DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7 April 2026.
Applicant’s argument that there is overlap between claims 1 and 9 is not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “114” has been used to designate two different components in FIG. 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Ridder (U.S. Patent 6,746,240).
Regarding claim 1, De Ridder discloses a support sleeve 100 for supporting a process vessel 10/12 comprising a ledge 11 protruding from an outer surface of the process vessel (FIG. 2) and a base surface (bottom of 12) for sealing the process vessel in a furnace 5 for semiconductor processing, the support sleeve comprising:
an interior surface 106 and an exterior surface 104;
a top surface 108 constructed and arranged to engage with and support the process vessel at the ledge;
a bottom surface 102; and
a shoulder (angled portion of 100 at reference arrow for 106 in FIG. 5B) including an intermediate surface (interior surface of angled portion of 100 at reference arrow for 106 in FIG. 5B) disposed between the top surface and the bottom surface, the intermediate surface extending from the interior surface and constructed and arranged to form a portion of a diffusion barrier channel 17/13 between the intermediate surface of the shoulder and the base surface of the process vessel (FIG. 1-5C; Col. 6 ln 54-Col. 7 ln 8, Col. 7 ln 20-52, Col. 8 ln 1-35).
Regarding claim 6, De Ridder discloses a circumferential channel 120 disposed within the support sleeve and in fluid communication with a gas inlet channel 110 (FIG. 4-5C; Col. 7 ln 20-52).
Regarding claim 7, De Ridder discloses a plurality of feed channels 122/124 disposed within the support sleeve, each feed channel having a first end in fluid communication with the circumferential channel and a second end in fluid communication with a gas injection aperture 134 (FIG. 4-5C; Col. 7 ln 53-Col. 8 ln 10).
Regarding claim 8, De Ridder discloses each of the gas injection apertures extend from the second end of the feed channel through the interior surface of the support sleeve (FIG. 4-5C).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Ridder in view of Kluz (U.S. Patent 10,302,224).
Regarding claim 2, De Ridder discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
De Ridder is silent regarding the support sleeve is fabricated from a single piece of material.
However, Kluz teaches making three dimensional valve components having complex passages as a single piece (Claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify De Ridder by making the support sleeve as a single piece of material, as taught by Kluz, since it has been held that use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 3, De Ridder, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
De Ridder further discloses the top surface is an annular top surface extending between the exterior surface of the support sleeve and the interior surface of the support sleeve (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 4, De Ridder, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3.
De Ridder further discloses the shoulder comprises an annular shoulder (FIG. 4-5C).
Regarding claim 5, De Ridder, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 4.
De Ridder further discloses the intermediate surface comprises an annular surface (FIG. 4-5C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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 supervisor, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights