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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 13-21, in a previous reply was previously acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election was treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, corresponding to claims 13-17 and 20-21, in the reply filed on 18 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 and 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned replies.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claims 13 and 16: flow control device has been interpreted as a mass flow meter, flow control valve or a flow meter, and equivalents thereto, as set forth in the specification at para. 34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “said first valve” and claim 20 recites the limitation “said second valve”. Neither of which is properly introduced in claims 16 or 20, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed claims 16 and 18 were both meant to depend from claim 14 and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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) 13, 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,989,345 to Hatano et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0362701 to Logue et al.
Regarding claim 13: Hatano et al. discloses a sublimation gas supply system capable of supplying solid material sublimation gas to a subsequent process substantially as claimed and comprising: first vessel (see, e.g., Fig. 1, 22) capable of housing a first solid material; a first heater (see, e.g., 28) to heat said first vessel so that said first solid material sublimates to produce a first sublimation gas; a first buffer tank (see, e.g., 32 in Fig. 1 and one of 52-54, e.g., 52 in Fig. 5) capable of storing sublimation gas; a first channel (see, e.g., gas line between 22 and one of 52-54 ) capable of supplying said first sublimation gas into said first buffer tank; a second channel (see, e.g., gas line(s) between 52-54 and 16a) capable of supplying said first sublimation gas to a subsequent process (e.g., performed at process chamber 6); a dilution gas channel (see, e.g., gas line 24 between 20 and another one of 52-54, e.g., 53) configured to connect to a first connector (e.g. “junction D”) in said second channel; a first flow control device (e.g. 58 downstream of 52) configured to control (i.e. capable of controlling) flow, provided between said first connector and said first buffer tank on said second channel; and second flow control device (e.g. 58 upstream of 53) configured to control (i.e. capable of controlling) flow and provided on said dilution gas channel. Also, see, e.g., Figs. 1-5, col 3 ln 10-52, col 4 ln 14-19, col 5 ln 30-47, col 6 ln 26-65.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hatano fails to disclose a mixing vessel, provided on said second channel, configured to mix (i.e. capable of mixing) said dilution gas and said first sublimation gas brought together by said first connector.
Logue et al. disclose providing a mixing vessel (Figs. 1-3, 346L or 346H) provided on a second channel configured to supply a sublimation gas from a first vessel (e.g., 226 or 228) to a subsequent process (performed at 342), configured to mix (i.e. capable of mixing) a dilution gas and a first sublimation gas brough together by a first connector for the purpose of providing a continuous precursor generation source, precursor gas conditioning and precursor gas delivery and obviating downtime associated with removal or replacement of a sublimator (see, e.g., paras. 37, 73-76).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a mixing vessel provided on said second channel, configured to mix (i.e. capable of mixing) said dilution gas and said first sublimation gas brought together by said first connector in order to provide a continuous precursor generation source, precursor gas conditioning and precursor gas delivery and obviating downtime associated with removal or replacement of a sublimator as taught by Logue et al.
With respect to claim 17, in modified Hatano, Hatano discloses a first buffer tank heater (50) configured to heat said first buffer tank for the purpose of preventing the first sublimation gas from condensing (see, e.g., column 4, rows 29-34). However, Logue et al. fails to explicitly teach a mixing vessel heater configured to heat said mixing vessel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided a mixing vessel heater for the similar purpose of preventing the first sublimation gas from condensing as taught by Hatano.
With respect to claim 21, in modified Hatano, Hatano discloses a controller (40 and 70) adapted to select during steady-state operation, or depending on the conditions of the subsequent process, at least one from the group consisting of said first flow control device and said second flow control device to regulate the concentration of said first sublimation gas introduced into said subsequent process (see, e.g., column 6, rows 55 through column 7, row 8).
Claim(s) 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hatano as applied to claims 13, 17 and 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0159005 to Olander.
Regarding claim 14, modified Hatano discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above. Additionally, Hatano discloses second buffer tank (see, e.g., 32 in Fig. 1 and one of 52-54, e.g., 53 in Fig. 5) configured to store (i.e. capable of storing) said dilution gas, provided on said dilution gas channel; a first valve (see annotated figure above) provided on said first channel; and a third valve (see annotated figure above) provided between said first connector and second buffer tank on said dilution gas channel.
However, modified Hatano fails to disclose a second valve provided between said first connector and said first buffer tank on said second channel, in addition to a flow control device.
Olander discloses a combination of flow control instruments downstream of a vaporization vessel/first vessel (Fig. 1, 12) including a sequence of valve (31), mass flow controller (e.g., flow control device) (32), and valve (33) in a gas channel prior to a connection point (connector at 46) for the purpose of controlling the flow of between the vaporization vessel and a processing tool (see, e.g., paras. 49 and 61).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a second flow control device and a second valve provided between said first connector and said first buffer tank on said second channel in order to control the flow of between the vaporization vessel and a processing tool as taught by Olander.
With respect to claim 15, in modified Hatano, Hatano discloses a controller (40 and 70; see, e.g., column 6, rows 55 through column 7, row 8) configured to exert control to valves. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided the controller for closing any valve in modified Hatano, including the second and third valves.
With respect to claim 16, in modified Hatano, Hatano discloses a first discharge channel (e.g., from 52 leading towards “factory plant exhausting duct” to discharge first sublimation gas from said first buffer tank (i.e. discharged/prevented from entering first buffer tank), provided between said first valve and said first buffer tank on said first channel; Logue et al. discloses a third flow control device (e.g., V21 and/or V22) configured to control flow, provided between said mixing vessel and said subsequent process on said second channel; and Logue et al. discloses a discharge gas channel (via V19 and/or V20) configured to discharge gas on said second channel, provided between said mixing vessel and said third flow control device on said second channel.
With respect to claim 20, in modified Hatano, Hatano discloses the controller (40 and 70; see, e.g., column 6, rows 55 through column 7, row 8) configured to exert control to valves. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided the controller for opening and/or closing any valve in modified Hatano, including the second and third valves. Hatano also discloses a second pressure gauge (60) configured to measure pressure inside said first buffer tank; and the controller (40 and 70) adapted to exert control to exert control to open said second valve so that said first sublimation gas flows through said first channel at start-up, when said second pressure gauge (see, e.g., column 5, rows 47-61).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. 2008/0141937 discloses a method and system for controlling a vapor delivery system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights