DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 were filed with the amendment dated 03/27/2026.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from examination.
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 1-9 and 14-20) in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/27/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 500 (Figs 5 and 6).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and in perpendicular” (line 2) should be changed to “and is [[in]] perpendicular” to correct a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 8-9 and 14-20 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.
With regard to claim 8, the phrase “wherein the first section”” (line 1) renders the claim indefinite. Claim 8 depends from claim 4. Claim 4 requires that each gas line comprises a first section. Thus, there are plural first sections. It is not clear which “first section” is being referred to in claim 8. For purposes of examination, the claim will be construed as if it is written as: “each first section”.
With regard to claim 8, the phrase “wherein the second section”” (lines 1-2) renders the claim indefinite. Claim 8 depends from claim 4. Claim 4 requires that each gas line comprises a second section. Thus, there are plural second sections. It is not clear which “second section” is being referred to in claim 8. For purposes of examination, the claim will be construed as if it is written as: “the corresponding second section”.
With regard to claim 9, the phrase “wherein second section”” (line 1) renders the claim indefinite. Claim 9 depends from claim 4. Claim 4 requires that each gas line comprises a second section. Thus, there are plural second sections. It is not clear which “second section” is being referred to in claim 9. For purposes of examination, the phrase will be construed as: “each second section”
With regard to claim 14, the phrase “a gas line matrix coupled between the reaction chamber and the interchange assembly,” (line 10) renders the claim indefinite. Claim 14, lines 2-4 already recite a gas line matrix (line 3) coupled between the reaction chamber(line 3) and the interchange assembly (line 4). Thus, it is not clear if an additional gas line matrix is being recited or if line 10 is referring to the gas line matrix of line 3. For purposes of examination, line 10 is being construed as referring to the gas line matrix of line 3. Therefore, the examiner suggests deleting line 10.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first section" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if claim 18 should be changed to state “a first section” or if claim 18 should be amended to depend from claim 15. For purposes of examination, claim 18 will be construed as if it is written as “a first section” in line 1.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second section" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if claim 19 should be changed to state “a second section” or if claim 19 should be amended to depend from claim 15. For purposes of examination, claim 19 will be construed as if it is written as “a second section” in line 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first section" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if claim 20 should be changed to state “a first section” or if claim 20 should be amended to depend from claim 15. For purposes of examination, claim 20 will be construed as if it is written as “a first section” in line 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second section" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if claim 20 should be changed to state “a second section” or if claim 20 should be amended to depend from claim 15. For purposes of examination, claim 20 will be construed as if it is written as “a second section” in lines 1-2.
Dependent claims 15-20 are also rejected for being dependent upon rejected claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112d
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 8 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.
Claim 8 requires that the first section is coupled to the second section with a connector. Claim 8 depends from claim 4. Claim 4 requires that each first section is coupled to a second section with a connector. Thus, claim 8 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 4.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 (as far as they are definite) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,853,485 (“Rudolph”).
With regard to claim 1, Rudolph discloses an apparatus (Fig 15), comprising: a gas line matrix (gas lines from 410 and 430 to 460, see Fig 15); and an interchange assembly (from 406/426 to 410/430, see Fig 15) coupled to the gas line matrix (see Fig 15), (the distinguishing point between the gas line matrix and the interchange assembly is at 410, 430 for each line; NOTE: the application discloses just a point on the gas line that changes between the gas matrix and interchange assembly shown in Fig 1 of the application, thus as broadly claimed, the gas line matrix begins at 410/430 extending toward 460 and interchange assembly is from gas sources 406/426 extending to 410/430; the coupling at 410/430) wherein the interchange assembly comprises a first plurality of gas lines (404, 424), wherein each gas line (404, 424) comprises a first end (first ends at end of gas line at 410, 430) and a second end (second ends at end of gas line 422, 442); wherein: the first ends (at 410, 430) of the first plurality of gas lines (404, 424) aligns on a first axis (horizontal axis, see annotated Fig 15) and the second ends (at 422, 442) of the first plurality of gas lines (404, 424) aligns on a second axis (vertical axis), and the first axis (horizontal axis) is perpendicular to the second axis (vertical axis) (see annotated Fig 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Rudolph discloses the gas line matrix comprises a second plurality of gas lines (one line is from 410/412/and on toward 460; other line is from 430 to 432 on toward 460) and each gas line from the second plurality of gas lines is coupled to one gas line from the first plurality of gas lines (gas matrix line 410/412 is coupled to gas line 404; gas matrix line 430/432 is coupled to gas line 424) (see annotated Fig 15).
With regard to claim 3, Rudolph discloses that each gas line from the first plurality of gas lines (404, 424) comprises at least one right angle (line 404 has a right angle as it turns toward 410; line 424 has a right angle as it turns toward 430, and see Fig 15).
With regard to claim 14, as far as it is definite and understood, Rudolph discloses a system (Fig 15), comprising: a reaction chamber (“reactor volume” 447; col. 13, lines 27-28); a gas line matrix ((gas lines from 410 and 430 to 460, see Fig 15) coupled to the reaction chamber (447) (see Fig 15); an interchange assembly (from 406/426 to 410/430, see Fig 15) coupled to the gas line matrix (Fig 15) (the distinguishing point between the gas line matrix and the interchange assembly is at 410, 430 for each line; NOTE: the application discloses just a point on the gas line that changes between the gas matrix and interchange assembly shown in Fig 1 of the application, thus as broadly claimed, the gas line matrix begins at 410/430 extending toward 460 and interchange assembly is from gas sources 406/426 extending to 410/430; the coupling at 410/430), wherein the interchange assembly comprises a first plurality of gas lines (404, 424), wherein each gas line (404, 424) comprises a first end (first ends at end of gas line at 410, 430) and a second end (second ends at end of gas line 422, 442); wherein the first ends (ends at 410/430) of the first plurality of gas lines (404, 424) aligns on a first axis (horizontal axis) and the second ends (at 422, 442) of the first plurality of gas lines (404/424) aligns on a second axis (vertical axis), and wherein the first axis (horizontal axis) is perpendicular to the second axis (vertical axis) (see annotated Fig 15); [[a]] the gas line matrix ((gas lines from 410 and 430 to 460, see Fig 15) coupled between the reaction chamber (447) and the interchange assembly (see annotated Fig 15), wherein the gas line matrix comprises a second plurality of gas lines (one line from 410 toward 412 and on toward 460; another gas line from 430 toward 432 and on toward 460) and each gas line from the second plurality of gas lines is coupled to one gas line from the first plurality of gas lines (2nd gas line 410/412 coupled to 1st gas line 404; and 2nd gas line 430/432 coupled to 1st gas line 424; see Fig 15); and a plurality of vessels coupled to the interchange assembly (vessel is the source for gas line 404 – col 12, line 41-42; “the first reactant gas as indicated by arrow 406”; another vessel is the source for gas line 424 – col. 13, lines 7-8: “second main gas supply line 424 for supplying a second reactant gas as indicated by arrow 426”) (a “vessel” is not shown but it is inherent that a container or vessel is needed in order to supply each of the first and second reactant gases).
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.
Claims 4-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 5,853,485 (“Rudolph”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0023500 (“Reese”).
With regard to claim 4, Rudolph discloses that each gas line (404, 424) from the first plurality of gas lines comprises a first section (vertical section of 404; vertical section of 424) coupled to a second section (horizontal section of 404, horizontal section of 424), and the first section (vertical sections 404, 424) comprising the first end (at 410, at 430) and the second section (horizontal sections 404, 424) comprising the second end (at ends 422, 442) (see annotated Fig 15).
Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the first section is coupled to the second section with a connector.
Reese discloses a gas line system (see Fig 2) and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the gas lines to be connected in sections via a connector (flanged coupling shown, but not labeled in Fig 2, see annotated Fig 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
848
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable connection mechanism, such as connectors as taught by Reese, in place of the connection mechanism between sections of the gas lines of Rudolph since the connections are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 5, Rudolph discloses that the first section (vertical sections of 404, 424) is in parallel with the second axis (vertical axis) and is perpendicular to the first axis (horizontal axis) (see annotated Fig 15).
With regard to claim 6, Rudolph discloses that the second section (horizontal sections of 404, 424) is in parallel with the first axis (horizontal axis) and is perpendicular to the second axis (vertical axis) (see annotated Fig 15).
With regard to claim 7, Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the first section is Z-shaped and the second section is L-shaped.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the first section Z-shaped or the second section L-shaped solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the first and second sections would perform equally well with any other suitable shape (straight, curved, C shaped, etc.).
Reese discloses gas flow lines with different shapes. A Z-shaped section is shown by the dotted line in annotated Fig 2, and a L-shaped section is shown by the dashed line in annotated Fig. 2.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first section of Rudolph be Z-shaped and the second section be L-shaped, such as taught by Reese, because the shapes of each section does not appear to provide any unexpected results. The shapes of each section could be selected based on a desired fit amongst other elements in the system.
With regard to claim 8, Rudolph discloses that each first section (vertical sections of 404, 424) is coupled to a corresponding second section (horizontal sections of 404, 424).
Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the first section is coupled to the second section with a connector.
Reese discloses a gas line system (see Fig 2) and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the gas lines to be connected in sections via a connector (flanged coupling shown, but not labeled in Fig 2, see annotated Fig 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable connection mechanism, such as connectors as taught by Reese, in place of the connection mechanism between sections of the gas lines of Rudolph since the connections are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 9, Rudolph discloses second section has a length that is different from the other second sections (as shown in annotated Fig 15, the second section (horizontal section) of 424 is longer than the second section (horizontal section) of 404. (see Fig 15).
With regard to claim 15, Rudolph discloses that each gas line (404, 424) from the first plurality of gas lines comprises a first section (vertical section of 404; vertical section of 424) coupled to a second section (horizontal section of 404, horizontal section of 424), and the first section (vertical sections 404, 424) comprising the first end (at 410, at 430) and the second section (horizontal sections 404, 424) comprising the second end (at ends 422, 442) (see annotated Fig 15).
Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the first section is coupled to the second section with a connector.
Reese discloses a gas line system (see Fig 2) and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the gas lines to be connected in sections via a connector (flanged coupling shown, but not labeled in Fig 2, see annotated Fig 2 of Reese).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable connection mechanism, such as connectors as taught by Reese, in place of the connection mechanism between sections of the gas lines of Rudolph since the connections are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 16, Rudolph discloses that the first section (vertical sections of 404, 424) is in parallel with the second axis (vertical axis) and is perpendicular to the first axis (horizontal axis) (see annotated Fig 15); and that the second section (horizontal sections of 404, 424) is in parallel with the first axis (horizontal axis) and is perpendicular to the second axis (vertical axis) (see annotated Fig 15).
With regard to claim 17, Rudolph discloses that each second section has a length that is different from the other second sections (as shown in annotated Fig 15, the second section (horizontal section) of 424 is longer than the second section (horizontal section) of 404. (see Fig 15).
With regard to claim 18, Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the first section is Z-shaped.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the first section Z-shaped solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the first section would perform equally well with any other suitable shape (straight, curved, C shaped, etc.).
Reese discloses gas flow lines with different shapes. A Z-shaped section is shown by the dotted line in annotated Fig 2.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first section of Rudolph be Z-shaped, such as taught by Reese, because the shape of the first section does not appear to provide any unexpected results. The shape of the first section could be selected based on a desired fit amongst other elements in the system.
With regard to claim 19, Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the second section is L-shaped.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the second section L-shaped solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the second section would perform equally well with any other suitable shape (straight, curved, C shaped, etc.).
Reese discloses gas flow lines with different shapes. A L-shaped section is shown by the dashed line in annotated Fig. 2.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second section of Rudolph be L-shaped, such as taught by Reese, because the shape of the second section does not appear to provide any unexpected results. The shape of the second section could be selected based on a desired fit amongst other elements in the system.
With regard to claim 20, as far as it is definite and understood, Rudolph discloses that a first section (vertical section of 404) is coupled to a second section (horizontal section of 404), the first section (vertical section of 404) is coupled to the gas matrix (at joint with 410), and the second section (horizontal section of 404) is coupled to a vessel (source of 406) from the plurality of vessels (vessel is the source for gas line 404 – col 12, line 41-42; “the first reactant gas as indicated by arrow 406”; another vessel is the source for gas line 424 – col. 13, lines 7-8: “second main gas supply line 424 for supplying a second reactant gas as indicated by arrow 426”) (a “vessel” is not shown but it is inherent that a container or vessel is needed in order to supply each of the first and second reactant gases).
Rudolph discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the first section is coupled to the second section with a connector, the first section is coupled to the gas matrix with a second connector, and that the second section is coupled to the vessel with a third connector.
Reese discloses a gas line system (see Fig 2) and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the gas lines to be connected in sections or to components via a connector (flanged coupling shown, but not labeled in Fig 2, see annotated Fig 2 of Reese).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable connection mechanism, such as first, second, third connectors as taught by Reese, in place of the connection mechanism between sections of the gas lines, between the section and gas matrix, and between the second section and vessel of Rudolph since the connections are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0090352 (“Sotoku”) discloses an apparatus with an interchange assembly for gas lines. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0292892 (“Hirano”) discloses a substrate processing apparatus with an interchange assembly for gas lines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights