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 .
Status of the Rejection
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orczyk et al. (US 5937323).
Regarding claim 11, Orczyk et al. teaches an apparatus (CVD apparatus as shown in Fig. 1A; is structurally capable of being used for forming liquid silicon) comprising:
a. plasma generator (CVD apparatus includes plasma electrode coils 29, 32 generate a plasma; Fig. 1A, column 5, lines 39-56) by which a gas can be brought to a high-temperature state in which it is at least partially present as plasma (i.e., a gas delivery system 33 is structurally capable of providing a high-temperature state gas to the processing chamber)
b. a reaction space (i.e., space within chamber 13) and a feed conduit (i.e., gas nozzles 39, 40) for the high-temperature gas opening into the reaction space (i.e., the gas nozzles are structurally capable providing a high-temperature gas into chamber 13),
c. a nozzle having a nozzle channel (the structure comprising nozzle 45 and top vent 46; Fig. 1A) that opens directly into the reaction space and through which a gaseous starting material can be fed into the reaction space, the nozzle is a multifluid nozzle comprising:
a first nozzle channel (i.e., nozzle 45) that feeds in the silicon-containing starting material (i.e., structurally capable of feeding silicon-containing starting material); and
a second nozzle channel (i.e., top vent 46) that opens directly into the reaction space, the second nozzle channel opens into an exit opening that surrounds the exit opening of the first nozzle channel, such that the first and second nozzle channels have parallel longitudinal axes (see Fig. 1A; column 7, lines 38-40).
While Orczyk et al. is directed to a CVD apparatus, Orczyk et al. teaches all the structural limitations recited in claim 11 such that the apparatus of Orczyk et al. would be structurally capable of being used for supplying the silicon-containing materials to form silicon.
Regarding claim 19, Orczyk et al. teaches wherein
a. the nozzle including the first nozzle channel is conducted through a wall of the reaction space or the closure element and into the reaction space (i.e., nozzle 45 is attached through wall 14),
b. the nozzle projects into the reaction space so that the exit opening of the first nozzle channel opens into the reaction space at a distance from the wall through which the nozzle is conducted into the reaction space (nozzle 45 extends into the chamber space as shown in Fig. 1A), and
c. second nozzle channel is thermally insulated from the wall by an insulation element (i.e., top vent 46 is mounted on dome 14 which is made of a dielectric material such as aluminum or aluminum nitride which is deemed to be an insulation element; column 4 lines 60-62).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orczyk et al. in view of Ushakov et al. (US 20060196420).
Regarding claims 14-15, Orczyk et al. teaches a plasma processing apparatus for coatings a wafer (column 3, lines 52-56). It is well known in the art that wafer processing apparatus is cylindrical in order to uniformly coat a wafer which is typically circular. In the interest of compact prosecution, it is assumed that Orczyk et al. does not explicitly teach CVD chamber is cylindrical.
Ushakov et al. teaches a CVD apparatus similar to Orczyk et al. for coating a wafer in a cylindrical chamber body 11 (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber of Orczyk et al. with the cylindrical chamber of Ushakov et al. to uniformly deposit a coating on a wafer.
Further addressing claims 15, Orczyk et al. teaches that the first nozzle opens axially into chamber 13 at 90°.
Regarding claim 16, Orczyk et al. teaches nozzle 45 extends into the chamber space as shown in Fig. 1A. Orczyk et al. does not explicitly teach the distance of the exit opening of the nozzle relative to the diameter of the reaction space. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect changing the distance of the exit opening with introduce gas at different depths and thus affect the uniformity and distribution of the gas in the reaction chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the distance of the exit opening of the nozzle to optimize the uniformity and distribution of gas in the reaction chamber.
Regarding claim 17, Orczyk et al. teaches the chamber having a conical segment at body member 22 shown in Fig. 1A which directly adjoins the upper portion above body member 22. Modified Orczyk et al. having the cylindrical chamber would result in the cylindrical segment directly adjoining the conical segment 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. The limitation of “at least two condensation chambers arranged parallel to one another and taper conically in a direction of gravity” is not taught by the prior art of record and may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
LUAN V. VAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights