DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 12/19/2025.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Figs. 3-8) in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant asserts claims 16-18, 20-28, and 30 read upon the elected invention, but the Examiner disagrees.
After further consideration, claim 23 does not appear to read on the elected invention. The claim recites the “constant width area (F)”, drawn to an alternate embodiment, and does not have an alternative (using “or”) reading of the claim that encompasses the elected invention.
If Applicant believes this to be in error, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner prior to filing a response with claim amendments.
The Examiner amends the assertion in the Restriction Requirement such that claim 23 is not generic.
Claims 19, 23, and 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are cancelled.
Claims 16-30 are pending.
Claims 19, 23, and 29 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Applicant describes Fig. 2 beginning on pg. 1, lines 25 of the as-filed Specification as “prior art”.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 27 be found allowable, claim 30 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The Examiner notes the claims appear to be identical to each other except for the preamble, which appears to be only due to a typographical error.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to based upon its dependency: the claim should depend from claim 19 for proper antecedent basis. The appropriate status identifier in a subsequent response should be: (Withdrawn – Currently Amended) in light of the claim’s withdrawal herein.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble should read “[[The]] An atomic layer deposition reactor comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21, 27-28, and 30 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.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation regarding “the constant width area (F)” lacks proper antecedent basis. Particularly, “a constant width area (F)” is recited in claim 19, withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s election, but is not part of the dependency structure of claim 21. In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation as reading: “a constant width area (F)”.
Regarding claims 27 and 30, line 8 of each claim should read: “[[the]] a second side wall” for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is rejected at least based upon its dependency.
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.
Claims 16-18, 20-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US Pub. 2016/0060757).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches an atomic layer deposition reaction chamber (Fig. 3, entirety), the reaction chamber comprises: a first end (Fig. 3, end near #210), a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 3, end near #310), and a longitudinal central axis (X) extending between the first end and the second end and a length (L) between the first end and the second end in the direction of the longitudinal central axis (X) (see Fig. 3); a first side wall extending between the first end and the second end, and a second side wall opposite the first side wall and extending between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 3, walls of housing #400), the first side wall and the second side wall defining width (W) of the reaction chamber between the first end and the second end, and the reaction chamber having a width central axis (Y) extending between the first side wall and the second side wall and perpendicularly to the longitudinal central axis (X) (see Fig. 3); a gas inlet for supplying gases into the reaction chamber ([0038] and Fig. 3, gas supply tube #210); and a gas outlet for discharging gases from the reaction chamber ([0040] and Fig. 3, gas discharge tube #310), the gas inlet and the gas outlet are provided spaced apart along the longitudinal central axis (X) of the reaction chamber (see Fig. 3), wherein: the reaction chamber having an increasing width (W) along the longitudinal central axis (X) in the direction from the first end towards the width central axis (Y) (see Fig. 3); the reaction chamber having a decreasing width (W) along the longitudinal central axis (X) in the direction from the width central axis (Y) towards the second end (see Fig. 3); and the length (L) of the reaction chamber is greater than the width (W) of the reaction chamber along the width central axis (Y) (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 17-18, Lee teaches a nearly identical apparatus as the claimed invention (see Lee Fig. 3 and instant Fig. 3), thus teaches the added limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the claimed substrate holder ([0044] and Fig. 3, substrate loader #500 with supports #530 for substrates #40).
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches wherein the substrate holder is positioned as claimed (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches the supply zone (Fig. 3, from #210 to #40) and discharge zone (Fig. 3, from #40 to #310).
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches wherein the substrate holder is positioned as claimed (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 25, Lee teaches the added limitations of the claim ([0044] and Fig. 3, substrates #40).
Regarding claim 26, Lee teaches the claimed walls and inlet locations (see Figs. 3 and 9, top wall with ribs #122, bottom wall and sidewalls shown in Fig. 3; inlet #210 and outlet #310 provided to the bottom wall).
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.
Claims 27-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2016/0060757) in view of Jost (US Pub. 2015/0010718).
Regarding claims 27 and 30, Lee teaches an atomic layer deposition reaction chamber (Fig. 3, entirety), the reaction chamber comprises: a first end (Fig. 3, end near #210), a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 3, end near #310), and a longitudinal central axis (X) extending between the first end and the second end and a length (L) between the first end and the second end in the direction of the longitudinal central axis (X) (see Fig. 3); a first side wall extending between the first end and the second end, and a second side wall opposite the first side wall and extending between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 3, walls of housing #400), the first side wall and the second side wall defining width (W) of the reaction chamber between the first end and the second end, and the reaction chamber having a width central axis (Y) extending between the first side wall and the second side wall and perpendicularly to the longitudinal central axis (X) (see Fig. 3); a gas inlet for supplying gases into the reaction chamber ([0038] and Fig. 3, gas supply tube #210); and a gas outlet for discharging gases from the reaction chamber ([0040] and Fig. 3, gas discharge tube #310), the gas inlet and the gas outlet are provided spaced apart along the longitudinal central axis (X) of the reaction chamber (see Fig. 3), wherein: the reaction chamber having an increasing width (W) along the longitudinal central axis (X) in the direction from the first end towards the width central axis (Y) (see Fig. 3); the reaction chamber having a decreasing width (W) along the longitudinal central axis (X) in the direction from the width central axis (Y) towards the second end (see Fig. 3); and the length (L) of the reaction chamber is greater than the width (W) of the reaction chamber along the width central axis (Y) (see Fig. 3).
Lee does not teach a vacuum chamber, wherein the reaction chamber is arranged inside the vacuum chamber.
However, Jost teaches arranging a reaction chamber inside a vacuum chamber (Jost – Fig. 2, any of chambers #70-72 inside #76).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the reaction chamber of Lee inside a vacuum chamber since Jost teaches such an arrangement prevents outward leaking of corrosive process gas (Jost – [0013], [0016]).
Regarding claim 28, Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Jost teaches the at least one gas inlet connection (Jost – [0010]: gas inlets to inner reactors #70-72 not shown, but must be arranged in a similar manner as #86 as the reactors are fully contained within #76) and gas outlet connection (Jost – [0010] and Fig. 2, pumping lines #86).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the reaction chamber of Lee inside a vacuum chamber since Jost teaches such an arrangement prevents outward leaking of corrosive process gas (Jost – [0013], [0016]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smargiassi (US 8,282,768) teaches a processing chamber of similar design (Fig. 3). Jagawa (US 2006/0054088) teaches an apparatus with wider central area (Fig. 5), as does Canizares (US 2015/0128860, Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (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 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718