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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ cancellation of claim 2, amendment of claim 1, and addition of claim 3 in the Response dated August 19, 2025 to the Non-final Office Action dated May 19, 2025. Claims 1 and 3 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and amendments of claim 1 to resolve indefiniteness of the claims, which obviate the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) described in the Non-final Office Action dated May 19, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, upon further consideration, Examiner sets forth below new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) against claims 1 and 3 in light of the amendments to claim 1.
Examiner acknowledges that any arguments applicants have made with respect to the original claim 1 and new claim 3 in the Response dated August 19, 2025 are deemed unpersuasive and the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below replace any rejection of independent claim 1 in the Non-final Office Action dated May 19, 2025, as amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "plasma" in line 8. The limitation appears to be an improper double inclusion of plasma put forth in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a halogenated corrosive gas" in line 8. The limitation appears to be an improper double inclusion of “a halogenated corrosive gas” put forth in line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an average crystal grain size at the second region B" in lines 16-17. The limitation appears to be an improper double inclusion of “an average crystal grain size at the second region B” put forth in line 15.
Claim 3 is rejected due to dependency from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2002/0088545) in view of Kajiwara (US 9,790,596) and Oda et al. (US 4,264,541).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teaches a columnar gas nozzle (gas injector, fig. 4), for use in an apparatus utilizing plasma processes and supplying a halogenated corrosive gas into a reaction chamber, comprising:
A sintered ceramic body (paragraph 37, alumina) having at least one through-hole through which gas flows (gas injecting section 430, fig. 4).
Lee et al. discloses the injector body being made of alumina, which is a ceramic often made by sintering.
Should it be found that Lee fails to disclose the nozzle having a sintered ceramic body, Kajiwara discloses a nozzle that includes a sintered ceramic body (col. 2, line 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to Lee et al. with the disclosures of Kajiwara, providing the nozzle to include a sintered ceramic body, in order to enhance plasma resistance, as disclosed by Kajiwara (col. 3, line 19).
Lee et. al fails to disclose that surfaces of the sintered ceramic body are fired.
Kajiwara discloses firing the inner surface (Column 4, line 50) and outer molded body (Column 8, line 6) of the sintered ceramic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the disclosures of Kajiwara, providing inner surfaces of the nozzle to be fired surfaces, in order to provide for convenient optimization of grain size (Column 8, lines 6-13), and ultimately protect against corrosion, minimize generation or particles, and suppress failure in the nozzle, as disclosed by Kajiwara (Column 8, line 4-13 and Column 5, lines 22-36).
Lee et al. in view of Kajiwara further discloses an entire surface of an inner surface of the through-hole (Kajiwara- inner wall of the first hole 18, col. 4, line 48-50) and an end face (Kajiwara describes the entire molded body 26 is fired and therefore the end face 13 is a fired surface as well, col. 7, line 25-26) on which an outlet of the through-hole is provided (end face 13 is where the outlet of first hole 18 is located, fig. 2(b)) are both fired surfaces (As modified, Kajiwara- the inner wall of the first hole 18 includes a sintered surface of the ceramic sintered body. The sintered surface is a fired surface, col. 4, line 48-50 and Kajiwara describes the entire molded body 26 is fired. Therefore the end face 13 is a fired surface as well, col. 7, line 25-26), the inner surface (annotated fig. 5) of the through-hole (annotated fig. 5) includes a first region A (second cylindrical portion 420, fig. 5) as an outlet neighboring region (annotated fig. 5) for being exposed to plasma (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Due to its fired configuration, the region is capable of being exposed to plasma, as suggested by Kajiwara) and a second region B (first cylindrical portion 410, fig. 5) for contacting a halogenated corrosive gas (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The grain size makes the region capable of contact with halogenated corrosive gas) being located at the depth side from the first region A (annotated fig. 5).
Lee et al. modified by Kajiwara fails to disclose the distance of the first region A from the end face of the outlet to the depth side is within 0.5 mm, and the distance of the second region B from the end face of the outlet to the further depth side is within 3.0 mm.
Lee et al. discloses that the design of the nozzle is optimized in order to reduce contact time, thereby minimizing damage/disintegration (Paragraphs 16 and 55) and production of particles (Paragraphs 16 and 55). Amongst the characteristics optimized is the relative length between first region A (420) and second region B (410) (Paragraph 49). The length of region A and the length of region B are put forth as result effective variables, as changing of the length of the lengths adjusts the contact time, which also affects the strength of the nozzle. Further, it appears one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation in modifying Lee et al. to have the length of region A and the length of region B to fall within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. by making the distance of the first region A from the end face of the outlet to the depth side within 0.5 mm, and the distance of the second region B from the end face of the outlet to the further depth side to be within 3.0 mm, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Lee et al. modified by Kajiwara fails to disclose wherein an average crystal grain size in the first region A is 3.0 um or more and 3.9 um or less, an average crystal grain size in the second region B is 3.4 um or more and 4.18 um or less, and the average crystal grain size at the first region A is smaller than an average crystal grain size at the second region B.
Oda et al. discloses an average crystal grain size at the first region A (outlet) is smaller than an average crystal grain size at a second region B (middle portion) (col. 3, lines 13-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have the motivation to modify the gas nozzle of Lee et al. modified by Kajiwara with disclosures of Oda, providing the nozzle to include the average crystal grain size at the first region A (outlet) smaller than an average crystal grain size at the second region B (middle portion) in order to provide for mechanical strength, thermal shock resistance, and ultimately reduction of cracks in the nozzle, as disclosed by Oda (Abstract).
The crystal grain size in first region A (outlet) and second region B (middle portion) is disclosed by Oda, as a result effective variable, as changing the grain size affects the mechanical strength and thermal shock resistance. Further, it appears one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Oda device to have the first and second region include crystal grain sizes, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee in view of Kajiwara and Oda by making the average crystal grain size in the first region A 3.0 um or more and 3.9 um or less, an average crystal grain size in the second region B 3.4 um or more and 4.18 um or less since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As modified, Lee in view of Kajiwara and Oda et al. discloses the average crystal grain size at the second region B is not more than 1.2 times the average crystal grain size at the first region A.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Regarding claim 3, as modified Lee in view of Kajiwara and Oda discloses the columnar gas nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the average crystal grain size in the first region A is 3.0 μm to 3.5 μm, wherein the average crystal grain size in the second region B is 3.4 μm to 4 μm (The modification of claim 1 provides for grain sizes in each of the regions that fall within the claimed range).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s position that the Lee does not attribute the protection against disintegration to the length of the nozzle, Examiner disagrees. Lee attributes the strength of the nozzle to its design, which as highlighted, includes optimizing of the length and the diameter of the sections of the nozzle passage (see above). The length is put forth as a result effective variable, and Lee provides ranges of optimization for the length of the first and second sections of the nozzle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the disclosures of Lee to optimize the length (and width) of the nozzle, in order to minimize contact time, and ultimately prevent disintegration of the nozzle.
As to Applicant’s position that the highlighted range is critical, Applicant’s refers to the range as a preference (Paragraph 42). While the section highlighted in Applicant’s response details an advantage of the sizing, the disclosure in combination with the mentioning of the range as a preference, put forth the range as more of a preference, as opposed to a criticality.
As to Applicant’s position that the combination fails to put forth crystal grain sizes within the claimed ranges, Oda puts forth the grain size as a result effective variable. Oda discloses that the grain size is optimized in order to optimize the thermal shock resistance and mechanical strength of the nozzle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the disclosures of Oda to optimize the crystal grain size, in order to optimize thermal shock resistance and mechanical strength of the nozzle.
As to Applicant’s position that the prior art fails to suggest the nozzle regions “for being exposed to plasma” and “for contacting a halogenated corrosive gas,” the limitations are interpreted as recitations of intended use. As such, the nozzle only needs to be capable of performing the claimed function. The prior art discloses the claimed nozzle structure. As such, the nozzle is capable of performing the claimed function.
As to Applicant’s position that Oda is not clear as to whether the proposed crystal grain sizing should be applied to the portion exposed to halogenated corrosive gas, or the portion exposed to plasma, Examiner finds that the recitations are intended use recitations. As such, the limitations are not given patentable weights, as it pertains to the claims. Oda discloses that the crystal grain sizing should be applied to the end portion and the middle portion. Region A is interpreted as the end portion, and Region B is interpreted as the middle portion. The sizes are applied accordingly. The portions are capable of performing the claimed functions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARTHUR O. HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. CT..
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
