DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 20, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 11 is 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.
With regards to claim 11, it is unclear how to interpret U.S. DOT 4B-compliant or noncompliant.
It is understood currently, U.S. DOT is short for United States Department of Transportation and ‘4B’ relates to a regulation. However, the use of an abbreviation and the regulation which may change over time, makes the claim indefinite.
Applicants should amend the claim to provide clear structure which is currently found in U.S. DOT 4B.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roop (US 4,116,016) in view of Santoleri (US 3,738,353).
In regards to claim 1, Roop teaches an evaporator (liquid precursor container) which contain a liquid (24) comprising:
a pressure vessel/vapor chamber (10, inner container) comprising an inner base portion along the bottom of the pressure vessel (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 1-10), an inner intermediate portion along the sidewalls of the pressure vessel, the inner intermediate portion extend upwards from the inner base portion, and an inner lid portion is provided at cover flange (13) (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 1-10), the inner lid portion is coupled to the inner base portion by the inner intermediate portion of the inner container (fig. 1);
an shell (17, outer container) provides an outer base portion along the bottom at base plate-12, and the shell has an outer intermediate portion along the sidewall (fig. 1), the outer base portion spaced apart from the inner base portion of the inner container (fig. 1), the outer intermediate portion extending upwards from the outer base portion and about the inner intermediate portion of the inner container (fig. 1); and
Roop does not explicitly teach a baffle member arranged between the outer container and the inner container, the baffle member extending upwards from the outer base portion of the outer container, the baffle member terminating between the inner base portion and the inner lid portion of the inner container.
However, Santoleri teaches a baffle means (45, baffle member) arranged between the sidewalls-13 of tank-11 (outer container) and the heat exchanger-20 (inner container), and the baffle means extends upwards between lower wall of the tank-11 and the outlet-27 of the heat exchanger-20 (fig. 1-2; col. 3, lines 10-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the baffle means of Santoleri onto the evaporator, between the shell and the pressure vessel of Roop because Santoleri teaches it will insure the liquid is completely vaporized (col. 3, lines 60-65).
In regards to claim 4, Roop and Santoleri as discussed, Santoleri teaches the baffle means is submerged in the liquid (fig. 1).
In regards to claims 7-8, Roop and Santoleri as discussed, where Roop teaches the liquid is contained within the pressure vessel-10 and the shell contains an immersion fluid of water (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 1-20).
Roop and Santoleri do not explicitly teach the liquid is contained within the pressure vessel-10 is a dopant-containing liquid precursor or silicon-containing liquid precursor and the immersion fluid is reactive with a dopant-containing liquid precursor or silicon-containing liquid precursor.
However, recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
As Roop and Santoleri teach the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable of selecting dopant-containing liquid precursor or silicon-containing liquid precursor and also selecting the corresponding based on the liquid precursor, thus fulfilling the limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roop and Santoleri as applied to claims 1, 4 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Yoshiyuki (JPH09154727, provided translation cited below).
In regards to claim 2, Roop and Santoleri as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the inner base portion of the inner container is spaced apart from the outer base portion of the outer container by a pumping chamber, and further comprising a circulation pump arranged within the pumping chamber.
However, Yoshiyuki teaches a circulation pump (105) between a lower surface of a vessel/container-102 and a lower surface of a pot-101 (fig. 2; para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the circulation pump of Yoshiyuki onto the apparatus of Roop and Santoleri, between the base plate-12 and the pressure vessel-10 because Yoshiyuki teaches it will provide circulation of the liquid within container-102 (para. 5).
In regards to claim 3, Roop, Santoleri and Yoshiyuki as discussed, where Santoleri teaches the baffle means is between the sidewalls-13 of tank-11 and the heat exchanger-20, where incorporation into Roop, the baffle means is between the sidewalls of the pressure vessel and the shell.
Santoleri teaches the gap between the baffle means and the heat exchanger-20 provides an upward flow channel (fig. 1), the sidewalls-13 and the baffle means provide a downward flow channel (fig. 1).
Roop, Santoleri and Yoshiyuki teaches the circulation pump provides a fluid connection between the downward flow channel to the upward flow channel to provide circulation within the tank.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roop and Santoleri as applied to claims 1, 4 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 5,803,938).
In regards to claim 5, Roop and Santoleri as discussed, but do not explicitly teach a carrier gas conduit sealably fixed within the inner lid portion of the inner container and extending toward the inner base portion of the inner container;
a plug member removably fixed within the inner lid portion of the inner container;
an outlet conduit sealably fixed within the inner lid portion of the inner container; and
a probe member sealably fixed within the inner lid portion of the inner container and extending toward the inner base portion of the inner container.
However, Yamaguchi teaches a container (23) comprising
a gas introduction pipe (14, carrier gas conduit) which is connected to the upper portion of the container, the gas introduction pipe extends downwards towards the lower portion of the container (fig. 3-4; col. 25, lines 20-30);
a temperature sensor (24, plug member) is connected to the upper portion of the container (fig. 3-4; col. 23, lines 20-25);
a gas ejection pipe (15, outlet conduit) is connected to the upper portion of the container (fig. 3-4; col. 25, lines 25-30);
a liquid-surface sensor (25, probe member) is connected to the upper portion of the container and the liquid-surface sensor downwards towards the lower portion of the container (fig. 3-4; col. 22, lines 50-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the components of the container of Yamaguchi onto the c of Roop and Santoleri because Yamaguchi teaches it will provide a stable vaporized liquid (abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roop and Santoleri as applied to claims 1, 4, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Carlson (US 2013/0319015).
In regards to claim 9, Roop and Santoleri as discussed, but do not explicitly teach a thermoelectric cooler connected to the outer base portion of the outer container; and a chill plate connected to the thermoelectric cooler and therethrough to the outer base portion of the outer container.
However, Carlson teaches thermoelectric devices (116, thermoelectric cooler) are connected to an exterior of a container (122) to providing a desired amount of heat to or from the storage container 122. Carlson teaches the a heat sink (108, chill plate) and a fan are connected to the thermoelectric device to remove heat (fig. 1-3; para. 19-20, 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the thermoelectric devices, heat sink an fans of Carlson onto the shell of Roop and Santoleri because Carlson teaches it will provide improved thermal management (para. 4, 13).
Claims 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roop and Santoleri as applied to claims 1, 4, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Muneshwar (US 2018/0023195).
In regards to claims 10 and 12-15, Roop and Santoleri as discussed, but do not explicitly teach
a carrier gas source connected to the inner container; and a gas phase reactor having a single-wafer crossflow arrangement connected to the inner container and fluidly coupled therethrough to the carrier gas source.
However, Muneshwar teaches an ampoule (342) which is connected to a carrier gas source (352) and to a reactor (350). Muneshwar teaches the use of a chiller (370) which comprises of a controlled temperature loop (372) (fig. 3; para. 49-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the receiving the carrier gas and the supplying of gases along with the temperature loop and chiller of Muneshwar onto the evaporator of Roop and Santoleri because Muneshwar teaches it will improve precursor utilization (para. 49).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights