DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species III from Group A, and Species I from Group B in the reply filed on May 18, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 38, 44, 46-47, 52-53, and 59-70 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 “wavy surface structure” must be shown or canceled from claim 38. 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 Objections
Claims 48-51 and 55 are objected to because they each recite the feature of a “retainer,” which external to the scope of the elected embodiment of Figure 4. Figure 4 provides a crucible (40), not a retainer (42).
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.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. This claim refers to “the retainer,” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis, as the feature of a retainer has not yet been properly introduced. Correction is required. The contested limitation requires the disclosure of either a crucible or a retainer so, for purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner observes that the prior art teaches the former.
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.
Claims 36-37, 39-43, 45, 48-51, and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braun et al., US 2010/0189897.
Claims 36, 50-51: Braun discloses a source arrangement compatible with TLE operations, comprising:
A support (10) carrying a source element [0070];
Wherein the support encloses a free space free of any structural elements, said free space elongated along its central axis and of columnar shape (Fig. 1);
Wherein an opening (13) is disposed at the upper end of the support provides access to the free space;
Wherein the source element disposed within the support is spaced from the opening along the central axis of the free space to define a lower end of the free space.
Braun forms the support “completely of tantalum,” which will inherently reflect an incident laser beam [0070]. By virtue of this reflective capacity, the examiner understands the reference to properly disclose the claimed feature of a “mirror surface.”
Claim 37: The volume enclosed within Braun’s tantalum support (10) is the free space. Logically, then, the mirror surface of the support “completely encompasses the free space along the central axis.”
Claims 39-41: The opening can simply be construed as being coextensive with the upper end of the free space.
Claim 42: The boundary of the free space can simply be construed in a manner that is rotationally symmetric to the central axis.
Claim 43: Braun’s crucible is cylindrical; thus, so is the free space [0017].
Claim 45: Braun’s support (10) is explicitly constituted as a “crucible” [0070]. The crucible is of tubular shape with a closed bottom end (11), whereby the source element is arranged at the bottom end. Further, the crucible encompasses the free space.
Claim 48: Braun’s support comprises an enclosure (50) surrounding the crucible (10) along the central axis in the region of the free space so as to constitute a wall structure (Fig. 1).
Claim 49: As shown, the enclosure (50) completely encloses the crucible except for the opening (13).
Claims 56-57: Braun locates a thermocouple (31) within the holding device (40) for measuring a temperature of the source element [0071-72]. As the holding device bounds the lower end of the crucible, it may be considered a member of the enclosure.
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 of this title, 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 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Shaalan et al., US 11,242,595.
Braun’s enclosure (50) does not appear to contain aluminum. However, it is known in the art to employ this element in the construction of crucibles and their enclosures. For example, Shaalan situates a crucible (23) within an outer enclosure (24) formed of alumina due to the material’s excellent thermal conductivity and shock resistance (3, 9-15). It would have been obvious to compose Braun’s enclosure in accordance with this paradigm, as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Priddy et al., US 2010/0031878.
The precise points of contact between Braun’s crucible and enclosure are indefinite. In supplementation, Priddy discloses a deposition system comprising a crucible (24) for containing a source evaporant and a surrounding enclosure (160) (Fig. 2). Mediating between the crucible and enclosure are a plurality of support rings (124) which mate with the enclosure via a discrete series of tabs (134) ([0061]; Fig. 7). Although the number of contact points varies with the number of support rings, whereby “any desired number of support rings can be used,” it is the position of the Office that one of ordinary skill could derive an embodiment of at least three contact points via routine experimentation, as it is obvious to try a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success [0059].
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun.
Braun’s thermocouple is disposed within a “channel” of the holding device. Although it may be reasonable to presume that one of ordinary skill would understand the metes of Braun’s channel to overlap in scope with the claimed feature of a “bore,” these two features, at the very least, are structurally proximate in their purpose and design. As such, the examiner considers them obvious in view of the other, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions directed to the objective of housing a thermocouple is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Braun et al., US 2021/0355576. Braun discloses a source element (62) containing source material (68) to be evaporated by a laser beam (84) ([0136]; Fig. 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights