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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 04/01/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8 from the final office action, mailed on 01/28/2026, by amending claim 1; canceling claim 6; and adding new claim 18 is acknowledged and will be addressed below. Further note, the instant case is newly assigned to a different examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “a fourth opening part same as or larger than the third opening part” of Claim 4 would have a better form if amended to be “a fourth opening part having a diameter equal to or larger than the third opening part”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is 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 limitation(s) is/are:
-a. The “cooling part configured to…” in claim 1, because of the term “part”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 8 and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “a plate opposed to a bottom face of the gas supplier, where first opening parts of the nozzles are formed, in the film formation chamber, and arranged away from the bottom face” of Claim 1 is not clear.
It is not clear whether the “first opening parts of the nozzles” are formed in the plate, the bottom face of the gas supplier, or the gas supplier. It can be interpreted in multiple ways.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“a plate opposed to a bottom face of the gas supplier in the film formation chamber, and arranged away from the bottom face, the bottom face comprising first opening parts of the nozzles”.
(2) The “a partition protruded on an opposed face to the gas supplier and separating a space between an upper face of the plate and the bottom face of the gas supplier into a plurality of regions” of Claim 1 is not clear.
First, it is not clear what the “protruded on an opposed face” means. Does it mean “protruded from an opposed face”? Or “protruded from a face then contacting on an opposed face? Further, depending on the interpretation, it also makes the following limitation “to the gas supplier” not clear.
Second, it is not clear what the “an opposed face” means. is it part of the plate? Or part of the gas supplier Or part of another component?
Third, it is not clear what structural difference is required between the “an opposed face to the gas supplier” and the “an upper face of the plate”.
Based on the applicants’ Fig. 2, the bottom face of the gas supplier appears to be arranged away from the upper face of the plate by facing the upper face of the plate, thus a space is formed between the bottom face of the gas supplier and the upper face of the plate, and the partition is provided in the space by protruding from the upper face of the plate. If the applicants intend to define that the recited “a partition protruded on an opposed face” is “a partition protruded from an opposed face”, the “opposed face” should be the upper face of the plate. Why the applicants use different terms to define the “upper face of the plate”?
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“a partition protruded from an upper face of the plate, and separating a space between the upper face of the plate and the bottom face of the gas supplier into a plurality of regions”.
(3) The “the second opening parts are provided also at opposed locations of the plate opposed by the nozzles” of Claim 1 is not clear.
First, it is not clear what the “also” means. Due to the term, the claim is constructed such that, in addition to the earlier cited “second opening parts”, additional second opening parts are provided.
Second, it is not clear what the “opposed locations of the plate opposed by the nozzles” means. The plate is already opposed to the nozzle. Where the plate should be additionally located to meet the “opposed locations of the plate”?
The applicants’ specification does not provide clear meaning of the cited limitation, and the claim merely repeats the same language, thus the metes and bounds cannot be clearly determined.
For the purpose of examination, based on the applicants’ argument
It will be examined inclusive of:
“wherein some of the second opening parts are provided at locations on the plate, and the locations directly face the first opening parts”.
(4) The “opposed face” of Claim 3 is not clear, due to the same reason as discussed in the item (2) above.
(5) The “wherein the gas supplier further comprises a first nozzle, a temperature measuring window attached above the first nozzle, and a third opening part at the bottom of the first nozzle” of Claim 4 is not clear.
First, claim 4 is dependent from claim 1. It is not clear whether the first nozzle of claim 4 is a part of the earlier cited plurality of nozzles of claim 1.
Further, it is not clear what structural difference is required between the “plural nozzles” of claim 1 and the “first nozzle” of claim 4. It is also not clear what structural difference is required between the “first opening parts of the nozzles” of claim 1 and the “first nozzle” of claim 4.
Second, “the bottom of the first nozzle” raises an antecedent basis issue. Further, it is not clear what structural difference is required to distinguish the bottom of the first nozzle from the “opening part of the nozzle”, because the opening part intrinsically has a bottom.
An appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
