DETAILED ACTION
Status
The amendment filed 01/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-18, and 21-22 are pending. Claims 15-18 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention. In the amendment filed 01/02/2026, claim 1 and 4 were amended, claim 3 was canceled, and no claims were newly added. Claims 1, 4-14, and 21-22 are under examination on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15-18 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (group II, claims 15-20 drawn to a method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2024.
Drawings
The corrected drawings filed 01/02/2026 have been entered. The corrections address some, but not all, of the objections raised previously. The objections that remain are presented again herein.
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 spacer plate comprises a recess, wherein the spring is disposed in the recess between a downward-facing surface of the recess and the flow control ring” (claim 22) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note that the current drawings show a recess in the flow control ring (Fig 3) but do not show a recess in the spacer plate.
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.
Applicant is kindly requested to review the drawings for any additional errors and to ensure no new matter is added in any replacement drawings.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation of a “sealing system” in claim 1 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) because the claim contains sufficient structure in lines 9-14 that the sealing system comprises a spacer plate, a flow control ring, and a spring.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21 and 22, the portion of the instant specification that discusses the spring being disposed in a recess of either the flow control ring (claim 21) or the spacer plate (claim 22) is directed to the embodiment of Fig 3 (see specification paragraph [0044] and there is no indication that such a feature is to be combined with the embodiment of Fig 4. As indicated above, the embodiment of Fig 3 does not support the limitations of amended claim 1 and cannot support such limitations even when a broader limitation is suggested because no portion of the flow control ring of the embodiment of Fig 3 is disposed over the spacer plate. Therefore the inclusion of features in a dependent claim that are only directed to the embodiment of Fig 3 represents new matter because it represents combining features of the two embodiments in a manner which was not disclosed in the instant specification as originally filed. Applicant is kindly requested to consider canceling claims 21 and 22 or amending them to be dependent from an independent claim that is not limited to an embodiment that excludes the embodiment of Fig 3. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined as if they are not new matter. This is not an indication that support for the new claims as dependent from current claim 1 is present in the instant application.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11-14, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Satyavolu (prev. presented US2021/0375650).
Regarding claim 1, Satyavolu teaches a reaction chamber (160a Fig 2A-3B and Fig 5-6A), comprising: a reaction chamber volume enclosed within the reaction chamber (see volume enclosed in chamber 160a in Fig 2A-3B and 5); a susceptor (224a-b Fig 2A-3B and 5 [0041], [0069], 624a Fig 6A [0134], note that support chuck is a susceptor) configured to support a substrate disposed in the reaction chamber volume [0041], [0069], [0134], the susceptor being configured to translate between a lowered position and a raised position along an axis within the reaction chamber [0137], [0141] (see also Fig 2A-2B or 3A-3B which show the corresponding structure being raised (2A, 3A) or lowered (2B, 3B); a reaction space above the susceptor within the reaction chamber volume (278 Fig 2A-3B and 5); a lower chamber space below the susceptor within the reaction chamber volume (Fig 2B, 3B unlabeled space below 230 or space 236 Fig 5); and a sealing system (250 Fig 2A-3B, 5 or 650 Fig 6A) causing the reaction space and the lower chamber space to be at least partially fluidly separate [0065-0068], [0133-0142], wherein the sealing system comprises: a spacer plate surrounding the susceptor (interpretation (i) 605 Fig 6A or interpretation (ii) 605, 272, and 608 Fig 6A, note plate is not required to be completely flat consistent with the instant specification in which the plate 370 in Fig 3 is not completely flat), a flow control ring (602 and 611a Fig 6) disposed around the susceptor and between the susceptor and the spacer plate [0135], and a spring (bellows 612 Fig 6A see teaching of spring constant [0098] regarding corresponding structure bellows 412 and disclosure that bellows 612 is similar to bellows 412 in [0135]) disposed between an upward-facing surface of (upward-facing surface of portion 616 of the flow control ring portion 602 Fig 6A) the flow control ring (602 and 611a Fig 6A) and a downward-facing surface of a portion of (spring 612 at downward facing portion of portion 605 of the spacer plate) the spacer plate (Fig 6A and [0135]) wherein the spring has a spring bias toward a compressed position or an extended position [0135-0136], such that the spring bias facilitates creation of at least a partial seal between the flow control ring and the susceptor [0135-0136] (see also [0095] and sealing surface 420 and 422 Fig 6A), causing at least partial fluid separation between the reaction space and the lower chamber space as the susceptor moves up and down within the reaction chamber [0135-0136], wherein a portion of the flow control ring (portion of 611a which is a portion of the flow control ring Fig 6A) is disposed directly over the portion of the spaced plate having the downward-facing surface (Fig 6A) to prevent the portion of the flow control ring from translating below the portion of the spacer plate (portion 611a is prevented from translating below the portion of the spacer plate 605 Fig 6A) wherein the susceptor is configured to translate relative to the flow control ring, and is configured to contact the flow control ring in response to translating toward the raised position [0135-0141].
Regarding claim 4, Satyavolu teaches the spring is biased toward the extended position, such that a downward force from the spring is applied to the flow control ring, which creates a downward force on the susceptor, such that at least a partial seal is formed between the flow control ring and the susceptor, forming the at least partial fluid separation between the reaction space and the lower chamber space [0135-0141] (Fig 6A).
Regarding claim 5, Satyavolu teaches the spring forms at least a partial seal between the spring and the spacer plate, and between the spring and the flow control ring (Fig 6A and [0135-0136]).
Regarding claim 6, Satyavolu teaches the spring is fixedly coupled (welded) to at least one of the spacer plate or the flow control ring [0136].
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Satyavolu teaches the spring comprises a metal or metal alloy and specifically at least one of stainless steel or nickel alloy ([0136], note Inconel is a nickel alloy).
Regarding claim 13, Satyavolu teaches reactor system comprising the reaction chamber of claim 1 (see Fig 1A-B which has the chamber of Fig 2A-3B, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 14, Satyavolu teaches a vacuum source in fluid communication with the lower chamber space (see 518 Fig 5 [0123]).
Regarding claim 21, Satyavolu teaches the flow control ring comprises a recess, wherein the spring is disposed in the recess between an upward-facing surface of the recess and the spacer plate (spring 612 is in recess of portion 616 of 602 Fig 6A).
Regarding claim 22, Satyavolu teaches the spacer plate comprises a recess, wherein the spring is disposed in the recess between a downward-facing surface of the recess and the flow control ring (spring 612 is in recess of portion 605 Fig 6A).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyavolu in view of Amos (prev. presented US 2004/0066005).
Regarding claim 7-8, Satyavolu remains as applied to claim 5 above. Satyavolu teaches the spring surrounds the susceptor (Fig 6A, see spring 612) but fails to teach the spring comprises a cross-sectional shape having at least one curl. Addressing the same problem of sealing between two metallic structures (abstract, note the chamber components are metallic), Amos teaches a bellows may be formed of an e-ring seal [0006] having at least one curl (Fig 1-2) and specifically 3 curls (Fig 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bellows spring seal of Satyavolu to include the bellows E-ring seal taught by Amos because Amos teaches this is a commercially available seal for the same purpose of sealing between two surfaces [0006] (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Satyavolu remains as applied to claim 1 above and the combination of Satyavolu in view of Amos remains as applied to claims 7-8 above. Amos as part of teaching the seal, teaches the seal may be split into a plurality of segments to form the circular seal [0023]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bellows seal of Satyavolu to include a plurality of segments such as 4 segments such that two segments form the spring and the other two form a second spring and the force on the susceptor resulting from the spring occurs at multiple points because Amos teaches this arrangement is a functional alternative to providing one continuous bellows seal.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyavolu in view of Kawano (prev. presented US 2004/0221808).
Regarding claim 10, Satyavolu remains as applied to claim 1 above. Satyavolu teaches a gas introduction structure (520, 528 Fig 5) but fails to teach a gas distribution device disposed above the susceptor in the reaction space, wherein the spring allows adjustment of a distance between the susceptor and the gas distribution device to be adjustable by up to nine millimeters while still maintaining the at least partial fluid separation between the reaction space and the lower chamber space. Kawano teaches a gas distribution device disposed above the susceptor in the reaction space (6 Fig 1A-B) [0048]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Satyavolu to include the showerhead (6 Fig 1A-B) of Kawano because Kawano teaches this enables the introduction of reaction gas into the chamber to process a substrate [0048]. This represents a simple substitution of one known element (gas introduction of Satyavolu) for another (gas introduction of Kawano). Regarding the spring allows adjustment of a distance between the susceptor and the gas distribution device to be adjustable by up to nine millimeters while still maintaining the at least partial fluid separation between the reaction space and the lower chamber space, Satyavolu has taught a variety of bellows with different spring force may be used [0098]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose a spring that enables the desired adjustability of the susceptor height to while allowing for maintaining the seal because the space between the susceptor and the gas distribution device (showerhead) because Satyavolu teaches the bellows may be selected to have different spring force. Further, Kawano teaches that a vertical gap above the spacer plate and an upper structure may be chosen to be up to 10 mm [0056] indicating that adjustability of a gap up to 10 mm is a known range within which an apparatus may need to be adjustable.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyavolu in view of Kato (prev. presented US 2015/0126044).
Regarding claim 10, Satyavolu remains as applied to claim 1 above. Satyavolu teaches a gas introduction structure (520, 528 Fig 5) but fails to teach a gas distribution device disposed above the susceptor in the reaction space, wherein the spring allows adjustment of a distance between the susceptor and the gas distribution device to be adjustable by up to nine millimeters while still maintaining the at least partial fluid separation between the reaction space and the lower chamber space. Kato teaches a gas distribution device disposed above the susceptor in the reaction space (31-33 Fig 2, 34 Fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Satyavolu to include the gas distribution device of Kato because Kato teaches this enables the introduction of reaction gas into the chamber to process a substrate [0039-0044]. This represents a simple substitution of one known element (gas introduction of Satyavolu) for another (gas introduction of Kato). Regarding the spring allows adjustment of a distance between the susceptor and the gas distribution device to be adjustable by up to nine millimeters while still maintaining the at least partial fluid separation between the reaction space and the lower chamber space, Satyavolu has taught a variety of bellows with different spring force may be used [0098]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose a spring that enables the desired adjustability of the susceptor height to while allowing for maintaining the seal because the space between the susceptor and the gas distribution device (showerhead) because Satyavolu teaches the bellows may be selected to have different spring force. Further, Kato teaches that a vertical gap above the spacer plate and an upper structure may be changeable between 20-120 mm [0055] while maintaining the bellows seal [0055-0056] indicating that adjustability of a gap up to 9 mm is a known range within which an apparatus may need to be adjustable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p8-9) that the drawings objection is not proper because the feature of the recess is shown in Fig 3. It is noted that Fig 3 is a different embodiment than Fig 4 and that Fig 4 is the currently claimed embodiment. The differences are substantial enough that it is not immediately clear how or where the recess is positioned in the spacer plate or the flow control ring. For example in Fig 3 the spacer plate and flow control ring appear to be shown contacting each other with the spring positioned entirely within the recess whereas such a configuration would not work in Fig 4. Applicant properly addressed some of the issues raised previously and those corrections are noted. The objections based on corrected issues have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues (reply p9) the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). The amendments filed on 01/02/2026 have renders those rejections moot.
Applicant argues (reply p10-11) that the new matter rejection of claims 21 and 22 is not proper because the language is supported in the text discussing Fig 3 and that there is language that modifications may be made. Initially it is noted that there is no clear indication that features from the embodiment of Fig 3 were intended to be combined with the features of the embodiment of Fig 4. As noted above, in Fig 3 the spacer plate and flow control ring appear to be shown contacting each other with the spring positioned entirely within the recess whereas such a configuration would not work in Fig 4. Therefore, combining features from the two embodiments requires one to select which features from each embodiment should be used and then design how to combine them. It is not readily apparent that applicant envisaged this specific combination of features from different embodiments as now claimed when the application was filed and therefore the combination of limitations represents new matter.
Applicant argues (reply p11-13) that Satyavolu fails to teach the amended limitations of claim 1. This is not persuasive in view of the newly cited interpretation including ring 611a as part of the flow control ring. Applicant argues that 611 is separate from the bellows assembly and is therefore not part of the flow control ring. However, the structure is within the apparatus of Satyavolu and is located in the same area as the flow control ring and contacting the other portion of the flow control ring and therefore is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the flow control ring. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as to the patentability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2003/0127807 teaches a sealing spring (Fig 1-2). US 2006/0213439 demonstrates a chamber sealing arrangement for sealing the upper and lower chambers from each other (Fig 4).
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
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights