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
The amendment filed 07/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-20 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention (claims 17-20), species (claims 15-16), or subspecies (claims 13-14), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/26/2024. In the amendment filed 01/21/2026, claim 1-2 were amended, no claims were canceled and no claims were newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12 are allowable. The restriction requirement between Invention I (apparatus) and Invention II (substrate processing method using the apparatus) and the restriction requirement among the subspecies of species B including subspecies B1 (embodiment of Fig 6-9) and subspecies B2 (embodiment of Fig 11-13B), as set forth in the Office action mailed on 10/28/2024, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 10/28/2024 is partially withdrawn. Claims 13-14, directed to subspecies B2 (embodiment of Fig 11-13B) are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim (claim 12). Claims 17-20, directed to Invention II (substrate processing method using the apparatus) are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim (claim 1). However, claims 15-16, directed to species A (embodiment of Fig 2) remain withdrawn from consideration because they do not (and note cannot) require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claims 15-16 may not be rejoined because they are directed to a non-elected species and do not incorporate the allowable subject matter of the elected species. Applicant is kindly requested to cancel claims 15-16 and amend claims 13-14 as explained below (see rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) so that the allowable claims may be passed to issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the substrate processing process" in line 5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no prior recitation of “a substrate processing process” in claim 13, claim 12, or claim 1. Applicant is kindly requested to amend line 5 of claim 13 to recite “a substrate processing process”. Note that the amendment to line 5 of claim 13 will provide antecedent basis for the term in line 7 of claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the block ring" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no prior recitation of “a block ring” in claim 14, claim 13, claim 12, or claim 1. Consistent with the remaining claim terminology, the term is interpreted as being intended to refer to “the blocking ring”. Applicant is kindly requested to amend line 1 of claim 14 to recite “the blocking ring”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record of Tzu (US2013/0247826), Savandaiah (US2022/0270898) in view of Lavitsky (US2019/0096638), Yamaguchi (US2014/0202635), Hur (US2005/0092438), and Nguyen (US2019/0131165) fails to teach or fairly suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and in particular the limitations regarding the substrate support device, the control ring such that there is a gap between the substrate support device and control ring as claimed, the blocking ring, the blocking ring in direct contact with a lower surface of the substrate support device, the lower space and the reaction space, the blocking ring serves as a barrier to flow of gas between the reaction space and the lower space through the gap, the blocking ring comprises a recessed area and an inclined surface configured to align the blocking ring with the substrate support device and the inner and outer diameters of the blocking ring as claimed in the context of the claim as a whole. Applicant’s arguments filed 07/21/2026 (see p7 and 8) have been persuasive in arguing why the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitation regarding the blocking ring having an inclined surface to alight the blocking ring with the substrate support device and why this is more than a mere change of shape. Additional art of record US 2021/0225618 demonstrates a blocking ring (22a Fig 12) with a recess contacting the bottom surface of the substrate support device (22 Fig 12) and serving as a barrier to the flow of gas through a gap between the substrate support device (22 Fig 12) and a control ring (73 Fig 12). However, there is no teaching or suggestion of an inclined surface configured to align the blocking ring with the substrate support device. The stepped portion of the blocking ring which interfaces with the control ring is to create a labyrinth [0088-0089] for gas flow. Such an arrangement, even if subjected to change of shape would not result in an inclined surface configured to alight the blocking ring with the substrate support device.
For all of these reasons claim 1 is allowable. Claims 2-12 are allowable for their dependence from claim 1. Claim 17 is a method for processing a substrate using the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore allowable because it incorporates by reference all the limitations of claim 1 which is allowable and represents a “process of using” the apparatus of claim 1. Claims 18-20 are allowable for their dependence from claim 17.
As indicated above, claims 13 and 14 have been rejoined and will be allowable for their dependence from claim 1 (via claim 12) once the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented above have been addressed. These rejections were necessitated by the rejoinder of the claims due to the allowable subject matter of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment filed 07/21/2026 have overcome the previously applied rejections and therefore those rejections have been withdrawn. As indicated above, claims 13 and 14 have been rejoined and will be allowable for their dependence from claim 1 (via claim 12) once the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented above have been addressed. These rejections were necessitated by the rejoinder of the claims due to the allowable subject matter of claim 1.
Claims 15-16 may not be rejoined because they are directed to a non-elected species and do not incorporate the allowable subject matter of the elected species. Applicant is kindly requested to cancel claims 15-16 and amend claims 13 and 14 so that a notice of allowance may be mailed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0187630 demonstrates a ring with inclined surface (Fig 3B) as an alternative to a ring without an inclined surface (Fig 2B). However this ring does not meet the remaining limitations of claim 1 and is not used to block a gap.
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights