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 3, Species A1 in the reply filed on 29 August 2022 was previously acknowledged. See previous office action for additional details.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the phrase “diagonally formed on a surface of” the gas supply pipe: Examiner notes that in line with the explanation and illustrations provided in the disclosure, the phrase has been taken to mean at an angle, not perpendicular or parallel, to a line corresponding to the diameter of the reaction chamber.
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) 8-9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0215625 to Zo et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0218725 to Reynolds et al. and U.S. Patent No. 4,934,315 to Linnebach et al.
Regarding claims 8 and 16: Zo et al. disclose an apparatus capable of/for producing a boron nitride nanotube substantially as claimed and comprising: a reaction module (Fig. 9, 38) accommodating a holding rod (37) disposed through at least one precursor block (2); a reaction chamber (e.g., Fig. 4 or Fig. 8 or Fig. 10, 31) having a conveying path for conveying the reaction module and including a reaction zone in which a nitrogen-containing reaction gas may be provided to the precursor block on the conveying path; a supply chamber (321) disposed at a front end of the reaction chamber, accommodating several reaction modules (38)(sequentially), and conveying a first set of N modules of the several reaction modules to the reaction chamber to the reaction chamber; a front gate (323) is disposed between the reaction chamber and the supply chamber; a discharge chamber (322) disposed at a rear end of the reaction chamber, wherein the reaction chamber conveys the first set of N reaction modules to the discharge chamber; and a rear gate (323) disposed between the reaction chamber and the discharge chamber. Additionally, when N=1, the supply chamber is capable of conveying a second set of N reaction modules of the several reaction modules to the reaction chamber when the first set of N reaction modules are conveyed from the reaction chamber to the discharge chamber, and a conveying operation of the supply chamber is ended when all of the several reaction modules are conveyed to the reaction chamber. The apparatus may further comprise a gas supply pipe (33) and that the reaction chamber comprises a diameter (see, e.g., para. 136).
However, Zo et al. fail to explicitly disclose at least two gas supply pipes are disposed on opposite sides of an inner wall of the reaction chamber along the conveying path and facing each other in a diameter direction of the reaction chamber, wherein an even number of the at least two gas supply pipes are arranged in a pair at a position facing each other in the diameter direction of the reaction chamber, wherein a plurality of gas supply holes is diagonally formed on a surface of each of the gas supply pipes (see interpretation above), wherein the gas supply holes of the pair of gas supply pipes are open in opposite directions.
In Figs. 1-3, e.g., Reynolds et al. disclose a reaction chamber (101) wherein at two gas supply pipes (e.g., 103a and 103b) are disposed on opposite sides of an inner wall of the reaction chamber along the conveying path and facing each other in a diameter direction of the reaction chamber, wherein an even number of the at least two gas supply pipes are arranged in a pair at a position facing each other in the diameter direction of the reaction chamber, wherein a plurality of gas supply holes (301a and 301b) is diagonally formed on a surface of each of the gas supply pipes, wherein the gas supply holes of the pair of gas supply pipes is open in opposite directions. The configuration is provided for the purpose of exposing the substrates to gas in a uniform manner (also see, e.g., abstract and paras. 6-10, 22, 25 and 27-28).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in the reaction chamber of Zo et al. at least two gas supply pipes disposed on opposite sides of an inner wall of the reaction chamber along the conveying path and facing each other in a diameter direction of the reaction chamber, wherein an even number of the at least two gas supply pipes are arranged in a pair at a position facing each other in the diameter direction of the reaction chamber, wherein a plurality of gas supply holes is diagonally formed on a surface of each of the gas supply pipes, wherein the gas supply holes of the pair of gas supply pipes is open in opposite directions in order to expose substrates to gas in a uniform manner as taught by Reynolds et al.
Modified Zo et al. disclose an apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Zo et al. fail to disclose the supply chamber accommodating several reaction modules at a same time and including a plurality of reaction module holding units including a first surface elongated in a horizontal direction on which a corresponding reaction module is disposed, and the plurality of reaction module holding units are configured to move in a longitudinal direction of the supply chamber and is vertically arranged in a longitudinal direction of the supply chamber, wherein the front gate is configured to be in an open state while the second set of N reaction modules is continuously conveyed from the supply chamber into the reaction chamber and configured to close after the second set of N reaction modules has been conveyed from the supply chamber into the reaction chamber and/or wherein the rear gate is configured to be in an open state while the first set of N reaction modules is continuously conveyed from the reaction chamber into the discharge chamber and configured to close after the first set of N reaction modules have been conveyed from the reaction chamber into the discharge chamber.
Linnebach et al. disclose a supply chamber (Fig. 1, 1) having a plurality of reaction module holding units arranged in and configured to move in a longitudinal direction of the supply chamber and a discharge chamber (3) having a plurality of reaction module holding units, each of the plurality of reaction module holding units (43) including a first surface elongated in a horizontal direction on which a corresponding reaction module (41) may be arranged in a longitudinal direction in the supply chamber for the purpose of executing a quasi-continuous large-scale production resulting in high throughput of substrates with appropriate spacing in a reaction chamber (4 and 8) along a conveying path (column 1, rows 50-52 and column 5, rows 36-40).
Regarding the amount of time the front gate or the rear gate is open or the number of reaction modules conveyed while either of the front gate or the rear gate is open, these are considered recitations drawn to the intended use of the claimed apparatus, wherein the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the supply chamber and discharge chamber of modified Zo et al. including a plurality of reaction module holding units, each of the plurality of reaction module holding units including a first surface elongated in a horizontal direction on which a corresponding reaction module may be arranged in moved along a longitudinal direction in the supply chamber in order to execute a quasi-continuous large-scale production resulting in high throughput of substrates with appropriate spacing in a reaction chamber along a conveying path as taught by Linnebach et al.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Zo et al., Linnebach et al. teach that each of the plurality of reaction module holding units includes a first surface (i.e. supporting surface) elongated in a horizontal direction on which a corresponding reaction module is disposed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-9 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, except those discussed below.
Although prior art reference Suzuki is no longer relied upon, Examiner notes that similar to Suzuki et al. and Reynolds et al., Applicant’s claimed invention is considered a batch processing apparatus (or at least semi-batch) because it is designed to process a plurality of substrates at one time. Examiner sees no contraindications between the relied upon prior art the claimed/disclosed inventions and notes that the relied upon prior art is capable of being used for deposition and is also concerned with uniform gas flow for processing gases and uniform processing of substrates, similar to the disclosed invention. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Finally, Examiner acknowledges that the claimed and disclosed apparatus are intended to prepare boron nitride nanotubes, but notes that the courts have ruled that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent and U.S. Patent Pub. Nos. 4,256,053; 2007/0137794; 2019/0187049; and JP 59070760 and JP2013089818 also disclose film deposition apparatus including at least two gas supply pipes. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0134332 discloses a method and apparatus to evenly distribute gas over a substrate in batch processing, including providing gas holes angled away from a center of a substrate.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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 on (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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716