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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 20050249873 by Sarigiannis et al. Claim 1: Sarigiannis discloses a vapor phase precursor delivery system comprising: a gas inlet (see e.g. 214 at Figure 2A); a gas outlet (see e.g. 216 at Figure 2A); a vessel constructed and arranged for storing a precursor (see e.g. 212 at Figure 2A); and, a connecting tube contained within the vessel (see e.g. 22 0 at Figure 2A), the connecting tube being connected to and in fluid communication with the gas inlet, wherein the system is provided with a moveable injector connected to and in fluid communication with the connecting tube and constructed and arranged for injecting gas from the gas inlet at a substantial constant level from a surface of the precursor in the vessel (see e.g. 230 at Figure 2A) . While Sarigiannis does discloses the intended use of the instant claims, see entire reference, the examiner notes that the above italics is mere intended use of the claimed apparatus and therefore such is met by the prior art structure that is capable of being operated as claimed. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 2: Sarigiannis discloses the system is provided with a fill port for filling the vessel with a precursor (Figure 6 and accompanying text). Claim 3: Sarigiannis discloses the connecting tube is constructed and arranged flexibly to allow for movement of the injector with respect to the gas inlet (see 0029, flexes, 0043 related to flexible tube, see also Figure 5) . Claim 4: Sarigiannis the vessel is constructed and arranged to hold a liquid precursor (see Figures) . Claim 5: Sarigiannis discloses system is provided with a floating body constructed and arranged for floating on the liquid precursor and for supporting the injector (Figure 2A and accompanying text) . Claim 6: Sarigiannis discloses the floating body and the injector are constructed and arranged to provide a gas flow over the surface of the precursor (see e.g. Figure 2A and accompanying text, “floats or spacers, see 0030) . Claim 7: Sarigiannis discloses the floating body and the injector are constructed and arranges to provide a gas flow underneath the surface of the precursor , here the location of the gas flow relative to the surface is intended use and the prior art can adjust the liquid level and gas flow and such can thus be arranged to meet the intended use of this claim structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 8: Sarigiannis discloses the floating body and the injector are constructed and arranged to create bubbles underneath the surface of the precursor. Here the location of the gas flow relative to the surface and the generation of bubbles is intended use and the prior art can adjust the liquid level and gas flow and such can thus be arranged to meet the intended use of this claim structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 9: Sarigiannis discloses the injector is constructed and arranged as a showerhead provided with multiple holes for injecting gas from the holes at a substantial constant level from the surface of the precursor (see Figure 4 and accompanying text) . Claim 10: Sarigiannis discloses the system is provided with multiple injectors for injecting gas from the gas inlet at a substantial constant level from the surface of the precursor (see Figure 4 and accompanying text). Claim 11: Sarigiannis discloses the system is provided with a lifting device constructed and arranged for moving and supporting the injector and the system is provided with a controller to control the movement of the injector by the lifting device (See Figure 5 and accompanying text) . Claim 12: Sarigiannis discloses the system is provided with a level measurement device to measure a level of the precursor and the controller is operably connected to the level measurement device to control the movement of the injector based on the precursor level measured by the level measurement device (See Figure 4 and accompanying text) . Claim 13: Sarigiannis discloses the controller is programmed to control the lifting device to have the injector to provide a gas flow over the surface of the precursor (see Figure 5 and accompanying text, see lifting device at 542 and controller at 590) . Claim 14: Sarigiannis discloses the controller is programmed to control the lifting device to have the injector to provide a gas flow underneath the surface of the precursor. Here the location of the gas flow relative to the surface is intended use and the prior art can adjust the liquid level and gas flow and such can thus be arranged to meet the intended use of this claim structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 15: Sarigiannis discloses the vessel is constructed and arranged to hold a liquid precursor and the controller is programmed to control the lifting device to have the injector to create bubbles underneath the surface of the precursor. Here the location of the gas flow relative to the surface and the generation of bubbles is intended use and the prior art can adjust the liquid level and gas flow and such can thus be arranged to meet the intended use of this claim structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 16: Sarigiannis discloses the same structure and therefore the material therein is mere intended use of the claimed apparatus and therefore such is met by the prior art structure that is capable of being operated as claimed. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 17 : Sarigiannis discloses the same structure and therefore the material therein and sublimation is mere intended use of the claimed apparatus and therefore such is met by the prior art structure that is capable of being operated as claimed. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). . The system according to claim 16, wherein the injector is constructed and arranged to be supported on the surface of the solid precursor in the vessel and is constructed and arranged to follow the surface of the solid precursor when the solid precursor sublimates from the vessel. Claim 18-21: Sarigiannis discloses the same structure and therefore the material therein is mere intended use of the claimed apparatus and therefore such is met by the prior art structure that is capable of being operated as claimed. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 21: Sarigiannis discloses a fill port and what can reasonably be considered a “lid” within the scope of the broadly drafted claim requirement (see valve at Figure 6 and accompanying text). Claims 22: Sarigiannis discloses a vapor phase deposition apparatus comprising a vapor phase precursor delivery system as outlined above for delivering a vapor phase precursor for depositing a layer on a substrate (Figure 9 and accompanying text) . Claim 23: Sarigiannis discloses the apparatus is a vertical furnace comprising a reactor constructed and arranged to load a boat with a plurality of substrates and the vapor phase precursor delivery system is constructed and arranged for delivering a vapor phase precursor for depositing a layer on the substrate in the reactor (Figure 9 and accompanying text, where the prior art structure is capable of being considered “vertical” furnace as claimed and holding a ”boat” with a plurality of substrates, where boat and plurality of substrate is not required by intended use). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 2 -3, 5-15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarigiannis . Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-13, and 21: The examiner notes the individual features of Sarigiannis are specifically taught in the reference, see citations above, and notes that such are disclosed in embodiments. Additionally, Sarigiannis explicitly discloses the features of the individual figures and embodiments can be combined (0055) and therefore, while the examiner maintains that position as set forth above that the features are taught by the prior art, at the very least, it would have been obvious to have combined the disclosed features into a evaporation system to reap the benefits of the inclusion as explicitly taught by Sarigiannis . Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc. , 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d. Claims 7-8 and 14-15: Sarigiannis discloses including a dip tube into the precursor to provide a gas below the surface level so that carrier gas bubbles through the liquid to aid in vaporization (0006) and therefore, as such is taught by Sarigiannis as a known component to be used in a vaporization vessel, the inclusion of such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a carrier gas to aid in the vaporization. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc. , 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc. , 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2940 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Gordon Baldwin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 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. /DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718