DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on April 24, 2026 was received. Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11 and 16 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued January 30, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Verghese et al. (US 2018/0094350) in view of Lee et al. (KR 101313877, translation filed 1/30/2026 used for citation purposes) on claims 1-7 and 10-15 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Verghese et al. discloses a reactor system including a reaction chamber assembly (1300) having a solid source assembly (1350) which is a source enclosure, the source enclosure (1350) holding a solid source chemical vaporizer (SSCV) vessel (104) which is a source vessel having one or more interior trays (108, 112) having top surfaces with recesses that receive a source chemical in fluid communication with the assembly (1300), bottom surfaces opposite the top surfaces, sidewalls connecting the top and bottom surfaces and a housing base (480) that includes exterior walls meant to accommodate the interior trays (108, 112) (pars. 48-49, 99-102, figures 1, 4-8, 11 and 13-14). Verghese et al. fails to explicitly disclose a precursor monitoring system comprising a sensor assembly positioned between the bottom surface of the trays (108, 112) and the base (480).
However, Lee et al. discloses a similar reactor system having a vessel member (20) containing a solid precursor material (SM), including a source amount detecting unit (50) which is a monitoring system that includes a number of load cells (51) which are force sensors located between the vessel member (20) bottom surface and a support plate (52) which is an exterior wall, the detecting unit (50) communicating with a control unit (60) to determine the remaining weight of the solid precursor material (SM) and the vessel holding it (20) by using an arithmetic conversion or from a pre-stored data table (pages 6-7, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a source amount detecting unit (50) and control unit (60) like that of Lee et al. for the apparatus of Verghese et al. to measure the weight of the interior trays (108, 112) which hold the source material because Lee et al. teaches that using this setup to monitor the reaction process helps prevent denaturing of the material and/or thermal waste, while improving the supply of precursor gas and process productivity (pages 2, 7).
Regarding claim 2: Verghese et al. and Lee et al. disclose that the amount and arrangement of load cells (51) is not particularly limited, suggesting that they are result effective variables which are obvious modifications for one of ordinary skill in the art (Lee et al. page 6, figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange three such load cells (51) between the trays and the base so as to be radially separated by matching angles of 120 degrees, which is a broad limitation when no reference point is discussed, because optimizing result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215), and because simple rearrangement and duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 3: Verghese et al. discloses that the heater of the system operates to heat the vessel housing to a temperature in range of about 50 to 250 degrees Celsius (par. 16, 100), which in the combination, would be the temperature at which the load cells (51) operate.
Regarding claim 4: Verghese et al. discloses that the source vessel (104) includes a lid (113) and lid attachment hardware, in addition to valves (420, 424, 428, 432, 436) attached to the lid (113), all of which can be considered lid attachment devices (pars. 48, 81 figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claims 5-7: Verghese et al. and Lee et al. disclose that the load cells (51) send a signal to a control unit (60) which receives the signal and calculates the weight of the remaining source material according to either arithmetic conversion (requiring a conversion factor) or a pre-stored data table which requires a comparison to a threshold, also requiring a pre-determined weight of the container being known or zeroed out, which would amount to calibration (Lee et al. page 7).
Regarding claim 10: Verghese et al. discloses that the heater of the system operates to heat the vessel housing to a temperature in range of about 50 to 250 degrees Celsius (par. 16, 100), which exceeds 150 degrees Celsius.
Regarding claim 11: Verghese et al. discloses a reactor system including a solid source assembly (1350) which is a source enclosure, the source enclosure (1350) holding a solid source chemical vaporizer (SSCV) vessel (104) which is a source vessel having one or more interior trays (108, 112) which receive a source chemical and a housing base (480) that includes exterior walls meant to accommodate the interior trays (108, 112) (pars. 48-49, 99-102, figures 1, 4-8, 11 and 13-14). Verghese et al. fails to explicitly disclose a precursor monitoring system comprising a sensor assembly positioned between the bottom surface of the trays (108, 112) and the base (480) or controller which processes the sensor signal.
However, Lee et al. discloses a similar reactor system having a vessel member (20) containing a solid precursor material (SM), including a source amount detecting unit (50) which is a monitoring system that includes a number of load cells (51) which are force sensors located between the vessel member (20) bottom surface and a support plate (52) which is an exterior wall, the detecting unit (50) communicating with a control unit (60) to determine the remaining weight of the solid precursor material (SM) and the vessel holding it (20) by using an arithmetic conversion or from a pre-stored data table (pages 6-7, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a source amount detecting unit (50) and control unit (60) like that of Lee et al. for the apparatus of Verghese et al. to measure the weight of the interior trays (108, 112) which hold the source material because Lee et al. teaches that using this setup to monitor the reaction process helps prevent denaturing of the material and/or thermal waste, while improving the supply of precursor gas and process productivity (pages 2, 7).
Regarding claim 12: Verghese et al. discloses that the heater of the system operates to heat the vessel housing to a temperature in range of about 50 to 250 degrees Celsius (par. 16, 100), which in the combination, would be the temperature at which the load cells (51) operate.
Regarding claim 13: Verghese et al. discloses that the source vessel (104) includes a lid (113) and lid attachment hardware, in addition to valves (420, 424, 428, 432, 436) attached to the lid (113), all of which can be considered lid attachment devices (pars. 48, 81 figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 14: Verghese et al. and Lee et al. disclose that the load cells (51) send a signal to a control unit (60) which receives the signal indicating the force applied by the vessel member (20) and the source material (SM) and calculates the weight of the remaining source material according to arithmetic conversion, requiring a conversion factor, to arrive at an amount of remaining source material (SM) (Lee et al. page 7).
Regarding claim 15: Verghese et al. and Lee et al. disclose the above combination in which the control unit (60) determines an amount of source material (SM) remaining by monitoring the weight signal sent by load cells (51) (Lee et al. pages. 6-7).
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Verghese et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied to claims 1-7 and 10-15 above and further in view of Takoudis et al. (US 2015/0104575) on claims 8, 9 and 16 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claims 8 and 16: Verghese et al. and Lee et al. disclose the above combination, with Verghese et al. disclosing that the valves (420, 424, 428, 432, 436) of the lid (113) attachment include a number of lines and associated valves, including an input line for inert gas (1302) to flow into one or more of the valves (420, 424) and pick up reactant vapor, then exit through outlet valves (432, 436) (par. 102, figure 13). Verghese et al. fails to explicitly disclose that these lines include a bellow or a coil. However, Takoudis et al. discloses a similar precursor vessel (14) treatment system where the valves on the various input and output lines are bellow-sealed pneumatic valves, such that the lines each include a bellow (par. 47, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bellow-sealed valve like that of Takoudis et al. for the valves on the input and output lines of Verghese et al. because Takoudis et al. shows that it is a well-known functionally equivalent type of valve for this purpose (par. 47) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06). As indicated in the instant disclosure, such a bellows element inherently produces an upwards force on the source vessel (see published Application par. 50).
Regarding claim 9: Verghese et al. discloses that the trays (108, 112) include as a recess a serpentine path (674) which holds the solid precursor material (pars. 87-89, figure 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Lee et al. does not measure the weight of the tray containing the material and only the material.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments mischaracterize both the invention and the Lee et al. reference, and further seem to argue against the Lee et al reference individually- Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, the Verghese et al. reference teaches the exact same tray as that of the instant invention, including the claimed sidewall. Lee et al. is cited to teach load cells which measure the weight of both the precursor material as well as the vessel holding the precursor material- Applicant reproduced the wrong figure when arguing against it- the only figure cited in the Office Action was figure 2, which clearly and explicitly shows the load cells (51) measuring not only the weight of the precursor material (SM) but also the vessel holding it, as the annotated figure below shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
712
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as Applicant’s arguments clearly both misrepresent the prior art and fail to address the fact that the combination is what teaches the claimed invention, the arguments are not persuasive.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
6/13/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights