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 (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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 are cancelled
Claims 15-26 are pending (claims 15 ,17,23 independent), and have been examined herein on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 18,19, 22-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 22-26 been renumbered 23-27. Claims 22(1), 22(2), 23, 24,25, and 26 are numbered in this action as 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. The Examiner suggests amending the claims with the proper renumbered.
Claims 18,19,24,25 are objected to because of the superscripts notation. The Examiner suggests amending the claims with the proper notation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
7. 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.
8. 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 15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahlas (US Pub. 2008/0268143 A1), and further in view of Marganski (US Pub 2008/0191153 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Vahlas teaches a reagent cartridge (Fig 2, device 30) for sublimation of a solid reagent to form reagent gas and for mixing the reagent gas with flowing carrier gas to form a reagent-carrier gas mixture, the reagent cartridge (device 30) comprising a reagent chamber for holding the solid reagent (Fig2, cylindrical enclosure #32, solid precursor# 40 ) and a gas ejection chamber downstream (opening 36, Fig 2, paragraph# 35) from the reagent chamber for ejecting the reagent-carrier gas mixture out of the reagent cartridge; wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a second pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the gas ejection chamber. (Paragraph 35, pressure sensor# 48).
Vahlas doesn’t teach wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a first pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the reagent chamber.
However, Marganski teaches wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a first pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the reagent chamber. (Fig 15, pressure sensor# 826 of vessel #802, Paragraph #160).
Vahlas and Marganski both teach sublimation of solid reagents and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Vahlas reference to include the first pressure sensor inside the reagent chamber from the teaching of Marganski in order to monitor the level or amount of the solid material as the volatilization operation is conducted (Paragraph #11).
Regarding claim 17, Vahlas teaches a reagent cartridge (Fig 2, device 30) for sublimation of a solid reagent to form reagent gas and for mixing the reagent gas with flowing carrier gas to form a reagent-carrier gas mixture, the reagent cartridge (device 30) comprising a reagent chamber for holding the solid reagent (Fig2, cylindrical enclosure #32, solid precursor# 40 ) and a gas ejection chamber downstream (opening 36, Fig 2, paragraph# 35) from the reagent chamber for ejecting the reagent-carrier gas mixture out of the reagent cartridge; wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a second pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the gas ejection chamber. (Paragraph 35, pressure sensor# 48).
Vahlas doesn’t teach wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a first pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the reagent chamber.
However, Marganski teaches wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a first pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the reagent chamber. (Fig 15, pressure sensor# 826 of vessel #802, Paragraph #160).
Vahlas and Marganski both teach sublimation of solid reagents and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Vahlas reference to include the first pressure sensor inside the reagent chamber from the teaching of Marganski in order to monitor the level or amount of the solid material as the volatilization operation is conducted (Paragraph #11).
Modified Vahlas by Marganski doesn’t explicitly disclose during operation of the reactor apparatus, the reactor apparatus configured to receive from at least one pressure sensor of the reagent cartridge at least one cartridge pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent cartridge.
However, the examiner interprets at least one pressure sensor of the reagent cartridge at least one cartridge pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent cartridge, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Pressure sensors are used to measure pressure, and the placement of the sensor within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of providing pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent cartridge. (see Fig 15, From Marganski)
Regarding claim 18, Vahlas teaches wherein the reactor apparatus is configured to adjust carrier gas mass flow rate ( mass flow controller # 44, Fig 2, paragraph #35).
Vahlas doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the reactor apparatus is configured to adjust carrier gas mass flow rate, "m"'^"c" , based on at least part of the at least one cartridge pressure reading to maintain a pre-determined reagent output mass flow rate,"m”^r, from the reagent cartridge.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the reactor apparatus is configured to adjust carrier gas mass flow rate, "m"'^"c" , based on at least part of the at least one cartridge pressure reading to maintain a pre-determined reagent output mass flow rate,"m”^r, from the reagent cartridge,
as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Mass flow controller is used to control and adjust the mass flow rate of an input reagent into a process to maintain a certain output mass. The placement of the mass flow controller within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case adjusting the mass flow rate of the carrier gas going inside the reactor to control the output flow rate from the pressure reading.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of adjusting carrier gas mass flow rate, based on at least part of the at least one cartridge pressure reading to maintain a pre-determined reagent output mass flow rate,"m”^r, from the reagent cartridge (see Fig 2, from Vahlas).
Regarding claim 19, Vahlas teaches wherein the reactor apparatus is configured to adjust carrier gas mass flow rate ( mass flow controller # 44, Fig 2, paragraph #35).
Vahlas doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the reactor apparatus is configured to adjust the carrier gas mass flow rate, "m"'"c" , based on at least a first pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent chamber of the reagent cartridge.
Marganski teaches wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a first pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the reagent chamber. (Fig 15, pressure sensor# 826 of vessel #802, Paragraph #160).
Vahlas and Marganski both teach sublimation of solid reagents and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Vahlas reference to include the first pressor sensor inside the reagent chamber from the teaching of Marganski in order to monitor the level or amount of the solid material as the volatilization operation is conducted (Paragraph #11).
Vahlas modified by Marganski doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the reactor apparatus is configured to adjust the carrier gas mass flow rate, "m"'"c" , based on at least a first pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent chamber of the reagent cartridge.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the reactor apparatus is configured to adjust the carrier gas mass flow rate, "m"'"c" , based on at least a first pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent chamber of the reagent cartridge, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Mass flow controller is used to control and adjust the mass flow rate of an input reagent into a process .The placement of the mass flow controller and the pressure sensor within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed- in this case adjusting the mass flow rate of the carrier gas going inside the reactor based on the pressure reading inside the reactor chamber.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of adjusting carrier gas mass flow rate, based on at least a first pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent chamber of the reagent cartridge. (see Fig 2, from Vahlas).
Regarding claim 20, Vahlas doesn’t teach wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to detect formation of a blockage downstream from the reagent cartridge based on at least part of the at least one cartridge pressure reading.
Marganski teaches wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a first pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the reagent chamber. (Fig 15, pressure sensor# 826 of vessel #802, Paragraph #160).
Vahlas and Marganski both teach sublimation of solid reagents and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Vahlas reference to include the first pressor sensor inside the reagent chamber from the teaching of Marganski in order to monitor the level or amount of the solid material as the volatilization operation is conducted (Paragraph #11).
Vahlas modified by Marganski doesn’t teach wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to detect formation of a blockage downstream from the reagent cartridge based on at least part of the at least one cartridge pressure reading.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to detect formation of a blockage downstream from the reagent cartridge based on at least part of the at least one cartridge pressure reading, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
During the sublimation of solid reagents and transfer to a deposition process, condensation is to be prevented. The placement of a pressure sensor inside the reagent chamber within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of detecting formation of a blockage downstream from the reagent cartridge based on cartridge pressure reading.
(Fig 15, pressure sensor# 826 , from Marganski).
Regarding claim 21, Vahlas teaches wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a second pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the gas ejection chamber. (Paragraph 35, pressure sensor# 48).
Vahlas doesn’t teach wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to detect formation of a blockage downstream from the reagent cartridge based on at least a second pressure reading indicative of pressure inside a gas ejection chamber of the reagent cartridge.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to detect formation of a blockage downstream from the reagent cartridge based on at least a second pressure reading indicative of pressure inside a gas ejection chamber of the reagent cartridge, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
During the sublimation of solid reagents and transfer to a deposition process, condensation is to be prevented. The placement of a pressure sensor in the gas ejection chamber within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of detecting formation of a blockage downstream from the reagent cartridge based on cartridge pressure reading.
(Fig 2, pressure sensor# 48 , from Vahlas).
Regarding claim 22, Vahlas doesn’t teach wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to produce carbon-based high-aspect-ratio molecular structures, HARMSs, such as carbon nanotubes, e.g., single-walled carbon nanotubes and/or multi-walled carbon nanotubes; and/or carbon nanobuds; and/or graphene nanoribbons; and/or graphite nanoribbons; and/or carbon nanofibers; and/or graphene nanoplatelets.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to produce carbon-based high-aspect-ratio molecular structures, HARMSs, such as carbon nanotubes, e.g., single-walled carbon nanotubes and/or multi-walled carbon nanotubes; and/or carbon nanobuds; and/or graphene nanoribbons; and/or graphite nanoribbons; and/or carbon nanofibers; and/or graphene nanoplatelets , as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Any number of different structures can be produced naturally from the intended use of the prior art apparatus including carbon-based high aspect ratio molecular structure.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of producing carbon-based high-aspect-ratio molecular structures, HARMSs, such as carbon nanotubes, e.g., single-walled carbon nanotubes and/or multi-walled carbon nanotubes; and/or carbon nanobuds; and/or graphene nanoribbons; and/or graphite nanoribbons; and/or carbon nanofibers; and/or graphene nanoplatelets.
Regarding claim 23, Vahlas teaches a reagent cartridge (Fig 2, device 30) for sublimation of a solid reagent to form reagent gas and for mixing the reagent gas with flowing carrier gas to form a reagent-carrier gas mixture.
Vahlas doesn’t teach wherein the reagent cartridge is further configured to form a reagent-carrier gas mixture comprising one or more catalyst particle precursors, e.g., iron-containing organometallic or metalorganic compounds, such as ferrocene (Fe(C5H2)2), iron pentacarbonyl (Fe(CO)5), and/or iron(II)phthalocyanine (C32H16FeN8); and/or one or more nickel-containing organometallic or metalorganic compounds, such as nickelocene (Ni(C5H5)2); and/or one or more cobalt-containing organometallic or metalorganic compounds, such as cobaltocene (Co(C5H5)2), as the reagent gas.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the reagent cartridge is further configured to form a reagent-carrier gas mixture comprising one or more catalyst particle precursors, e.g., iron-containing organometallic or metalorganic compounds, such as ferrocene (Fe(C5H2)2), iron pentacarbonyl (Fe(CO)5), and/or iron(II)phthalocyanine (C32H16FeN8); and/or one or more nickel-containing organometallic or metalorganic compounds, such as nickelocene (Ni(C5H5)2); and/or one or more cobalt-containing organometallic or metalorganic compounds, such as cobaltocene (Co(C5H5)2), as the reagent gas.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
The reagent-carrier mixture after sublimation can be composed of a number of different catalyst particle precursors for chemical vapor deposition. Thus, the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of producing carbon-based high-aspect-ratio molecular structures, HARMSs, such as carbon nanotubes, e.g., single-walled carbon nanotubes and/or multi-walled carbon nanotubes; and/or carbon nanobuds; and/or graphene nanoribbons; and/or graphite nanoribbons; and/or carbon nanofibers; and/or graphene nanoplatelets.
Claims 16, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahlas (US Pub. 2008/0268143 A1) and Marganski (US Pub 2008/0191153 A1) as applied to claims 15, 17-23, above and further in view of Woelk (US Pub 2022/0042174 A1).
The limitations of claims 15, 17-23 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, Vahlas teaches the reagent cartridge according to claim 15, further comprising a gas injection chamber upstream (Fig 2, means 42, paragraph#35)from the reagent chamber for injecting carrier gas into the reagent cartridge, a first temperature sensor configured to measure temperature inside the reagent chamber, (Fig 2, Temperature sensor#52, Paragraph#36).
Modified Vahlas doesn’t teach a second temperature sensor configured to measure temperature inside the gas injection chamber.
However, Woelk teaches a second temperature sensor configured to measure temperature inside the gas injection chamber (Fig 2, temperature sensor# 130, Paragraph# 30) .
Vahlas and Woelk both teach sublimation of solid reagents and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Vahlas reference to include the temperature sensor inside the gas injection chamber from the teaching of Woelk in order to control the temperature of the carrier gas prior to entering the sublimation chamber (Paragraph#7).
Regarding claim 24, Vahlas teaches a first temperature sensor configured to measure temperature inside the reagent chamber, (Fig 2, Temperature sensor#52, Paragraph#36).
Vahlas doesn’t teach wherein during operation of the reactor apparatus, the reactor apparatus being configured to receive from at least one pressure sensor of the reagent cartridge at least one cartridge pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent cartridge, the reactor apparatus being further configured to receive from the first temperature sensor a first temperature reading indicative of temperature inside the reagent chamber and from the second temperature sensor a second temperature reading indicative of temperature inside the gas injection chamber.
Marganski teaches wherein the reagent cartridge comprises a first pressure sensor configured to measure pressure inside the reagent chamber. (Fig 15, pressure sensor# 826 of vessel #802, Paragraph #160).
Vahlas and Marganski both teach sublimation of solid reagents and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Vahlas reference to include the first pressor sensor inside the reagent chamber from the teaching of Marganski in order to monitor the level or amount of the solid material as the volatilization operation is conducted (Paragraph #11).
Modified Vahlas by Marganski doesn’t teach wherein during operation of the reactor apparatus, the reactor apparatus being configured to receive from at least one pressure sensor of the reagent cartridge at least one cartridge pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent cartridge, the reactor apparatus being further configured to receive from the first temperature sensor a first temperature reading indicative of temperature inside the reagent chamber and from the second temperature sensor a second temperature reading indicative of temperature inside the gas injection chamber.
However, Woelk teaches a second temperature sensor configured to measure temperature inside the gas injection chamber (Fig 2, temperature sensor# 130, Paragraph# 30) .
Vahlas and WOELK both teach sublimation of solid reagents and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Vahlas reference to include the temperature sensor inside the gas injection chamber from the teaching of WOELK in order to control the temperature of the carrier gas prior to entering the sublimation chamber (Paragraph#7).
Although, modified Vahlas by Marganski and further by Woelk does not explicitly teach wherein during operation of the reactor apparatus, the reactor apparatus being configured to receive from at least one pressure sensor of the reagent cartridge at least one cartridge pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent cartridge, the reactor apparatus being further configured to receive from the first temperature sensor a first temperature reading indicative of temperature inside the reagent chamber and from the second temperature sensor a second temperature reading indicative of temperature inside the gas injection chamber.
However, the examiner interprets wherein during operation of the reactor apparatus, the reactor apparatus being configured to receive from at least one pressure sensor of the reagent cartridge at least one cartridge pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent cartridge, the reactor apparatus being further configured to receive from the first temperature sensor a first temperature reading indicative of temperature inside the reagent chamber and from the second temperature sensor a second temperature reading indicative of temperature inside the gas injection chamber, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Pressure sensors and temperature sensors are used to measure respectively pressure and temperature of a process, and the placement of both sensors within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of providing pressure reading indicative of pressure inside the reagent cartridge and temperature reading inside the reagent chamber and inside the gas injection chamber, as the intended use of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 25, Vahlas teaches a first temperature sensor configured to measure temperature inside the reagent chamber, (Fig 2, Temperature sensor#52, Paragraph#36).
Vahlas doesn’t teach wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to maintain a pre-determined solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , based on at least the first temperature reading and the second temperature reading.
Woelk teaches a second temperature sensor configured to measure temperature inside the gas injection chamber (Fig 2, temperature sensor# 130, Paragraph# 30) .
Vahlas and Woelk both teach sublimation of solid reagents and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Vahlas reference to include the temperature sensor inside the gas injection chamber from the teaching of WOELK in order to control the temperature of the carrier gas prior to entering the sublimation chamber (Paragraph#7).
Although, modified Vahlas by Woelk does not explicitly teach wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to maintain a pre-determined solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , based on at least the first temperature reading and the second temperature reading.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the reactor apparatus is further configured to maintain a pre-determined solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , based on at least the first temperature reading and the second temperature reading, as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Temperature sensors are used to monitor and maintain temperature reading of reagents in a chemical process, and the placement of both temperature sensors within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of a pre-determined solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , based on at least the first temperature reading and the second temperature reading, as an intended use of the apparatus
Regarding claim 26, Vahlas teaches wherein the reactor apparatus further comprises a cartridge heater for heating the reagent cartridge (Fig 2, heating system# 50, paragraph#36) and a pre-heater for heating the carrier gas upstream of the reagent cartridge, (Fig 2, gas supply through duct#43 is also heated before admission in enclosure#32, Paragraph#36).
Vahlas doesn’t teach the reactor apparatus is configured to: adjust pre-heater temperature, "T" ^"ph" , based on a comparison between the solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , and the second temperature reading; and adjust cartridge heater temperature, "T" ^"ch" , based on a comparison between the solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , and the first temperature reading.
However, the examiner interprets the reactor apparatus is configured to: adjust pre-heater temperature, "T" ^"ph" , based on a comparison between the solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , and the second temperature reading; and adjust cartridge heater temperature, "T" ^"ch" , based on a comparison between the solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , and the first temperature reading ,as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Temperature sensors are used to monitor temperature reading and perform adjustment when needed and the placement of both temperature sensors within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of adjusting pre-heater temperature, "T" ^"ph" , based on a comparison between the solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , and the second temperature reading; and adjust cartridge heater temperature, "T" ^"ch" , based on a comparison between the solid reagent temperature, "T" ^"r" , and the first temperature reading ,as an intended use of the apparatus.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahlas (US Pub. 2008/0268143 A1) ,Marganski (US Pub 2008/0191153 A1) and Woelk (US Pub 2022/0042174 A1) as applied to claims 16,24-26, above and further in view Woelk (US Pub 2012/0298040 A1, hereinafter- “040”).
The limitations of claims 16,24-26 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 27, Vahlas teaches wherein the reactor apparatus further comprises a reagent gas conduit (duct #22, Fig 2) for extracting reagent-carrier gas mixture from the reagent cartridge.
Vahlas doesn’t teach a reagent conduit heater for heating the reagent gas conduit.
However, “040” teaches a reagent conduit heater for heating the reagent gas conduit.(Fig 3, heater# 212, Paragraph# 97).
Vahlas and “040” both teach sublimation of solid reagents and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Vahlas reference to include the first pressor sensor inside the reagent chamber from the teaching of “040” in order to maintain temperature of the gas mixture stream which allow uniform delivery of the precursor vapor avoiding condensation. (Paragraph#97).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MOROI (us Pub 2016/0047047 A1, Figs 1,2) teaches a control system of gas supply of raw material, Kuse (US Pub 2005/0056216 A1, Figs1,4) teaches a precursor delivery system, Loan (US patent 6296711 B1, Fig 1A, 1B,1C) teaches a CVD deposition apparatus for dispensing a precursor to a vaporization chamber .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00.
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 5712725166. 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.
/OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights