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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/21/2026.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, US 2008/0241380 in view of Isobe, US 2019/0304771 or Dunn et al., US 2023/0175127 or Hsieh et al., US 2015/0125591 and Potin et al., US 2023/0160056 or Sowwan et al., US 2024/0175126 or Rice et al., US 2024/0368764 or Albarede et al., US 2026/0166479.
With respect to independent claim 1, Suzuki shows the invention substantially as claimed including a system 1/100, comprising: a reactor (10/110) comprising an inlet (40-end closest to the reactor/135) and an outlet (36/116); a first vessel (50/150) comprising a first inlet (62/162-pipe connected to the vessel and the end of valve 162) and a first outlet (40-end closest to the vessel 50/140-end closest to the vessel 150) coupled to the inlet of the reactor; and an exhaust system (38/118) coupled to the outlet of the reactor; wherein the first vessel is configured to sublimate a solid precursor (52/152) therein for processing (see, for example, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suzuki does not expressly disclose the second vessel comprising a second inlet and a second outlet coupled to the inlet of the reactor. Isobe discloses a system comprising a first vessel 610 and a second vessel 620 coupled to a reactor 203, wherein the first vessel and the second vessel comprise an inlet and an outlet coupled to the reactor (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 is shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
300
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also, Dunn et al. discloses a system comprising a first vessel 108 and a second vessel 112 coupled to a reactor 102, wherein the first vessel and the second vessel comprise an inlet and an outlet coupled to the reactor (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below)
PNG
media_image3.png
363
503
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Hsieh et al. discloses a system comprising a first vessel 302 and a second vessel 302 coupled to a reactor 316, wherein the first vessel and the second vessel comprise an inlet and an outlet coupled to the reactor (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 is shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
443
571
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Suzuki as to comprise the claimed second vessel because such means/configuration is known in the art as a suitable means/configuration to effectively and efficiently hold and steadily/uninterruptedly provide the precursor to the reactor and/or to provide precursors having different characteristics into the chamber.
With respect wherein one of the first vessel and the second vessel is configured to sublimate a solid precursor therein for processing, and wherein the other of the first vessel and the second vessel is maintained in an idle state having a temperature that allows unused precursor received from the exhaust system to recondense therein, it should be noted that all the references disclose the use of heaters to control and/or maintain the precursor temperature at a desired temperature to avoid recondensation of the precursor. Additionally, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The apparatus of Suzuki modified by Isobe or Dunn et al. or Hsieh et al. is capable to be used so that one of the first vessel and the second vessel is configured to sublimate a solid precursor therein for processing, and wherein the other of the first vessel and the second vessel is maintained in an idle state having a temperature that allows unused precursor received from the exhaust system to recondense therein.
Suzuki does not expressly disclose the exhaust system being coupled to an inlet of the first vessel and an inlet of the second vessel. Potin et al. discloses a system comprising an exhaust system coupled to the outlet of the reactor, and coupled to an inlet of a vessel 30 comprising a precursor (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
264
227
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Also, Sowwan et al. discloses a system comprising an exhaust system 178 coupled to the outlet of the reactor, and coupled to an inlet of a vessel 186/200/300/400 comprising a precursor (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
376
524
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Rice et al. discloses a system comprising an exhaust system 178 coupled to the outlet of the reactor, and coupled to an inlet of a vessel 139/165 comprising a precursor (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
317
437
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Albarede et al. discloses a system comprising an exhaust system coupled to the outlet of the reactor, and coupled to an inlet of a vessel 130 comprising a precursor (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
437
376
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Suzuki modified by Isobe or Dunn et al. or Hsieh et al., so that the exhaust system is coupled to the outlet of the reactor, the first inlet of the first vessel, and the second inlet of the second vessel because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently recycling reusable precursor material, and thereby reducing cost of the processing performed within the apparatus.
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that the exhaust system of the apparatus of Suzuki modified by Isobe or Dunn et al. or Hsieh et al. and Potin et al. or Sowwan et al. or Rice et al. or Albarede et al., comprises a feedback portion that couples the reactor to the first vessel and the second vessel.
Regarding claims 3 and 5-6, Sowwan et al. further discloses that the feedback portion 199 comprises a junction comprising a first leg coupled to a first vessel 186 and a second leg coupled to a second vessel 200/300/400; and filters 182/184, wherein the filters are disposed upstream of the junction.
Concerning claim 4, it should be noted that Sowwan et al. further discloses a valve 183 coupled to the first leg and to the second leg to regulate flow to the first and second vessels, respectively (see, for example, Fig. 1). Hsieh et al. further discloses the use of separate controlling valves 324/334 (see, for example, Fig. 3). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Suzuki modified by Isobe or Dunn et al. or Hsieh et al. and Potin et al. or Sowwan et al. or Rice et al. or Albarede et al., as to comprise the claimed first and second valves in order to independently control the flow towards the first and the second vessels, respectively.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, US 2008/0241380 in view of Isobe, US 2019/0304771 or Dunn et al., US 2023/0175127 or Hsieh et al., US 2015/0125591 and Potin et al., US 2023/0160056 or Sowwan et al., US 2024/0175126 or Rice et al., US 2024/0368764 or Albarede et al., US 2026/0166479, as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Winkler et al., US 2024/0191352 or Eschbach, US 5,312,509 or Hatanaka et al., US 2010/0068880 or Komiya, US 2012/0094483.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki, Isobe, Dunn et al., Hsieh et al., Potin et al., Sowwan et al., Rice et al. and Albarede et al. are applied as above, and Suzuki further discloses heating device 54/154 (see, Figs. 1-2), Dunn et al. discloses heating devices 132/136 (see, Fig. 1), Potin et al. discloses means for heating the vessel (see, for example, paragraphs 0068-0071, 0074, 0078). However, the references do not expressly disclose that the first vessel and second vessel comprise a cooling device. Winkler et al. discloses a precursor vessel 110 comprising a cooling device (see, for example, paragraphs 0014, 0037-0038, 0050-0051). Also, Eschbach discloses a precursor vessel 11 comprising a cooling device 25 (see, for example, paragraphs 0014, 0037-0038, 0050-0051). Additionally, Hatanaka et al. discloses a precursor vessel 162 comprising a cooling device 161 (see, for example, paragraphs 0014, 0037-0038, 0050-0051). Furthermore, Komiya discloses a precursor vessel 21 comprising a cooling device 23 (see, for example, paragraphs 0014, 0037-0038, 0050-0051). Therefore, in view in these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vessels of the apparatus of Suzuki modified by Isobe or Dunn et al. or Hsieh et al. and Potin et al. or Sowwan et al. or Rice et al. or Albarede et al., as to comprise a cooling device because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently control/lower the temperature of the vessel and/or the precursor within the vessel to a desired temperature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ludviksson et al. (US 2003/0211736) is cited for its teachings of a system comprising a vessel having an outlet coupled to an inlet of a reactor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights