DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ submission, filed on 07/30/2026, in response to claims 1-6 rejection from the non-final office action (04/30/2028), by amending claims 1 and 3-4 is entered and will be addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (US 20100186667, hereafter ‘667), in view of Dankert (US 20030042338, previously cited, hereafter ‘338)
‘667 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: VERTICAL HEAT PROCESSING APPARATUS (title, includes the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus, comprising”):
The reaction tube 2 has a double-tube structure formed of an outer tube 21 and an inner tube 22 disposed therein (Fig. 1, [0027], 3rd sentence), The lower ends of the outer tube 21 and inner tube 22 are supported by a cylindrical manifold 45 … The lower end opening (load port) of the manifold 45 is selectively closed by a lid 46 ([0029], the inner tube 22 plus the manifold 45 and the lid 46 reads into the claimed “a first reaction tube of a vertical shape”);
The precursor injector 42 and oxidizing gas injector 43 are disposed inside the reaction tube 2, as shown in FIG. 1 ([0036], includes the claimed “and a gas injector configured to supply a gas to an interior of the first reaction tube, wherein the gas injector has a first tubular portion extending horizontally to pass through a sidewall of the first reaction tube”),
The bottom of the manifold 45, contacting the horizontal portion of the injector 42, is protruding toward a center of the first reaction tube (reads into the claimed “wherein the first reaction tube has a support portion protruding toward the center of the first reaction tube below the first tubular portion, and wherein the support portion is in contact with the gas injector to support the gas injector”).
‘667 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: and a first protrusion protruding toward a center of the first reaction tube and downward from the first tubular portion,
(wherein the support portion is in contact with) the first protrusion of (the gas injector to support) the first protrusion of (the gas injector).
Claim 4: wherein the first tubular portion has a protrusion protruding radially outward from an outer wall surface of the first tubular portion, and
wherein the first reaction tube includes a restrictor which is brought into contact with the protrusion to restrict a rotation of the gas injector around a tube axis of the first tubular portion.
‘388 is an analogous art in the field of Fluid Spray System (title), a spray-coating material, comprising a spray nozzle (2) detachably affixed by a rapid rotational connection assembly (22, 24, 26, 28, 30) to a main body (4) (abstract), at least one rearward-facing locking surface behind which the minimum of one locking protrusion may be rotated when the spray nozzle is fully axially inserted into said female connection element in order to lock the spray nozzle in said axial position ([0010], last sentence, similar to restricting the rotation by the second protrusion 21d ([0034] of instant application, 3rd sentence, the examiner considers the first protrusion 21c has the same function). ‘338 teaches that The spray nozzle 2 is fitted with at least one, preferably two radial locking protrusions 22 and 24 consisting of inserted pins or preferably being integral with the material of the spray nozzle 2 and projecting radially from diametrically opposite sides of the male connection element 19 ([0020], 2nd last sentence), At the wall of the female connection element 18, the main body 4 comprises two diametrically opposite longitudinal slots 26 and 28 transversely communicating with an inner circumferential channel 30 ([0021], i.e. complementary to protrusions 22 and 24).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the protrusions 22 and 24 and complementary slots 26, 28 of ‘338, between the horizontal portion of the injector 42 and the bottom of the manifold 45 of ‘667, for the purpose of rapid rotational connection assembly, as taught by ‘338.
‘667 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 3: Fig. 1 shows the claimed “wherein the support portion is in surface contact with the gas injector”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘667 and ‘338, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Morita et al. (US 20090197409, hereafter ‘409).
‘667 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 2: the vertical portion of the gas injector 42 is the claimed “wherein the gas injector has a second tubular portion extending vertically along an inner wall surface of the first reaction tube in the interior of the first reaction tube”.
The combination of ‘667 and ‘338 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 2: and wherein the support portion is in contact with the gas injector at a position overlapping the second tubular portion in a plan view from above.
‘409 is analogous art in the field of SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS (title), a batch type vertical hot-wall chemical vapor deposition (CVD) apparatus ([0006]), A gas supply pipe 26 is connected to the gas supply unit 25 (Fig. 1, [0040]). ‘409 teaches that as shown in FIG. 2, the gas supply unit 25 is formed at the manifold 50 by a penetration hole 50d formed from an outer wall 50b to an inner wall 50c of the protrusion part 50a, and a nozzle 26A (refer to FIG. 1 or FIG. 3) inserted through the penetration hole 50d ([0073], Fig. 2 shows the inner wall 50c supports the nozzle 26 “at a position overlapping the second tubular portion in a plan view from above”.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have extended the protrusion of the manifold 45 to below the vertical portion of the gas injector 42 of ‘667, as taught by ‘409, for its suitability for supporting nozzle with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘667 and ‘338, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Pandelisev (US 20040173948, hereafter ‘948).
‘667 also teaches some limitations of:
Claim 5: The reaction tube 2 has a double-tube structure formed of an outer tube 21 and an inner tube 22 disposed therein ([0027], 3rd sentence, includes the claimed “ further comprising: a second reaction tube provided around the first reaction tube”).
‘667 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 5: wherein the second reaction tube is configured to support the first reaction tube below the first tubular portion.
First of all, extending the outer tube 21 below the inner tube 22 is merely a re-arrangement of part.
Furthermore, ‘948 is analogous art in the field of Apparatus For Silicon Boat (title), vertical wafer processing furnaces and deposition chambers ([0006]). ‘948 teaches that In FIG. 15, wafer processing apparatus 120 consists of a process chamber 121, wafer handling tools, wafer boat handling tools 123, 124, consisting of one or more processing chambers 127, 128, shields 125 ([0213], shield 125 corresponds to the outer tube and the chamber 127 corresponds to the inner tube of ‘667, process gas nozzle passes through the inner tube, and the outer tube/shield 125 supports the inner tube 127 from below).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the double tube arrangement of ‘948 as the vertical reactor of ‘667. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘667, ‘338, and ‘409, as being applied to claim 2 rejection above, further in view of ‘948.
For substantially the same reason as claim 5 rejection above, claim 6 is rejected over ‘667,’338, ‘409, and ‘948.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2016176584, Applicants submitted IDS, teaches many protrusions 1051 (Fig. 5). US 20200102652 is cited for worm 323 (thread/protrusion) that support injector 110 (Fig. 5A).
US 3589388 is cited for lock pin 34 of pipe 48 that prevents rotation (Fig. 1).
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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.
/KEATH T CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights