Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/239,176

SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR A REACTION CHAMBER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 29, 2023
Examiner
KENDALL, BENJAMIN R
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Asm Ip Holding B V
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allow Rate
150 granted / 467 resolved
-35.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
515
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
62.5%
+22.5% vs TC avg
§102
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 467 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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. 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. Claim 5 is 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. Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 recites the limitation "the spacer" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean "the spacer plate". The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 recites “wherein the flow control ring is in direct contact with the spacer”. However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, already sets forth “a flow control ring positioned in direct contact with the spacer plate” [line 10]. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbaas (US 2019/0051544) in view of Tan et al (US 2018/0233326). Regarding claim 1: Verbaas teaches a reaction chamber (reactor, 400) [fig 4 & 0039], comprising: an interior space (interior of 400) defined by a sidewall (wall, 430), a bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) coupled to the sidewall (430), and a showerhead (showerhead, 401) arranged opposite the bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) and coupled to the sidewall (430), wherein the sidewall (430) comprises an interior-facing surface (interior surface of 430) that forms a circular shape having a first circumference (see fig 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0045]; a spacer plate (plate supporting 435) integrated in the sidewall (430), and comprising a lip (interior extending portion of plate supporting 435) that extends outwards from the sidewall and into the interior space (interior of 400), and extends along the entire first circumference of the interior-facing surface of the sidewall (see fig 4 and 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0052]; and a flow control ring (flow control ring, 435) positioned in direct contact with the spacer plate (plate supporting 435), wherein the flow control ring (435) extends along an entire outer edge of the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) [fig 4 & 0052]. Verbaas does not specifically disclose a spacer plate comprising a heating element. Tan teaches a spacer plate (spacer, 212) comprising a heating element (heating element, 216) [fig 1-2C & 0029]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spacer plate of Verbaas to comprise a heating element, as in Tan, to maintain the sidewall of the spacer at an optimal thermal condition thereby resulting in minimizing stress and peel off of depositions, improving plasma flow contours, and enhancing particle performance [Tan – 0022]. Regarding claim 2: Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) is embedded within the spacer plate (embedded in the groove 214 of 212) [Tan – fig 1-2C & 0029]. Regarding claims 3-4: Verbaas teaches the flow control ring (435) extends outwards from the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) and into the interior space (interior of 400) [fig 4 & 0052]; and wherein the flow control ring (435) has a circumference that is less than (see fig 4) the circumference of the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) [fig 4 & 0052]. Regarding claim 5: Verbaas teaches the flow control ring (435) is in direct contact with the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) [fig 4 & 0052]. Regarding claim 6: Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) comprises a resistive heating element (resistor coil) [Tan - fig 1-2C & 0049]. Regarding claim 7: Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) is a single element (coil) that extends along the entire circumference of the spacer plate (212) [Tan - fig 1, 2A-2C & 0049]. Regarding claim 10: Verbaas teaches a reaction chamber (reactor, 400) [fig 4 & 0039], comprising: an interior space (interior of 400) defined by a sidewall (wall, 430), a bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) coupled to the sidewall (430), and a showerhead (showerhead, 401) arranged opposite the bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) and coupled to the sidewall (430), wherein the sidewall (430) comprises an interior-facing surface (interior surface of 430) that forms a circular shape having a first circumference (see fig 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0045]; a spacer plate (plate supporting 435) extending from the interior-facing surface of the sidewall (interior surface of 430) into the interior space (interior of 400) and having a second circumference (see fig 4 and 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0052]; and a flow control ring (flow control ring, 435) positioned in direct contact with the spacer plate (plate supporting 435), wherein the flow control ring (435) extends along an entire outer edge of the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) and has a third circumference that is less than the second circumference (circumference of 435 is less than the circumference of the plate supporting 435) [fig 4 & 0052]. Verbaas does not specifically disclose a heating element embedded within the spacer plate. Tan teaches a heating element (heating element, 216) embedded within the spacer plate (embedded in the groove 214 of 212) [fig 1-2C & 0029]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spacer plate of Verbaas to comprise a heating element embedded therein, as in Tan, to maintain the sidewall of the spacer at an optimal thermal condition thereby resulting in minimizing stress and peel off of depositions, improving plasma flow contours, and enhancing particle performance [Tan – 0022]. Regarding claim 11: Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) is a single element (coil) that extends along the entire circumference of the spacer plate (212) [Tan - fig 1, 2A-2C & 0049]. Regarding claim 14: Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) comprises a resistive heating element (resistor coil) [Tan - fig 1-2C & 0049]. Regarding claim 15: Verbaas teaches a system (apparatus depicted in figure 4) [fig 4 & 0039], comprising: a reaction chamber (reactor, 400) comprising an interior space (interior of 400) defined by: a sidewall (wall, 430) comprising an interior-facing surface (interior surface of 430) that forms a circular shape having a first circumference (see fig 15) [fig 4, 15 & 0039]; a bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) coupled to the sidewall (430) [fig 4 & 0039]; and a showerhead (showerhead, 401) arranged opposite the bottom panel (bottom wall of 400) and coupled to the sidewall (430) [fig 4 & 0045]; a spacer plate (plate supporting 435) extending from the interior-facing surface of the sidewall (interior surface of 430) into the interior space (interior of 400), wherein the spacer plate (plate supporting 435) extends along the entire first circumference of the interior-facing surface of the sidewall (interior surface of 430) [fig 4, 15 & 0052]; a flow control ring (flow control ring, 435) positioned in direct contact with the spacer plate (plate supporting 435), wherein the flow control ring (435) extends from an outer edge of the spacer plate into the interior space and has a second circumference (see fig 4) [fig 4 & 0052]; a susceptor (base, 420) disposed in the interior space (interior of 400) and adjacent to the flow control ring (435), the susceptor (420) comprising a top surface (top surface of 420) [fig 4 & 0043]; and a cap (cap, 422) disposed on and entirely covering the top surface of the susceptor (top surface of 420), wherein the cap (422) is adjacent to and spaced apart from the flow control ring (435) [fig 4 & 0043-0044]. Verbaas does not specifically disclose a heating element embedded within the spacer plate. Tan teaches a heating element (heating element, 216) embedded within the spacer plate (embedded in the groove 214 of 212) [fig 1-2C & 0029]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spacer plate of Verbaas to comprise a heating element embedded therein, as in Tan, to maintain the sidewall of the spacer at an optimal thermal condition thereby resulting in minimizing stress and peel off of depositions, improving plasma flow contours, and enhancing particle performance [Tan – 0022]. Regarding claim 16: Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) is a single element (coil) that extends along the entire first circumference (see fig 2A-2C) [Tan - fig 1, 2A-2C & 0049]. Regarding claim 19: Verbaas teaches the second circumference of the flow control ring is less than the first circumference of the sidewall (circumference of 435 is less than the circumference of 430) [fig 4 & 0052]. Regarding claim 20: Modified Verbaas teaches the heating element (216) comprises a resistive heating element (resistor coil) [Tan - fig 1-2C & 0049]. Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbaas (US 2019/0051544) in view of Tan et al (US 2018/0233326) as applied to claims 1-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Fodor et al (US 8,444,926). The limitations of claims 1-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 19-20 have been set forth above. Regarding claims 8-9: Modified Verbaas does not specifically disclose the heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements, wherein the heating elements are spaced equidistant from each other; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements. Fodor teaches a heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements (plurality of heating elements, 402), wherein the heating elements (402) are spaced equidistant from each other (see fig 4A) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60]; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements (each heating element 402 may be individually controlled) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heating element of modified Verbaas to comprise a plurality of heating elements, as in Fodor, to produce a predetermined temperature profile to compensate for areas of increased heat transfer [Fodor - col 5, lines 44-60]. Regarding claims 12-13: Modified Verbaas does not specifically disclose the heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements, wherein the heating elements are spaced equidistant from each other; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements. Fodor teaches a heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements (plurality of heating elements, 402), wherein the heating elements (402) are spaced equidistant from each other (see fig 4A) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60]; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements (each heating element 402 may be individually controlled) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heating element of modified Verbaas to comprise a plurality of heating elements, as in Fodor, to produce a predetermined temperature profile to compensate for areas of increased heat transfer [Fodor - col 5, lines 44-60]. Regarding claims 17-18: Modified Verbaas does not specifically disclose the heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements, wherein the heating elements are spaced equidistant from each other; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements. Fodor teaches a heating element comprises a plurality of heating elements (plurality of heating elements, 402), wherein the heating elements (402) are spaced equidistant from each other (see fig 4A) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60]; and wherein each heating element is configured to be independently controlled relative to the other heating elements (each heating element 402 may be individually controlled) [fig 4A-4B & col 5, lines 44-60]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heating element of modified Verbaas to comprise a plurality of heating elements, as in Fodor, to produce a predetermined temperature profile to compensate for areas of increased heat transfer [Fodor - col 5, lines 44-60]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST. 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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. /Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577654
MOLECULAR BEAM EPITAXY THIN FILM GROWTH APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573599
PLASMA PROCESSING DEVICE AND PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568800
CHEMICAL-DOSE SUBSTRATE DEPOSITION MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562354
PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS AND TEMPERATURE CONTROLLING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557584
SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING STATION AND SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESS USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
32%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+23.8%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 467 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month