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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on January 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 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 2, line 2, “the outlet” is confusing. Should this be “the outlet of the first reaction chamber”?
Claim 2, line 3, “the inlet” is confusing. Should this be “the inlet of the first reaction chamber”?
Claim 3, line 1, “the one or more second inlets” is confusing. Should this be “the one or more second inlets of the mixing chamber”?
Claim 4, line 2, “the one or more inlets” is confusing. Should this be “the one or more inlets of the mixing chamber”?
Claim 4, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “the side wall” may be unclear if the option “end wall” were selected in claim 3.
Claim 5, line 1, the phrase “the side wall” may be unclear if the option “end wall” were selected in claim 3.
Claim 6, lines 1, 2, the selection of “the side wall” and “the end wall” may be unclear if only one option was selected in claim 3.
Claim 7, line 2, the phrase “the outlet” should be “the outlet of the mixing chamber”.
Claim 10, line 3, the phrase “the inlet” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “the side wall” may be unclear if the option “end wall” were selected in claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 11, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaplan (U.S. Pat. 5,282,861).
INDPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kaplan teaches an apparatus in a chemical vapor infiltration process, the apparatus comprising a first reaction chamber having an inlet configured to receive a first gas and an outlet therefrom for a second gas reacted in the first reaction chamber; a mixing chamber having an inlet in fluid communication with the outlet of the first reaction chamber, the mixing chamber having one or more second inlets thereto configured to receive a third gas, the mixing chamber has an outlet therefrom; and a second reaction chamber having an inlet in fluid communication with the outlet of the mixing chamber to receive a mixture of the second gas and the third gas therein, the second reaction chamber is configured to hold a substrate therein that is coated by reaction of the second gas and the third gas within the second reaction chamber. (Column 9 lines 24-60; Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image1.png
733
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
Regarding claim 8, Kaplan teach an apparatus for use in a chemical vapor infiltration process, the apparatus 8. comprising: a first reaction chamber configured to receive a first precursor gas and hold a biocompatible material, wherein the first precursor gas and the biocompatible material react within the first reaction chamber to form a second precursor gas, a mixing chamber having at least a first inlet, a second inlet and an outlet, wherein the first inlet is in fluid communication with the first reaction chamber to receive the second precursor gas from the first reaction chamber and the second inlet is in fluid communication to receive a third precursor gas, wherein the second precursor gas and the third precursor gas mix within the mixing chamber before passing to the outlet; and a second reaction chamber configured to receive the second precursor gas and the third precursor gas mix and having a pedestal to hold a substrate therein, wherein the substrate receives a film deposition from reaction of the second precursor gas and the third precursor gas within the second reaction chamber. (Column 9 lines 24-60; Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image1.png
733
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
Regarding claim 13, Kaplan teaches wherein the substrate comprises a reticulated carbon foam or porous metal. (See Abstract – A reticulated carbon foam substrate.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
Regarding claim 14, Kaplan teaches wherein the second precursor gas includes tantalum. (Column 9 line 31)
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3, 11:
Regarding claims 3, 11, Kaplan teach wherein the one or more second inlets include one or more inlets through a side wall of the mixing chamber and/or one or more inlet through an end wall of the mixing chamber. (These claims are interpreted as selecting the end wall of the mixing chamber – See Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image2.png
467
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 2, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (U.S. Pat. 5,282,861) in view of Suemitsu (JP 2000-273634 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the reaction chamber has a frustoconical shape with a first cross-sectional area adjacent the outlet that is relatively smaller as compared with a second cross-sectional area adjacent the inlet.
Regarding claims 2, 10, Suemitsu teaches wherein the reaction chamber has a frustoconical shape with a first cross-sectional area adjacent the outlet that is relatively smaller as compared with a second cross-sectional area adjacent the inlet. (See Fig. 1; Annotated Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
542
821
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The motivation for utilizing the features of Suemitsu is that it allows for safely obtaining various alloy films. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kaplan by utilizing the features Suemitsu because it allows for safely obtaining various alloy films.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (U.S. Pat. 5,282,861) in view of Pagadala (DE 10 2013 113 817 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 4, 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the mixing chamber includes one or more vortex inducing features therein in fluid communication with the one or more inlets through the side wall.
Regarding claims 4, 12, Pagadala teaches a mixing chamber including one or more vortex inducing features therein in fluid communication with one or more inlets through the side wall. (See Figs. 1-21; Machine Translation - The 1 and 2 it can be seen that is between the ground 7 and the ceiling 20 first gas deflection elements 5 are located. These are web-like baffles, both with the ceiling 20 as well as with the ground 7 are connected. The baffles 5 extend obliquely to a radial direction relative to the center of the mixing chamber 1 , A gas flow flowing radially outward toward the center thus becomes a clockwise rotating vortex. With this vortex, the gas flow passes through a gas outlet opening 6 in one under the ground 7 arranged chamber 19 , To the chamber 19 closes a gas outlet pipe 2 at. The inner diameter of the opening 6 corresponds essentially to the diameter of the gas outlet pipe 2 ,)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein an interior of the side wall of the mixing chamber includes the one or more vortex features.
Regarding claim 5, Pagadala teaches wherein an interior of the side wall of the mixing chamber includes the one or more vortex features. (See Figs. 1-21; Machine Translation)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Pagadala is that it allows for effectively mixing gases. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kaplan by utilizing the features of Pagadala because it allows for effectively mixing gases.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (U.S. Pat. 5,282,861) in view of Pagadala (DE 10 2013 113 817 A1) and Le Chang Joon (KR 20200092094 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the one or more inlets through the side wall of the mixing chamber and one or more inlets through the end wall of the mixing chamber are selectively closeable.
Regarding claim 6, Pagadala teaches an end wall inlet and side wall inlet to a mixing area. (See Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image4.png
448
823
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Le Chang Joon teaches on/off valves for closing inlets to a mixing chamber. (See Machine Translation – The valve V may be selected from an on-off valve or a flow control valve.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Suemitsu is that it allows for safely obtaining various alloy films. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Le Chang Joon is that it allows for mixing. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kaplan by utilizing the features of Suemitsu and Le Chang Joon because it allows for obtaining various alloy films and for mixing.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (U.S. Pat. 5,282,861) in view of Le Chang Joon (KR 20200092094 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the outlet of the mixing chamber has a flange and is tapered to have reduced cross-sectional area at an exit of the outlet is not discussed.
Regarding claim 7, Le Chang Joon teaches wherein the outlet of the mixing chamber has a flange and is tapered to have reduced cross-sectional area at an exit of the outlet. (See Fig. 1; See machine translation - a second mixing portion 16 and a first neck portion 17 formed therein)
PNG
media_image5.png
652
879
media_image5.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the mixing chamber adjacent the outlet is tapered with a flange and has a first cross-sectional area at an exit of the outlet that is relatively smaller than a second cross-sectional area spaced from the exit.
Regarding claim 9, Le Chang Joon teaches wherein the mixing chamber adjacent the outlet is tapered with a flange and has a first cross-sectional area at an exit of the outlet that is relatively smaller than a second cross-sectional area spaced from the exit. (See Fig. 1; See machine translation - a second mixing portion 16 and a first neck portion 17 formed therein)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Le Chang Joon is that it allows for mixing. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kaplan by utilizing the features of Le Chang Joon is that it allows for mixing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
January 21, 2026