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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are related as a process and an apparatus for said process which is a combination of claim categories that is expressly permitted. This is not found persuasive because the groups of inventions do not relate to a single general inventive concept because they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. The groups lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an insert which can contact a substrate to form a plurality of spaces for determining penetration depths of thin film process precursors, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of McBriarty et al. (US 2021/0183674), as discussed in the previous action, or in view of Puurunen et al. (US 2019/0120620), as discussed below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4 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 4, "preferably" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following “preferably” are intended to be required or optional. For the purposes of examination, the limitations following “preferably” will be considered to be optional.
The term “high aspect ratio” in claim 4 line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high aspect ratio” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, any aspect ratio will be considered to be a “high aspect ratio”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puurunen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0120620, hereafter Puurunen ‘620).
Claim 1: Puurunen ‘620 teaches a method for determining penetration depth of a coating precursor (abstract, Fig. 9, [0004]) comprising:
providing an insert (102) (Fig. 9, abstract, [0062]);
arranging the insert to contact a substrate (100) to form a plurality of spaces (104) in between the insert and the substrate (Fig. 9, abstract, [0062]); and
feeding the precursor into the formed space to determine penetration depth of the precursor in the space (Fig. 9, abstract, [0062]).
Claim 3: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that feeding the precursor can comprise using an atomic layer deposition process ([0062]).
Claim 4: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that the formed spaces are elongated spaces which are open on one end, closed at another end, and confined by the insert along the width (Fig. 9).
Claim 5: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that the insert can comprise grooves (104) which form the spaces between the insert and substrate when the insert and substrate are in contact (Fig. 9).
Claim 7: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that the spaces are separated from each other by a central opening (110) (Fig. 9, [0062]), and, therefore, the precursor would be required to flow through the central opening and not from one space directly into another.
Claim 8: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that the inset can be symmetrical around its center (Fig. 8, [0055]).
Claim 9: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that the insert can comprise an aperture (110) in the center of the insert (Figs. 8-9, [0055], [0062]), where the aperture is connected to the spaces and allows precursor to feed into the spaces through the aperture (Fig. 9, [0062]).
Claim 10: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that the precursor diffuses through the space from a central opening (Fig. 9, [0062]).
Claim 11: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that the insert and substrate can be horizontally oriented with the insert resting on top of the substrate (Fig. 9).
Claim 12: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that determining the penetration depth of the precursor is by measuring a thin film coating (900) formed on the substrate (Fig. 9, abstract, [0062]).
Claim 13: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that the method can comprise obtaining results from the measurements of the thin film coating and calibrating processes based on the results ([0003], [0063]).
Claim 14: Puurunen ‘620 teaches that determining the penetration depth comprises analyzing measurement data using a computer and indicating the results of the analysis ([0063]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puurunen et al. ‘620 as applied to claim 1 above.
Puurunen ‘620 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 6, Puurunen ‘620 does not explicitly teach that the spaces have varying widths or varying heights.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by Puurunen ‘620 only in the shapes of the spaces, and it has been held that changes in shape are obvious in the absence of evidence indicating that said shape provides new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puurunen et al. ‘620 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McBriarty et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0183674, hereafter McBriarty ‘674).
Puurunen ‘620 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Puurunen ‘620 further teaches that feeding the precursor to the space between the insert and substrate can comprise atomic layer deposition ([0062]).
With respect to claim 2, Puurunen ‘620 does not explicitly teach that feeding the precursor is in a reaction chamber housing the insert and substrate.
McBriarty ‘674 teaches a method for determining penetration depth of a coating precursor (abstract, Fig. 3, [0025]) comprising, providing an insert (306) (Fig. 3, [0023]), arranging the insert to contact a substrate (302) to form a plurality of spaces between the insert and substrate (Fig. 3, [0023]), and feeding a precursor (308) into the formed spaces (Fig. 3, [0024]) where feeding the precursor can comprise atomic layer deposition ([0018], claim 12). McBriarty ‘674 teaches that the atomic layer deposition can be performed in a reaction chamber housing the insert and substrate ([0018], [0024]). Both McBriarty ‘674 and Puurunen ‘620 teach methods for determining penetration depth of a coating precursor (‘620, abstract, Fig. 9, [0004]; ‘674, abstract, Fig. 3, [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the atomic layer deposition in the method taught by Puurunen ‘620 in a reaction chamber housing the insert and substrate as taught by McBriarty ‘674 because it would have been a combination of prior art elements that would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713