DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 2/24/2026.
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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a gas delivery line that is each coupled with” (lines 6-7) should be “a gas delivery line that is coupled with”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 each recite “a remote precursor delivery system that is fluidly coupled with an upstream end of the gas panel” such that the gas panel comprises at least one gas precursor source. The combination of these limitations are seen to present new matter because applicant’s specification as filed does not clearly describe the flow arrangement of these elements. Instead, applicant’s Figure 3 appears to be the only support for the flow arrangement of the elements, however this figure is a schematic representation only. This depiction makes it unclear as to whether the remote precursor sources (335a and 335b) feed the precursor source 330 or if the remote precursor sources are provided in parallel with the precursor source 330. That is, the lack of clarity of the location of the precursor source 330 renders Figure 3 inadequate in providing support for the exact location of each element along specific flow paths. Additionally, applicant’s specification (para. 0033) describes “Each gaseous precursor may be provided to gas panel 325 using a precursor source 330”. Therefore, it appears that the gas precursor source is not part of the gas panel and instead is separate to deliver flow to the gas panel.
Similarly, claim 14 recites “a gas precursor source of a gas panel” and “delivering the second vapor precursor to an upstream end of the gas panel”. As described above, the depiction of applicant’s Figure 3 is schematic only and does not clearly depict the arrangement of the elements as claimed. As further indicated in applicant’s specification (para. 0033), “Each gaseous precursor may be provided to gas panel 325 using a precursor source 330”. Therefore, it appears that the gas precursor source is not part of the gas panel and instead is separate to deliver flow to the gas panel.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 14 recite the arrangement of the gas precursor source of the gas panel (as described with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) above). However, as described above the arrangement of the elements is unclear and indefinite because it is unclear whether the remote precursor sources (335a and 335b) feed the precursor source 330 or if the remote precursor sources are provided in parallel with the precursor source 330.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel share one or more gas delivery lines”. Similarly, claim 9 recites “wherein the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel share a gas delivery line”. These limitations are unclear as it is unclear what is required to share one or more gas delivery lines. It is unclear whether the line must be provided between the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel or if the gas delivery line must be merely in fluid communication with both the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel. It is noted that applicant’s specification as filed does not provide additional context for the limitation of a shared gas delivery line.
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 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, 6-9, 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bang et al. (US Patent 7,192,486).
Regarding Claim 1, Bang discloses a semiconductor processing system (col. 1, lines 5-7), comprising: at least one processing chamber 35, each of the at least one processing chamber comprising a gas distribution assembly (distribution plate 106); a gas panel (including mixing manifold 37; see attached annotated Figure 2 below indicating the upstream end and downstream end of the gas panel) that is fluidly coupled with each gas distribution assembly 106 (as shown in Figure 2), the gas panel comprising at least one gas precursor source (the output of 11b is a gas precursor because the liquid precursor has been vaporized and mixed with the carrier gas from 33b; therefore, 11b is seen to be readable as a “gas precursor source” as claimed) and a mass flow controller 39b; and a remote precursor delivery system (including 25a and 11a; see annotated Figure 2 below) that is fluidly coupled with an upstream end of the gas panel (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 below; the upstream end including the mixing manifold 37), wherein the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel share one or more gas delivery lines (gas delivery line as shown in the annotated Figure 2 below; it is noted that both the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel are at least indirectly coupled to the gas delivery line and therefore are seen to “share” the gas delivery line as best understood in at least the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device) that are each coupled with a respective gas distribution assembly 106, the remote precursor delivery system comprising: a precursor source (including 25a and 11a) associated with a non-gaseous precursor (liquid precursor source TEB), the precursor source being operable to generate a vapor from the non-gaseous precursor (a vapor is generated within valve 11a as described in col. 11, line 52 - col. 12, line 9); and a flow controller 90a that is operable to control a flow of the vapor to the gas panel (col. 10, lines 42-46).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Bang further discloses one or more purge lines (line 88a is readable as a purge line because it allows purging of the upstream components) that fluidly couple the remote precursor delivery system (including 25a and 11a) with the gas panel 37.
Regarding Claim 7, Bang further discloses each gas distribution assembly (including distribution plate 106) comprises an output manifold (the fluid manifold connecting the gas delivery line and the distribution plate 106; i.e. the portion within 35 and upstream of the outlets of plate 106); and the gas panel (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above) is fluidly coupled with each gas distribution assembly 106 via a respective one of the output manifolds (as described above).
Regarding Claim 8, Bang further discloses a remote plasma unit 155 (as shown in Figure 1A) coupled with each gas distribution assembly (including distribution plate 106 as shown in Figure 1A), wherein the gas panel is fluidly coupled with each gas distribution assembly 106 via the remote plasma unit (the gas panel is fluidly coupled with 106 via line 157 and remote plasma unit 155 as shown in Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 9, Bang discloses a precursor delivery system, comprising: a gas panel (gas panel having upstream end and downstream end as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above) that is operable to control delivery of one or more precursors to a substrate processing system (control via at least valve 91b; the precursor from 25b delivered to the substrate processing system including chamber 35), the gas panel comprising at least one gas precursor source (the output of 11b is a gas precursor because the liquid precursor has been vaporized and mixed with the carrier gas from 33b; therefore, 11b is seen to be readable as a “gas precursor source” as claimed) and a mass flow controller 39b; and a remote precursor delivery system (including 25a and 11a) that is fluidly coupled with an upstream end of the gas panel (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above; the upstream end including the mixing manifold 37), wherein the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel share a gas delivery line (gas delivery line as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above; it is noted that both the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel are at least indirectly coupled to the gas delivery line and therefore are seen to “share” the gas delivery line as best understood in at least the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device) that is each coupled with the substrate processing system 35, the remote precursor delivery system comprising: a precursor source (including 25a and 11a; see annotated Figure 2 above) associated with a non-gaseous precursor (liquid precursor source TEB), the precursor source being operable to generate a vapor from the non-gaseous precursor (a vapor is generated within valve 11a as described in col. 11, line 52 - col. 12, line 9); and a flow controller 90a that is operable to control a flow of the vapor to the gas panel (col. 10, lines 42-46).
Regarding Claim 14, when making and using the device of Bang, Bang necessarily discloses a method for delivering precursors to a processing chamber 35, comprising: delivering a first vapor precursor (first vapor precursor formed within 11b, originating from 25b) through a gas delivery line (gas delivery line shown in the annotated Figure 2 above) from a gas precursor source (the output of 11b is a gas precursor because the liquid precursor has been vaporized and mixed with the carrier gas from 33b) of a gas panel (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above) to a processing chamber 35; vaporizing a non-gaseous precursor (non-gaseous precursor provided from 25a, this precursor vaporized within 11a) to generate a second vapor precursor (within 11a); delivering the second vapor precursor (from 11a) to an upstream end of the gas panel (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above) from a remote precursor delivery system (remote precursor delivery system including 25a and 11a as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above); and delivering the second vapor precursor (from 11a) to the processing chamber 35 through the gas delivery line from the gas panel (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above), wherein a source of the first vapor precursor (11b providing the source of the first vapor precursor as described above) and the non-gaseous precursor (non-gaseous precursor provided from 25a) are in different phases of matter (as best understood as described above; the first vapor precursor is a vapor or gas phase while the non-gaseous precursor is a liquid phase).
Regarding Claim 18, Bang in view of Jiang is seen as further disclosing the first vapor precursor is delivered to the processing chamber after the second vapor precursor (during normal use of the system, all of the precursors are delivered and stopped during multiple events; therefore, there is necessarily a time in which the first vapor precursor is delivered after an event which includes delivering the second vapor precursor).
Regarding Claim 19, Bang is seen as further disclosing the first vapor precursor and the second vapor precursor are delivered to the processing chamber sequentially (during normal use of the system, all of the precursors are delivered and stopped during multiple events; therefore, it is seen that there is necessarily a time in which either the first vapor precursor or second vapor precursor is delivered directly after the other, thereby resulting in these materials being delivered sequentially).
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.
Claims 2, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al. (US Patent 7,192,486) in view of Jiang et al. (US Patent 10,410,943).
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, Bang further discloses the remote precursor delivery system (including 25a and 11a as described above) comprises a first remote precursor delivery system (i.e. 10a); the semiconductor processing system (or precursor delivery system; claim 10) further comprises a second remote precursor delivery system (including 25b and 11b as shown in Figure 2) that is fluidly coupled with the gas panel 37 (as shown in Figure 2), the second remote precursor delivery system comprising: a precursor source (including 25c and 11c) associated with a liquid precursor (liquid TEPO), the precursor source of the second remote precursor delivery system being operable to generate a vapor from the liquid precursor (a vapor is generated within valve 11c as described in col. 11, line 52 - col. 12, line 9); and a flow controller 90c that is operable to control a flow of the vapor from the liquid precursor to the gas panel (col. 10, lines 42-46).
Bang does not disclose the precursor source (25a and 11a) of the first remote precursor delivery system comprises a solid-phase precursor source.
Jiang teaches a system for manufacturing a semiconductor and further teaches a remote precursor delivery system comprises a solid-phase precursor source (precursor source 108 may be a liquid or a solid prior to vaporization; col. 4, lines 39-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bang to include a solid-phase precursor source as taught by Jiang for the purpose of providing an additional precursor material to thereby accommodate the manufacture of different semiconductors.
Regarding Claim 17, Bang further discloses the remote precursor delivery system (remote precursor delivery system including 25a and 11a of Bang) comprises a first remote precursor delivery system (generally at 10a); the non-gaseous precursor comprises a liquid precursor (from 25a; liquid TEB).
Bang does not disclose the method further comprises: vaporizing a solid precursor to generate a third vapor precursor.
Jiang teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor and further teaches a remote precursor delivery system comprises a solid-phase precursor source (precursor source 108 may be a liquid or a solid prior to vaporization; col. 4, lines 39-44) in combination with an additional non-gaseous precursor which is liquid (source 107 may be a liquid; col. 4, lines 54-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Bang to include a solid-phase precursor source as taught by Jiang for the purpose of providing an additional precursor material to thereby accommodate the manufacture of different semiconductors. Therefore, Bang in view of Jiang further discloses delivering the third vapor precursor to the gas panel 37 from a second remote precursor delivery system (e.g. 10c of Bang); and delivering the third vapor precursor to the processing chamber 35 from the gas panel.
Claims 3, 5, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al. (US Patent 7,192,486) in view of Ye et al. (US Patent 8,927,066).
Regarding Claim 3, Bang does not disclose the remote precursor delivery system comprises a concentration sensor that is operable to determine a concentration of the vapor being delivered to the gas panel; and the remote precursor delivery system comprises a controller that is operable to adjust one or both of a temperature and a pressure of the non-gaseous precursor based on the concentration of the vapor.
Ye teaches a precursor delivery system (precursor stored in ampoule 102) and further teaches a concentration sensor 144 that is operable to determine a concentration of a vapor being delivered to a process chamber 122; and the precursor delivery system comprises a controller 152 that is operable to adjust one or both of a temperature and a pressure of the non-gaseous precursor based on the concentration of the vapor (col. 8, lines 4-12; e.g. a temperature of the first heated volume, which refers to the ampoule 102 housing the non-gaseous precursor, may be adjusted if the concentration is not within the desired tolerance level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bang to include a concentration sensor and controller operable to adjust the temperature of the non-gaseous precursor based on the concentration of the vapor as taught by Ye for the purpose of ensuring that the desired concentration of precursor is delivered to the process chamber.
Regarding Claim 5, Bang does not disclose one or more heated delivery lines that fluidly couple the remote precursor delivery system with the gas panel.
Ye teaches a precursor delivery system (precursor stored in ampoule 102) and further teaches one or more heated delivery lines (heated portions of delivery lines indicated at 126 as shown in Figure 1A, including portions upstream and downstream of junction 114) that fluidly couple the precursor delivery system (including ampoule 102) with a junction 114.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bang to include one or more heated delivery lines that fluidly couple the remote precursor delivery system with the gas panel as taught by Ye for the purpose of ensuring the vaporized gas remains in the vapor state and prevent condensing as taught by Ye.
Regarding Claim 13, Bang does not disclose a controller that is operable to control a concentration and flow rate of the vapor.
Ye teaches a precursor delivery system (precursor stored in ampoule 102) and further teaches a controller 152 that is operable to control a concentration and flow rate of a vapor (col. 8, lines 4-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bang to include a controller that is operable to control a concentration and flow rate of the vapor as taught by Ye for the purpose of ensuring that the desired concentration of precursor is delivered to the process chamber.
Regarding Claim 15, Bang does not disclose heating the second vapor precursor prior to delivering the second vapor precursor to the gas panel.
Ye teaches a precursor delivery system and method (including providing precursor stored in ampoule 102) and further teaches heating a precursor prior to delivering the vapor precursor to a gas panel (heated via heat sources 124 and 126 prior to delivering the vapor precursor to a gas panel including the junction 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Bang to heat the second vapor precursor prior to delivering the second vapor precursor to the gas panel as taught by Ye for the purpose of ensuring the vaporized gas remains in the vapor state and prevent condensing as taught by Ye.
Regarding Claim 16, Bang does not disclose determining a concentration of the second vapor precursor being delivered to the gas panel; and adjusting one or both of a temperature and a pressure of the non-gaseous precursor based on the concentration of the second vapor precursor.
Ye teaches a precursor delivery system and method (including providing precursor stored in ampoule 102) and further teaches determining a concentration of a vapor precursor being delivered to a process chamber (via a concentration sensor 144); and adjusting (via controller 152) one or both of a temperature and a pressure of the non-gaseous precursor based on the concentration of the second vapor precursor (col. 8, lines 4-12; e.g. a temperature of the first heated volume, which refers to the ampoule 102 housing the non-gaseous precursor, may be adjusted if the concentration is not within the desired tolerance level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Bang to include determining a concentration of the second vapor precursor being delivered to the gas panel and adjusting one or both of a temperature and a pressure of the non-gaseous precursor based on the concentration of the second vapor precursor as taught by Ye for the purpose of ensuring that the desired concentration of precursor is delivered to the process chamber.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al. (US Patent 7,192,486) in view of Liu et al. (US Patent Application 2016/0068961).
Regarding Claim 4, Bang further discloses the precursor source of the remote precursor delivery system comprises a liquid-phase precursor source (liquid TEB); and a liquid vaporizer 11a (a vapor is generated within valve 11a as described in col. 11, line 52 - col. 12, line 9).
Bang does not disclose the remote precursor delivery system comprises: a liquid flow controller that is fluidly coupled with the liquid-phase precursor source; and the liquid vaporizer fluidly coupled with a downstream end of the liquid flow controller.
Liu teaches a chemical delivery system and further teaches a liquid flow controller 22 that is fluidly coupled with a liquid-phase precursor source 10 (Figure 2 especially); and a liquid vaporizer 23 fluidly coupled with a downstream end of the liquid flow controller 22 (as shown in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bang to include a liquid flow controller directly upstream of the liquid vaporizer as taught by Liu for the purpose of providing a structure to precisely control the flow of the liquid upstream of the vaporizer.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al. (US Patent 7,192,486) in view of Jiang et al. (US Patent 10,410,943) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Josephson et al. (US Patent 9,032,990).
Regarding Claim 11, Bang does not disclose the first remote precursor delivery system, the second remote precursor delivery system, and the gas panel are disposed within a same housing.
Josephson teaches a system for delivering gas to a process chamber 204 and further teaches a first remote precursor delivery system (including a first ampoule 212 as shown in Figure 2), a second remote precursor delivery system (including a second ampoule 212 as shown in Figure 2), and a gas panel (including a mixing manifold indicated at 218 as shown in Figure 2) are disposed within a same housing (enclosure 202 as shown in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bang in view of Jiang such that the first remote precursor delivery system, the second remote precursor delivery system, and the gas panel are disposed within a same housing as taught by Josephson for the purpose of providing a structure to protect the fluid components from damage.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al. (US Patent 7,192,486) in view of Shero et al. (US Patent Application 2005/0000428).
Regarding Claim 12, Bang does not disclose the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel are disposed within different housings.
Shero teaches a gas supply system and further teaches (Figure 7 especially) a remote precursor delivery system (including source vessel 10) and the gas panel (including the connection of line 20’ with lines 50’ and 58’ as shown in Figure 7) are disposed within different housings (16 and 18’, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Bang such that the remote precursor delivery system and the gas panel are disposed within different housings as taught by Shero for the purpose of providing structures to protect the fluid components from damage.
Claims 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al. (US Patent 7,192,486).
Regarding Claim 19, Bang is seen as disclosing all of the elements of this claim as described above. Alternatively, in the event that Bang is not seen as necessarily disclosing the first vapor precursor and the second vapor precursor are delivered to the processing chamber sequentially, the selection of the particular sequence of delivering the chemicals is seen to be an obvious matter of design choice to fit the needs of a particular manufacturing process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Bang such that the chemicals are delivered in any desired sequence, including sequentially, for the purpose of ensuring the necessary chemicals are delivered to the process chamber at the desired times.
Regarding Claim 20, Bang does not specifically disclose the first vapor precursor and the second vapor precursor are delivered to the processing chamber simultaneously.
However, the selection of the particular sequence of delivering the chemicals is seen to be an obvious matter of design choice to fit the needs of a particular manufacturing process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device and method of Bang such that the chemicals are delivered in any desired sequence, including simultaneously, for the purpose of ensuring the necessary chemicals are delivered to the process chamber at the desired times.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Bang fails to teach the new limitations of the independent claims because Bang fails to teach a gas panel itself including at least one gas precursor source. These arguments are not persuasive because first, the new limitations appear to introduce new matter. Specifically, although Figure 3 of applicant’s specification provides a schematic in which a precursor source is within a gas panel, it is unclear how this is achieved. That is, is there a tank inside of a gas panel? Additionally, applicant’s specification (para. 0033) appears to conflict with this limitation because the specification states that “Each gaseous precursor may be provided to gas panel 325 using a precursor source 330”. This statement indicates that the gaseous precursor source is separate from the gas panel in order to “provide” gaseous precursor to the gas panel. Therefore, it is unclear what is required by the new limitations. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments with respect to Bang are not persuasive because a new interpretation of Bang is provided in which the gas panel includes at least element 11b (as shown in the annotated Figure 2 above). As described above, element 11b is seen to be readable as a “gas precursor source” because within 11b the precursor is vaporized and carried by the carrier gas, thereby providing an output of a precursor gas.
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753