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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/23/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims, the cancellation of claims 4-8, 11-14, 16-17 and the addition of new claim 24-25. Claims 1-3, 9-10, 15 and 18-25 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly amended claims, specifically addressed hereinafter.
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 “moving nut magnetically coupled or mechanically coupled” and “a cover configured to shield the spindle and the moving nut” 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 § 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) 1-3, 9-10, 15 and 18-23 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. 220 at Figure 2A), the connecting tube being connected to and in fluid communication with the gas inlet (see e.g. 230 at Figure 2A).
Sarigiannis discloses a moveable injection within the vessel in fluid communication with the connecting tube for injecting gas from the gas inlet within the vessel (Figure 4 and accompanying text). 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). Sarigiannis discloses the controller operably connected to the level measuring device and wherein the controller is programmed to control the lifting device to control movement of the injector based on the level of the precursor measured (See Figure 4 and accompanying text) and is programmed to control the lifting device to have the injector to provide a gas flow based on the level of the precursor in the vessel measured by the sensor (see Figure 5 and accompanying text, see lifting device at 542 and controller at 590, see also 0041 stating “[t]he sensors 460 can include optical-based systems and/or float systems that monitor the level of the material M in the ampoule 410. The controller 490 receives signals from the sensors 460 and moves the control element 442 (arrow A) to raise/lower the cover 432”). 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 4,5 and accompanying text).
As for the requirement of injecting underneath a surface of the precursor in the vessel, such is intended use of the claimed structure.
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 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 relative to the surface of the precursor (see Figure 4 and accompanying text). As for the requirement of injecting underneath a surface of the precursor in the vessel, such is intended use of the claimed structure.
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 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.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarigiannis taken collectively with US Patent Application 20030101938 by Ronsse et al. or KR 20160077491, hereinafter KR 491.
Claim 24: Sarigiannis discloses all that is taught above and 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; however, fails to specifically disclose the claimed lifting device. However, Ronsse also in the art of vapor deposition system, discloses known lifting mechanisms to raise and lower parts in the system includes a motor, a drive shaft and a nut (see claim 38) and raising and lower via the motor coupled to the drive shaft and the nut. As Sarigiannis discloses raising and lowering using a device, it would have been obvious to have utilized the known and suitable lifting mechanism, as suggested by Ronsse.
Alternatively, KR 491 also in the art of vapor deposition system with vaporizors, discloses known lifting mechanisms to raise and lower parts in the system includes a motor, a drive shaft and a nut (see “The linear moving means includes a ball screw 54 coupled to the output shaft of the driving motor M and connected to an outer circumferential edge of the ball screw 54, A lifting body 56 coupled to the ball nut and a connecting shaft 58 connecting the lifting body 56 and the pedestal 52 to the ball nut 52” and “the ball screw 54 rotates and the ball nut engaged with the ball screw 54 moves up and down in accordance with the rotation direction of the ball screw 54, (56) up and down”) and raising and lower via the motor coupled to the drive shaft and the nut. As Sarigiannis discloses raising and lowering using a device, it would have been obvious to have utilized the known and suitable lifting mechanism, as suggested by KR 491.
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. The combination would result in the nut would necessarily be “mechanically coupled” so as to participate in the lowering and raising of the injector.
Claim 25: The metes and bounds of “cover” is not described in the claims and therefore the Sarigiannis reference would include what can reasonably be considered a generic cover, see ampoule top, etc. The balance of the claim is intended use and not limiting the structure of the claim as the cover can function as claimed, i.e. is capable of being configured to shield the drive shaft and nut from the precursor in the vessel.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights