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 Species I in the reply filed on May 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-13 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawano (U.S. 2004/0221808).
Referring Figure 1-2 and paragraphs [0045]-[0062], Kawano discloses a reaction chamber, comprising: a lower chamber 3 having an interior space defined by a bottom surface and horizontally-oriented sidewalls that extend upwards from the bottom surface (par.[0046]); a lid 2 opposite from the bottom surface and in direct contact with the sidewalls (par.[0045]), wherein the lid comprises an opening; a spacer plate 7, 38, comprising: a first end connected to the lid; and a second end extending towards the opening of the lid, wherein the second end comprises a horizontally-oriented section 33 and a ridge 34 extending downward from the horizontally-oriented section (Figs. 3B-3C, pars.[0063]-[0065]); a susceptor 4 (par.[0046]), comprising: a primary region comprising a heating element (par.[0046]); and an outer edge extending away from the primary region, wherein the outer edge comprises a groove 14 that is sized to mate with the ridge (par.[0046]); and a seal 8, 20 positioned within the groove (par.[0055]).
With respect to claim 4, the reaction chamber of Kawano further includes wherein the seal comprises an e-ring 8 formed from a metal material (Figs. 1-2 and 4, par.[0056]).
With respect to claim 5, the reaction chamber of Kawano further includes wherein the seal 30 contacts the ridge 34 of the spacer plate 38 (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 6, the reaction chamber of Kawano further includes wherein the groove 14 and the ridge 38 have complementary shapes (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 14, as stated above, referring Figure 1-2 and paragraphs [0045]-[0062], Kawano discloses a reaction chamber, comprising: a lower chamber 3 having an interior space defined by a bottom surface and horizontally-oriented sidewalls that extend upwards from the bottom surface; a lid 2 opposite from the bottom surface and in direct contact with the sidewalls, wherein the lid comprises an opening; a spacer plate 7, 38 comprising: a first end connected to the lid; and a second end extending towards the opening of the lid, wherein the second end comprises a horizontally-oriented section 33 and a first ridge 34 extending downward from the horizontally-oriented section; a susceptor, comprising: a primary region comprising a heating element and having a first height; and an outer edge, having a second height that is less than the first height, extending away from the primary region, and an e-ring seal 8, 20 disposed between the first ridge and the outer edge.
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.
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) 2-3 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 2004/0221808) in view of Halpin et al. (U.S. 2013/0129577) and Hou (U.S. 2017/0044660).
The teachings of Kawano have been discussed above.
Kawano fail to teach wherein the spacer plate is connected to the lid with a fastener formed from a non-conducting material.
With respect to claim 2 and 19, referring to Figures 7-8, 10, 12, 15 and paragraph [0036], Halpin et al. teach a reaction chamber wherein the spacer plate 114 is connected to the lid 26 with a fastener 110 since it is a conventionally known means to securely mate two chamber components. Hou teaches a reaction chamber wherein it is conventionally known in the art for a fastener to be formed from a non-conducting material since it is a nonreactive material used in plasma processing chambers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Kawano with wherein the spacer plate is connected to the lid with a fastener formed from a non-conducting material as taught by Halpin et al. and Hou since it is a conventionally known means to securely mate two chamber components that is nonreactive in a plasma processing chamber. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claims 3 and 20, the reaction chamber of Kawano in view of Halpin et al. and Hou further comprising an electrical insulator disposed between the spacer plate and the lid (Note. Hou teaches that it is conventionally known to place an electrical insulator between components to provide electrical insulation between components (pars.[0027]-[0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Kawano with an electrical insulator disposed between the spacer plate and the lid as taught by Hou in order to provide electrical insulation between the spacer plate and the lid).
With respect to claim 17, the reaction chamber of Kawano in view of Halpin et al. and Hou further includes wherein the susceptor 28 further comprises a second ridge 102 extending upwards from the outer edge, and wherein the groove is formed by a vertical sidewall of the primary region and the second ridge (Halpin et al.-Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 18, the reaction chamber of Kawano in view of Halpin et al. and Hou further includes wherein the groove 44 and the first ridge 42 have complementary shapes Halpin et al.-Fig. 6).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-6, 14, and 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-18, and 21-22 of copending Application No. 17/895370 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4-18, and 21-22 contain or render obvious all the limitations of the instant claims 1, 4-6, 14, and 17-18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fitzgerald et al.’477, Halpin et al.’159, Fitzgerald’843 teach chamber sealing with spacer and susceptor. Kobayashi et al.’825, Savandaiah et al.’107, Rosenstein et al.’795 teach using a fastener to mate chamber components. Yajima teach that fasteners are made from non-conducting materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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 at 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights