised in a reactor system” is an intended use of the delivery system and not structurally limiting to the claim as written.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights