DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the Applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on March 5, 2026.
The applicant contends:
(1) The term “actuation mechanism” is not a generic placeholder, as alleged by the Office, but denotes a “well-understood class of physical devices” to one of ordinary skill. Further, claim 19 renders it clear that the actuation mechanism is a subcomponent of a bypassing element, which is defined as a valve, flow controller, etc. One of ordinary skill would readily understand the subclass of devices which actuate the opening of a valve, for instance (pp. 7-10).
(2) The Office cites Suzuki to address the “countercurrent” recitation of claim 17, but the reference merely shows cross-flow, not countercurrent flow (pp. 10-11).
(3) The Office relies upon a feature of Suzuki’s Figure 2 to modify Figure 1, but the rejection “does not identify what specific problem or design need in Figure 1 would have prompted” one of ordinary skill to look elsewhere for a solution (p. 12).
In response,
(1) The examiner accepts the argument and has withdrawn the corresponding 112 rejections.
(2) The examiner understands countercurrent broadly to encompass two intersecting flow streams, i.e., flow streams that are clearly not parallel and of the same sign value. It seems the applicant seeks to cleanly contrast crossflow versus counterflow, but the examiner cannot identify a clear threshold by which to distinguish these two phenomena. For example, if one stream is moving 135 degrees in relation to another stream, is it cross or counterflow? A broad yet reasonable definition of one term would necessarily ensnare the other.
Further, the contested limitation merely requires the “flow” of two gas streams to be “countercurrent” at some point for some indefinite duration; the orientation of the physical gas inlets is not required to be in geometric opposition. Given the former requirement, the “countercurrent” threshold will be satisfied in every case since molecular collisions will necessarily yield geometrically opposing flow streams for some interval at some scale. Imagine a cluster of molecules colliding with the sidewall of a showerhead aperture, yielding a subsequent path that is 145 degrees in the opposite direction of the gas stream injected from the sidewall inlet. Given that molecular-surface collisions are inherent phenomenon in a system like Suzuki’s, and given that the duration and extent of the “countercurrent” is unspecified by the claim language, it is the Office’s position that Suzuki’s apparatus necessarily generates the claimed flow pattern even under the strictest standard. Rather than relying upon the stochastic movement of molecules to establish the basis of “countercurrent,” the examiner suggests reciting geometrically opposed inlets, assuming that the original disclosure supports this feature.
(3) As the outstanding rejection of claim 17 acknowledges, Figure 1 does not identify the precise mechanism constituting the bypassing element. Figure 2, although directed to a different embodiment, depicts an analogous bypassing element with greater granularity, whereby a valve and MFC constitute the bypassing element. This deliverance establishes a valve/MFC as a suitable mechanism for regulating the flow of a gas stream within the structure of a bypassing element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to compose the bypassing element of Figure 1 with this mechanism to facilitate the predictable result of regulating gas flow.
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 feature of “countercurrent” flow must be shown or canceled from claims 17, 20, and 21. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use generic placeholders – “element” and “mechanism,” in this case – that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “bypassing elements” of claims 17 and 19-21;
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The bypassing element will be interpreted as one of a valve, orifice, mass flow controller, or pressure controller in accordance with paragraph [0207] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 17-21 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., US 2007/0218200.
Claims 17-18: Suzuki discloses a vapor flow control system, comprising (Fig. 1):
A reaction chamber (10);
A precursor storage vessel (50) [0033];
A mass flow controller (166) for regulating the flow of the precursor into the reaction chamber ([0073], Fig. 2).
Figure 1 of Suzuki depicts a bypassing element (37) comprising two conduits (37b, 37c) which deliver a gas stream into the reaction chamber approximately orthogonal to the direction of precursor flow via conduit 40 [0040]. The examiner is interpreting this organization of gas flow to satisfy the claimed term of “countercurrent.” The embodiment of Figure 1, however, does not clearly depict the bypassing element as comprising a valve, which is an aspect of the 112(f) definition elaborated above within the Claim Interpretation section. Figure 2, though, offers a more granular rendering of the bypassing element, whereby valves (197) and an unshown mass flow controller are provided to regulate flow from the gas source of the bypassing element into the reaction chamber [0068]. For at least this reason, it would have been obvious to endow the bypassing element of Figure 1 with a similar set of flow control valves since using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 19: The examiner understands the movement of Suzuki’s valve to strategically direct gas flow as constituting a “controllable mechanism of actuation” which is capable of opening instantaneously.
Claim 20: Suzuki regulates the flow of the precursor into the reaction chamber via a mass flow controller formed integrally with the sensor (166) disposed in the flow path [0073].
Claim 21: The operator can regulate conditions such as precursor isolation and exposure by manipulating the mass flow controller and bypassing element – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647). Further, Suzuki provides a common signal hub (80) for regulating flow parameters, valve positions, and deposition conditions [0062].
Claims 29-30: As shown by Figure 2, each conduit (137a-c) of the bypassing element (137) comprises a valve (197) and mass flow controller [0068].
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Hashimoto et al., US 2018/0179628. Hashimoto discloses a flow control system comprising a reaction chamber (201), a precursor storage vessel (501), a mass flow controller (552), and a bypassing element (526) (Fig. 5, 8; [0107]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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