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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 14, and 20-25 are pending
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 13, and 15-19 have been cancelled
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 14, 21-23, and 25 have been amended
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 12, 14, and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20010042799) in view of Foster et al. (US 5273588), Chandrasekharan (US 20160340782), Lee et al. (US 20080095953), and Arami et al. (US 5958140), with Tam et al. (US 20090095221), Wang et al. (US 20060219361), and Han et al. (US 20060219362) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Kim teaches a gas distribution plate (lower plate 15b), openings provided in a central region of the gas distribution plate, referred to as central openings (the gas spray holes 15c in the central region of lower plate 15b), and openings provided in a peripheral region of the gas distribution plate, referred to as peripheral openings (the gas spray holes 15c in the peripheral region of lower plate 15b) [Fig. 2 & 0018], wherein at least one of the plurality of central openings have a nozzle (the guide tubes 20 in the central region of the lower plate 15b), (referred to as central nozzle), wherein the central nozzle is a hollow tube with a starting end of the central nozzle being inserted into the central opening (the guide tubes 20 are mounted at each gas spray hole 15c), perpendicularly connected to the gas distribution plate and coaxial with the central opening, and a tail end of the central nozzle having an orifice (through holes 18b), (referred to as central orifice), and/or at least one of the peripheral openings have a nozzle (the guide tubes 20 in the peripheral region of the lower plate 15b), (referred to as peripheral nozzle), wherein the peripheral nozzle is a hollow tube with a starting end of the peripheral nozzle being inserted into the peripheral opening (the guide tubes 20 are mounted at each gas spray hole 15c), perpendicularly connected to the gas distribution plate and coaxial with the peripheral opening, and a tail end of the peripheral nozzle having an orifice (through holes 18b), (referred to as peripheral orifice) [Fig. 2, 3 & 0022, 0028].
Kim does not specifically disclose a metal plate.
Foster teaches a gas distribution plate comprising a metal plate (showerhead 35 may be formed of a porous metal) [Fig. 4 & Col. 10 lines 20-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify the gas distribution plate of Kim to comprise of metal since Foster discloses that metal is a suitable material for a showerhead [Foster - Fig. 4 & Col. 10 lines 20-21]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein a ratio D1/D1' of an aperture diameter D1 of a central opening to an aperture diameter D1' of a peripheral opening satisfies the relation 1.10 ≥ D1/D1' ≥ 1.01, and (d'/D1')/(d/D1) = 1.01-1.25,wherein d is the aperture diameter of the central orifice, expressed in a unit of mm, d' is the aperture diameter of the peripheral orifice, expressed in a unit of mm.
Although Chandrasekharan does not specifically disclose "wherein a ratio D1/D1' of an aperture diameter D1 of the central opening to an aperture diameter D1' of the peripheral opening satisfies the relation 1.10 ≥ D1/D1' ≥ 1.01, and (d'/D1')/(d/D1) = 1.01-1.25, wherein d is the aperture diameter of the central orifice, expressed in a unit of mm, d' is the aperture diameter of the peripheral orifice, expressed in a unit of mm," Chandrasekharan does disclose that opening size is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the diameters of openings can be changed to change flow-uniformity [Chandrasekharan - 0083]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for an opening in a gas distribution plate to obtain desired flow profiles. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Tam et al. (US 20090095221) discloses that varying through-hole diameters may be beneficial to control desired gas flow rates and distribution in a multi-layer showerhead [Tam - 0085]. Wang et al. (US 20060219361) also discloses that through-hole diameter can be adjusted to change flow rates [Wang - 0005].
Furthermore, Lee discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions and shapes are result effective variables. Specifically, Lee discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions and shapes affect deposition speed, thickness uniformity, and step coverage [Lee - 0038, 0044]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum dimensions for a nozzle orifice to obtain a desired deposition profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Han et al. (US 20060219362) also discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions can be adjusted to change gas uniformity [Han - 0012]. As such, since both opening diameters and orifice diameters can be adjusted, one of ordinary skill in the art could find optimum opening diameters and orifice diameters to obtain flow and deposition profiles.
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein a straight-line distance between any point on an outer periphery of the metal plate and a central point of the metal plate is designated as R, a region surrounded by all points on the metal plate at a straight-line distance r from the central point is the central region, and a region between the central region and the outer periphery is the peripheral region, the value of r/R is 0.2 to 0.99.
Although Arami does not specifically disclose "wherein a straight-line distance between any point on an outer periphery of the metal plate and a central point of the metal plate is designated as R, a region surrounded by all points on the metal plate at a straight-line distance r from the central point is the central region, and a region between the central region and the outer periphery is the peripheral region, the value of r/R is 0.2 to 0.99," Arami does disclose that the size of a showerhead is a result effective variable. Specifically, Arami teaches that showerhead size affects process gas profile in a chamber [Arami - Col. 6 lines 55-67, Col. 7 lines 1-17]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for a showerhead to obtain a desired gas profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that adjusting the outer diameter of a showerhead would result in the changing of the ratio r/R.
It’s also noted that the limitations “for an ammoxidation fluidized bed reactor,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that claim 1 is directed to “a gas distribution plate,” and as such, structures outside the gas distribution plate are not considered structural. It’s also noted that a gas distribution plate is capable of being placed anywhere.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the aperture diameter D1 of each of the plurality of central openings is the same as or different from each other and is independently 16-60 mm, and/or the aperture diameter D1' of each of the plurality of peripheral openings is the same as or different from each other and is independently 15-58 mm.
Although Chandrasekharan does not specifically disclose " wherein the aperture diameter D1 of each of the plurality of central openings is the same as or different from each other and is independently 16-60 mm, and/or the aperture diameter D1' of each of the plurality of peripheral openings is the same as or different from each other and is independently 15-58 mm," Chandrasekharan does disclose that opening size is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the diameters of openings can be changed to change flow-uniformity [Chandrasekharan - 0083]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for an opening in a gas distribution plate to obtain desired flow profiles. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the number of the plurality of central openings is from 16 to 100 per square meter of the central region, and/or the number of the plurality of peripheral openings is from 2 to 50 per square meter of the peripheral region, and/or the number of the plurality of central openings is from 70% to 99% of the total number of openings in the metal plate.
Although Chandrasekharan does not specifically disclose "wherein the number of the plurality of central openings is from 16 to 100 per square meter of the central region, and/or the number of the plurality of peripheral openings is from 2 to 50 per square meter of the peripheral region, and/or the number of the plurality of central openings is from 70% to 99% of the total number of openings in the metal plate," Chandrasekharan does disclose that hole number is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number and arrangement of holes in a gas distribution plate affects the spatial uniformity of flow of gas through the gas distribution plate [Chandrasekaran - 0062, 0065]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention find an optimum arrangement and numbers holes for a gas distribution plate to obtain a desired gas uniformity profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Tam et al. (US 20090095221) also discloses hole density can be adjusted to control gas flow rates, thereby controlling gas uniformity [Tam - 0082-0084].
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Kim (Kim modified by Foster and Chandrasekharan) does not specifically disclose wherein the aperture diameter d of each of the plurality of central orifices is the same as or different from each other and is independently 5 to 20mm, and/or the aperture diameter d' of each of the plurality of peripheral orifices is the same as or different from each other and is independently 5 to 20 mm, and/or the aperture diameter d of the central orifice is the same as or different from the aperture diameter d' of the peripheral orifice, and/or d/d' satisfies the relation 1.10 > d/d'> 1.00.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose " wherein the aperture diameter d of each of the plurality of central orifices is the same as or different from each other and is independently 5 to 20mm, and/or the aperture diameter d' of each of the plurality of peripheral orifices is the same as or different from each other and is independently 5 to 20 mm, and/or the aperture diameter d of the central orifice is the same as or different from the aperture diameter d' of the peripheral orifice, and/or d/d' satisfies the relation 1.10 > d/d'> 1.00," Lee does disclose that nozzle orifice dimensions and shapes are result effective variables. Specifically, Lee discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions and shapes affect deposition speed, thickness uniformity, and step coverage [Lee - 0038, 0044]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum dimensions for a nozzle orifice to obtain a desired deposition profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Han et al. (US 20060219362) also discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions can be adjusted to change gas uniformity [Han - 0012].
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Kim (Kim modified by Foster and Chandrasekharan) does not specifically disclose wherein the length of the central nozzle and/or the peripheral nozzle is 80-300 mm.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "wherein the length of the central nozzle and/or the peripheral nozzle is 80-300 mm," Lee does disclose that nozzle length is a result effective variable. Specifically, nozzle length can be adjusted to control process gas distribution [Lee - 0035, 0038]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum lengths for nozzles to obtained a desired gas profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Kim (Kim modified by Foster and Chandrasekharan) does not specifically disclose wherein the inner diameter D2 of each of the central nozzles is the same as or different from each other and is independently 6 to 50 mm, and/or the inner diameter D2' of each of the peripheral nozzles is the same as or different from each other and is independently 5 to 48 mm.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "wherein the inner diameter D2 of each of the central nozzles is the same as or different from each other and is independently 6 to 50 mm, and/or the inner diameter D2' of each of the peripheral nozzles is the same as or different from each other and is independently 5 to 48 mm," Lee does disclose that nozzle orifice dimensions and shapes are result effective variables. Specifically, Lee discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions and shapes affect deposition speed, thickness uniformity, and step coverge [Lee - 0038, 0044]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum dimensions for a nozzle orifice to obtain a desired deposition profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Han et al. (US 20060219362) also discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions can be adjusted to change gas uniformity [Han - 0012].
Regarding Claim 20:
Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the gas distribution plate is an air distribution plate for an ammoxidation fluidized bed reactor, and/or said metal plate is a flat metal plate, and/or 1.06 >D1/D1'> 1.01.
Foster teaches a gas distribution plate comprising a metal plate (showerhead 35 may be formed of a porous metal) [Fig. 4 & Col. 10 lines 20-21].
It would be obvious to modify the gas distribution plate of Kim to comprise of metal since Foster discloses that metal is a suitable material for a showerhead [Foster - Fig. 4 & Col. 10 lines 20-21]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the gas distribution plate is an air distribution plate for an ammoxidation fluidized bed reactor,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that claim 1 is directed to “a gas distribution plate,” and as such, structures outside the gas distribution plate are not considered structural. It’s also noted that a gas distribution plate is capable of being placed anywhere and is capable of supplying any type of gas.
Regarding Claim 21:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose herein the aperture diameter D1 of each of the plurality of central openings is the same as or different from each other and is independently 22-52 mm, and/or the aperture diameter D1' of each of the plurality of peripheral openings is the same as or different from each other and is independently 21-50 mm.
Although Chandrasekharan does not specifically disclose " herein the aperture diameter D1 of each of the plurality of central openings is the same as or different from each other and is independently 22-52 mm, and/or the aperture diameter D1' of each of the plurality of peripheral openings is the same as or different from each other and is independently 21-50 mm," Chandrasekharan does disclose that opening size is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the diameters of openings can be changed to change flow-uniformity [Chandrasekharan - 0083]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for an opening in a gas distribution plate to obtain desired flow profiles. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 22:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the number of the plurality of central openings is from 18 to 44 per square meter of the central region, and/or the number of the plurality of peripheral openings is from 4 to 25 per square meter of the peripheral region, and/or the number of the plurality of central openings is from 80% to 95% of the total number of openings in the metal plate.
Although Chandrasekharan does not specifically disclose " wherein the number of the plurality of central openings is from 18 to 44 per square meter of the central region, and/or the number of the plurality of peripheral openings is from 4 to 25 per square meter of the peripheral region, and/or the number of the plurality of central openings is from 80% to 95% of the total number of openings in the metal plate," Chandrasekharan does disclose that hole number is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number and arrangement of holes in a gas distribution plate affects the spatial uniformity of flow of gas through the gas distribution plate [Chandrasekaran - 0062, 0065]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention find an optimum arrangement and numbers holes for a gas distribution plate to obtain a desired gas uniformity profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Tam et al. (US 20090095221) also discloses hole density can be adjusted to control gas flow rates, thereby controlling gas uniformity [Tam - 0082-0084].
Regarding Claim 23:
Modified Kim (Kim modified by Foster, Chandrasekharan, and Lee) does not specifically disclose wherein the circle has a diameter of 7 to 20 m, and/or the metal plate has a thickness of 10 to 35 mm.
Although Arami does not specifically disclose "wherein the circle has a diameter of 7 to 20 m, and/or the metal plate has a thickness of 10 to 35 mm," Arami does disclose that the size of a showerhead is a result effective variable. Specifically, Arami teaches that showerhead size affects process gas profile in a chamber [Arami - Col. 6 lines 55-67, Col. 7 lines 1-17]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for a showerhead to obtain a desired gas profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 24:
Modified Kim (Kim modified by Foster and Chandrasekharan) does not specifically disclose wherein the aperture diameter d of each of the central orifices is the same as or different from each other and is independently 10 to 16 mm, and/or the aperture diameter d' of each of the peripheral orifices is the same as or different from each other and is independently 10 to 16 mm, and/or did' satisfies the relation 1.04 ≥ d/d' ≥1.00.
Although Chandrasekharan does not specifically disclose "wherein the aperture diameter d of each of the central orifices is the same as or different from each other and is independently 10 to 16 mm, and/or the aperture diameter d' of each of the peripheral orifices is the same as or different from each other and is independently 10 to 16 mm, and/or did' satisfies the relation 1.04 ≥ d/d' ≥1.00," Chandrasekharan does disclose that opening size is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the diameters of openings can be changed to change flow-uniformity [Chandrasekharan - 0083]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for an opening in a gas distribution plate to obtain desired flow profiles. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Tam et al. (US 20090095221) discloses that varying through-hole diameters may be beneficial to control desired gas flow rates and distribution in a multi-layer showerhead [Tam - 0085]. Wang et al. (US 20060219361) also discloses that through-hole diameter can be adjusted to change flow rates [Wang - 0005].
Regarding Claim 25:
Modified Kim (Kim modified by Forster) does not specifically disclose wherein (d'/D1')/(d/D1) = 1.01- 1.10.
Although Chandrasekharan does not specifically disclose " wherein (d'/D1')/(d/D1) = 1.01- 1.10," Chandrasekharan does disclose that opening size is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the diameters of openings can be changed to change flow-uniformity [Chandrasekharan - 0083]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for an opening in a gas distribution plate to obtain desired flow profiles. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Tam et al. (US 20090095221) discloses that varying through-hole diameters may be beneficial to control desired gas flow rates and distribution in a multi-layer showerhead [Tam - 0085]. Wang et al. (US 20060219361) also discloses that through-hole diameter can be adjusted to change flow rates [Wang - 0005].
Furthermore, Lee discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions and shapes are result effective variables. Specifically, Lee discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions and shapes affect deposition speed, thickness uniformity, and step coverage [Lee - 0038, 0044]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum dimensions for a nozzle orifice to obtain a desired deposition profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Han et al. (US 20060219362) also discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions can be adjusted to change gas uniformity [Han - 0012]. As such, since both opening diameters and orifice diameters can be adjusted, one of ordinary skill in the art could find optimum opening diameters and orifice diameters to obtain flow and deposition profiles.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20010042799) in view of Foster et al. (US 5273588), Chandrasekharan (US 20160340782), Lee et al. (US 20080095953), and Arami et al. (US 5958140), with Tam et al. (US 20090095221), Wang et al. (US 20060219361), and Han et al. (US 20060219362) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-3, 10, 12, 14, and 20-25 above, and further in view of Tam et al. (US 20090095221).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 10, 12, 14, and 20-25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the distances between any two adjacent central openings are the same as or different from each other, and are each independently 100-300 mm, and/or the distances between any two adjacent peripheral openings are the same as or different from each other, and are each independently 100-300 mm.
Although Tam does not specifically disclose "wherein the distances between any two adjacent central openings are the same as or different from each other, and are each independently 100-300 mm, and/or the distances between any two adjacent peripheral openings are the same as or different from each other, and are each independently 100-300 mm," Tam does disclose that hole pitch and density is a result effective variable. Specifically, hole pitch and density affect flow rate, as increasing density increases flow rate [Tam - 0082-0084]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum spacing/distances between openings to obtain desired flow rates. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20010042799) in view of Foster et al. (US 5273588), Chandrasekharan (US 20160340782), Lee et al. (US 20080095953), and Arami et al. (US 5958140), with Tam et al. (US 20090095221), Wang et al. (US 20060219361), and Han et al. (US 20060219362) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-3, 10, 12, 14, and 20-25 above, and further in view of Batzer et al. (US 20180163305).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 10, 12, 14, and 20-25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Kim (Kim modified by Foster, Chandrasekharan, and Lee) teaches wherein the metal plate has a substantially circular shape (the lower plate 15b is part of the showerhead 15, and showerhead 15 is circular, as evidenced by Fig. 3) [Kim - Fig. 7 & 0018-0020].
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose the circle having a diameter of 5 to 29 m.
Although Arami does not specifically disclose "the circle having a diameter of 5 to 29 m," Arami does disclose that the size of a showerhead is a result effective variable. Specifically, Arami teaches that showerhead size affects process gas profile in a chamber [Arami - Col. 6 lines 55-67, Cl. 7 lines 1-17]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for a showerhead to obtain a desired gas profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Kim (Kim modified by Foster, Chandrasekharan, Lee, and Arami) does not specifically disclose a thickness of 5 to 40 mm.
Batzer teaches a showerhead with a thickness 5 to 40 mm (the thickness of the showerhead is less than or equal to 0.7 inches, which is approximately 17.78 mm) [Fig. 5A, 5B & 0061]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the gas distribution plate of Modified Kim to be between 5 mm and 40 mm thick, as in Batzer, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Kim discloses that nozzle length is a result effective variable. Specifically, Lee discloses that nozzle length can be adjusted to control process gas distribution [Lee - 0035, 0038]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum lengths for nozzles to obtained a desired gas profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, Batzer et al. (US 20190177846) discloses that nozzle diameter is a result effective variable (the diameters of openings and their respective nozzles can be changed to change gas conductance and flow profile) [Batzer '846 - 0037]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum diameter for a nozzle to obtain desired flow profiles. It is further noted that the applicant utilizes the equation α=2acrtg(D/2L) to calculate the angle α (wherein D represents the inner diameter of the nozzle expressed in a unit of mm, and L represents the nozzle length) [IA - Page 14 lines 20-31]. As such, adjusting the diameter or length of a nozzle would also change the angle α.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 14, and 20-25 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein a ratio D1/D1' of an aperture diameter D1 of a central opening to an aperture diameter D1' of a peripheral opening satisfies the relation 1.10 ≥ D1/D1' ≥ 1.01, and (d'/D1')/(d/D1) = 1.01-1.25,” because the combination of references do not suggest that the claimed parameters impact fluidization along a wall.
In response, the examiner would like to note that Kim et al. (US 20010042799) (herein used as the primary reference) is not directed to a fluidized bed reactor, but rather a gas distribution plate in a plasma processing apparatus; arguments directed to the reference’s inability to impact a fluidized bed reactor are moot since the primary reference is not directed to one. References that disclose improvements upon the primary reference would be sufficient in proving obviousness. The examiner would further like to note that the applicant’s invention is directed to a gas distribution plate and not a fluidized bed reactor. As such, despite the references not disclosing an impact on “fluidization along a wall,” they provide other relevant improvements or motivation to modify the primary reference such that the combination of references discloses the claimed structure.
The applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to modify Kim with Chandrasekharan (US 20160340782) because the technical problem to be solved by Kim is different from Chandrasekharan. In response, the examiner would like to note that two references solving different technical problems does not render a modification non-obvious. It’s also noted that nowhere does Kim disclose that all gas holes being of uniform diameter is explicitly necessary for uniform distribution, rather, it is utilizing its multi-layer showerhead structure to improve uniformity [Kim - 0018]. Furthermore, Chandrasekharan discloses that the adjustment of through-hole diameters can be used to fine-tune flow uniformity [Chandrasekharan - 0083]. As such, modification of Kim to have varying through-hole diameters would not conflict with its goal of uniform flow since Chandrasekharan already discloses that through-hole diameter is a result effective variable that can be adjusted to fine tune uniformity while Kim is using its multiple layers to help achieve uniformity (adjusting through-hole diameters and utilizing a multi-layer showerhead structure are not mutually exclusive improvements).
It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, uniform gas flows from a showerhead with varying through-hole diameters is a very well-known technique in the art. For example, Tam et al. (US 20090095221) discloses that varying through-hole diameters may be beneficial to control desired gas flow rates and distribution in a multi-layer showerhead [Tam - 0085]. Wang et al. (US 20060219361) also discloses that through-hole diameter can be adjusted to change flow rates [Wang - 0005]. These evidentiary references thus disclose that adjusting through-hole diameters would also be beneficial in not just tuning uniformity, but also in tuning gas flow rates. Furthermore, since it has been established that this is a well-known technique in the art, application of variable diameter through-holes would merely be applying a known technique to a known device [See MPEP 2143 I. D].
The applicant further states that it is important for those skilled in the art to ensure diameters are uniform to maintain flow uniformity. This is essentially claiming that non-uniform diameters leads to flow non-uniformity, which the examiner respectfully disagrees with. As previously stated, Chandrasekharan explicitly discloses that through-hole diameter can be adjusted to fine-tune uniformity. As such, Chandrasekharan itself proves that adjusting diameters across a gas distribution plate can be used to improve uniformity. Further still, Wang discloses that having varied diameters can help improve uniformity to make up for differences in gas flows across a gas distribution plate [Wang – 0004 - 0005].
It's further noted that Kim’s multi-layer showerhead being directed to form uniform flow does not necessarily mean that it still would not benefit from having further ways to improve/tune gas flow profiles/uniformity. Furthermore, the examiner believes one of ordinary skill in the art to be one of high skill and creativity. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of utilizing variable diameters gas through-holes whilst still maintaining a desired gas uniformity.
The applicant further argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “(d’/D1’)/(d/D1) = 1-1.25” because the nozzle pipes 30 of Lee et al. (US 20080095953) are arranged in one circle, and as such, there is not a central nozzle and central orifice in the device of Lee. Moreover, the applicant argues that Lee fails to teach the relation between opening diameters and orifice diameters. In response, the examiner would like to note that these arguments argue against the Lee references individually; one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of references already discloses a central nozzle (the guide tubes 20 in the central region of the lower plate 15b) with a central orifice (through holes 18b) in Kim [Kim – Fig. 2, 3 & 0022, 0028]. Lee is merely being used to disclose that nozzle orifice dimensions are result effective variables. Specifically, Lee discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions and shapes affect deposition speed, thickness uniformity, and step coverage [Lee - 0038, 0044]. In summary, the teachings of Lee are merely being used to modify the nozzles of Kim which are already arranged throughout a gas distribution plate as claimed, and as such, the combination of references discloses the aforementioned limitation.
The examiner would also like to note that Lee not need to teach a relation between opening diameters and orifice diameters to read upon the limitation, because changing a variable in a ratio changes the whole ratio. Therefore, since Lee discloses that nozzle orifice dimensions can be adjusted as needed, they would be able to solely adjust orifice dimensions such that (d’/D1’)/(d/D1) = 1-1.25. Furthermore, even if this was not the case, Chandrasekharan has already established that opening size is a result effective variable, so one of ordinary skill in the art has motivation to adjust both nozzle orifice dimensions and gas through-holes in a gas distribution plate [Chandrasekharan - 0083].
The applicant further argues that none of the cited references are applicable to the applicant’s technical problem. In response, the examiner would like to note that this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. No where in the claims is the applicant’s technical problem claimed. The examiner would also like to note that even if the technical problem was in the claims, the elected invention is directed a gas distribution plate and not a fluidized bed reactor. The combination of references provided teach all the structural limitations of the claims and are directed to gas distribution plates, and as such, read upon the structure claimed. It’s also noted that the combination of references solving different technical problems as the instant application does not render those references as not reading upon the claims. Rather, the test is whether or not those references disclose all the structural elements of the claims.
“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed that an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc.v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) (“The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention.”). In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) discussed in MPEP § 2144 are also pertinent to this issue.
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, 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 claim 6applications 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights