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 .
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 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
Status of Claims
Responsive to communication filed 06/11/2026
Claims 1-22 are pending
Claims 7-9 and 14-22 have been withdrawn
Claims 1-6 and 10-13 are rejected
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A, drawn to claims 1-6 and 10-13 in the
reply filed on 06/11/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9 and 14-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/11/2026.
It is noted that in the reply filed 06/11/2026, the applicant mistakenly elected claims 2-14. As in, no independent claim was elected, and claims 7-9 and 14 were elected (claims 7-9 and 14 were directed to embodiments outside the elected species). In an interview with Gary Fedorochko on 07/29/2026, the examiner proposed electing claim 1 and withdrawing claims 7-9 and 14. The applicant agreed and claims 1-6 and 10-13 were elected, and claims 7-9 and 14 were further withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AuBuchon (US 20200071827).
Regarding Claim 1:
AuBuchon teaches a vapor phase precursor delivery system comprising: a plurality of vessels (precursor sources 170a-170d; the precursor source 170 may comprise an ampoule) constructed and arranged to store and vaporize a precursor (the precursor ampoule provides a precursor which is solid or liquid at room temperature by heating the precursor to provide vaporized precursor within the precursor ampoule); and a gas inlet (carrier manifold 179) and a gas outlet (inlet line 120) operably connected with the plurality of vessels, wherein the plurality of vessels are constructed and arranged to store and vaporize the same precursor (each precursor source 170a-170d may have the same precursor) and the system further comprises a plurality of outlet valves (inlet valves 125a-125d) to control a gas flow comprising the same precursor out of one or more vessels of the plurality of vessels to the gas outlet (the inlet valves 125a, 125b, 125c, 125d of some embodiments are independently controlled to connect the individual precursor source to the inlet manifold 129) [Fig. 1 , 3 & 0028, 0043-0048].
Regarding Claim 2:
AuBuchon teaches wherein the outlet valves are operably connected to a controller (the controller 150 can be connected to any of the components using a connection type known to the skilled artisan) to control the opening and closing of the outlet valves (the inlet valves 125a, 125b, 125c, 125d of some embodiments are independently controlled to connect the individual precursor source to the inlet manifold 129; the controller 150 is configured to close an open inlet valve 125 or an open outlet valve 135 before opening the other of the inlet valve 125 and outlet valve 135) [Fig. 1 , 3 & 0029, 0043-0048].
It’s further noted that since all the previous method steps are disclosed, the intended result of “to control the gas flow comprising the same precursor,” would be performed. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 3:
AuBuchon teaches wherein the controller comprises a processor and a memory, wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to control the opening and closing of the outlet valves (the inlet valves 125a, 125b, 125c, 125d of some embodiments are independently controlled to connect the individual precursor source to the inlet manifold 129; the controller 150 is configured to close an open inlet valve 125 or an open outlet valve 135 before opening the other of the inlet valve 125 and outlet valve 135) [Fig. 1 , 3 & 0029, 0043-0048].
It’s further noted that since all the previous method steps are disclosed, the intended result of “to control the gas flow comprising the same precursor to the gas outlet,” would be performed. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 12:
AuBuchon teaches wherein the system comprises a plurality of inlet valves (carrier inlet valves 178a-178d) to connect the gas inlet with one or more of the vessels of the plurality of vessels and the inlet valves are operably controlled by the controller (the controller 150 can be connected to any of the components using a connection type known to the skilled artisan) [Fig. 1, 3 & 0028, 0043-0048].
Regarding Claim 13:
AuBuchon teaches wherein the controller comprises a processor and a memory and the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to control the outlet valves simultaneous with the inlet valves of the corresponding vessel of the plurality of vessels (as evidenced by Figs. 4A-4D, the source inlet valve 178 and the inlet valve 125 can be closed and opened simultaneously) [Fig. 1 , 3 & 0028, 0043-0048].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AuBuchon (US 20200071827), as applied to claims 1-3 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Itoh et al. (US 20090095364), with Komori (WO 2022059507), using US 20230311023 as the official English translation, as an evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 12-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
AuBuchon does not specifically disclose wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to open an outlet valve of the plurality of outlet valves while keeping the other outlet valves of the plurality of outlet valves closed to create the gas flow comprising the same precursor to the gas outlet.
Itoh teaches wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to open an outlet valve of the plurality of outlet valves while keeping the other outlet valves of the plurality of outlet valves closed (the flow distribution controller 21 opens/closes the valves 10A-10C; the valves 10A-10C are sequentially opened/closed) [Fig. 1 & 0064-0066]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of AuBuchon to have instructions for opening a valve while closing other valves (among a plurality of valves), as in Itoh, to allow time for gas flows to stabilize and to provide further control over specific flow rates and flow ratios [Itoh - 0015, 0076]. Komori (WO 2022059507A) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to alternate between valves to allow for continuous operation, thereby improving processing rate [Komori - 0050].
It’s further noted that since all the previous method steps are disclosed, the intended result of “to create the gas flow comprising the same precursor to the gas outlet,” would be performed. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 5:
AuBuchon does not specifically disclose wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to close the open outlet valve and open a different outlet valve of the plurality of outlet valves to maintain the gas flow comprising the same precursor to the gas outlet.
Itoh teaches wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to close the open outlet valve and open a different outlet valve of the plurality of outlet valves (the flow distribution controller 21 opens/closes the valves 10A-10C; the flow distribution controller 21 opens/closes the valves 10A-10C; the valves 10A-10C are sequentially opened/closed) [Fig. 1 & 0064-0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of AuBuchon to have instructions for opening a valve while closing other valves (among a plurality of valves), as in Itoh, to allow time for gas flows to stabilize and to provide further control over specific flow rates and flow ratios [Itoh - 0015, 0076]. Komori (WO 2022059507A) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to alternate between valves to allow for continuous operation, thereby improving processing rate [Komori - 0050].
It’s further noted that since all the previous method steps are disclosed, the intended result of “to maintain the gas flow comprising the same precursor to the gas outlet,” would be performed. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 6:
AuBuchon does not specifically disclose wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to sequentially open and close all outlet valves of the plurality of outlet valves.
Itoh teaches wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to sequentially open and close all outlet valves of the plurality of outlet valves (the flow distribution controller 21 opens/closes the valves 10A-10C; the valves 10A-10C are sequentially opened/closed) [Fig. 1 & 0064-0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of AuBuchon to have instructions for opening a valve while closing other valves (among a plurality of valves), as in Itoh, to allow time for gas flows to stabilize and to provide further control over specific flow rates and flow ratios [Itoh - 0015, 0076]. Komori (WO 2022059507A) also discloses that it'd be beneficial to alternate between valves to allow for continuous operation, thereby improving processing rate [Komori - 0050].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AuBuchon (US 20200071827), as applied to claims 1-3 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Tomoyasu et al. (US 5888907).
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 12-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 10:
AuBuchon does not specifically disclose wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to open at least two of the plurality of outlet valves to control the gas flow comprising the same precursor.
Tomoyasu teaches wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to open at least two of the plurality of outlet valves (valves 50A and 50D are open while valves 50B and 50C are closed) [Fig. 8A & Col. 9 lines 45-54]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of AuBuchon to have instructions for opening two valves while closing other valves (among a plurality of valves), as in Tomoyasu, to reduce the amount of gas supplied per unit time, so that no problems arise when exhausting is limited [Tomoyasu - Col. 8 lines 21-33]. It is noted that the reservoir 110 of AuBuchon comprises an outlet line 130, which is connected to respective processing chambers, and as such could still benefit from avoiding issues from poor exhausting [AuBuchon - 0043-0048]. Furthermore, alternating between valves opening and closing (such as the scheme depicted in Tomoyasu), respectively, would merely be applying a known technique to improve a similar device [See MPEP 2143 I. C].
It’s further noted that since all the previous method steps are disclosed, the intended result of “to control the gas flow comprising the same precursor,” would be performed. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 11:
AuBuchon does not specifically wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to close one of the at least two open outlet valves and open a different outlet valve of the plurality of outlet valves to maintain the gas flow comprising the same precursor.
Tomoyasu teaches wherein the memory of the controller is programmed with a program when executed on the processor to close one of the at least two open outlet valves and open a different outlet valve of the plurality of outlet valves (valves 50A and 50D are open while valves 50B and 50C are closed; the valves 50A and 50D close and then the valves 50A and 50D open) [Fig. 8A & Col. 9 lines 45-54]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of AuBuchon to have instructions for opening two valves while closing other valves (among a plurality of valves), as in Tomoyasu, to reduce the amount of gas supplied per unit time, so that no problems arise when exhausting is limited [Tomoyasu - Col. 8 lines 21-33]. It is noted that the reservoir 110 of AuBuchon comprises an outlet line 130, which is connected to respective processing chambers, and as such could still benefit from avoiding issues from poor exhausting [AuBuchon - 0043-0048]. Furthermore, alternating between valves opening and closing (such as the scheme depicted in Tomoyasu), respectively, would merely be applying a known technique to improve a similar device [See MPEP 2143 I. C].
It’s further noted that since all the previous method steps are disclosed, the intended result of “to maintain the gas flow comprising the same precursor,” would be performed. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Collins et al. (US 20170335450) and Khosla et al. (US 20130312663) teach vaporized precursor assemblies [Collins – Fig. 2; Khosla – Fig. 1].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights