DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 01/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-14, 16-18, 20, and 22-26 are pending. In the amendment filed 01/15/2026, claim 8-9, 15, 19, and 21 were canceled, claim 22-26 were newly added, and claims 1-4, 6-7, 11, 16, and 18 were amended.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant made numerous amendments to the claims without indicating support for such amendments. The interpretations provided herein are made consistent with the instant specification in a manner that avoids an interpretation that would invoke new matter. The independent claims have been interpreted in light of the drawings to refer to the structures that meet the claim limitations as recited. In certain claims this has resulted in the same structure in different independent claims being labeled as a different of the arc-shaped channels or linear connecting channel. Applicant is kindly encouraged to explain where support for any future amendments may be found and, to the greatest extent possible, avoid using the same claim terminology for different structures of the invention in different independent claims or claims dependent from different independent claims. Examiner respectfully requests that applicant consider clarifying the claims so that structure A1 is only referred to as the first arc-shaped channel, A2 is only referred to as the second arc-shaped channel, A3 is only referred to as the third arc-shaped channel, and A4 is only referred to as the fourth arc-shaped channel in the claims to avoid introducing new matter to the claims or the appearance of introducing new matter to the claims. Applicant is also respectfully encouraged to consider ensuring the claim terminology matches the terms used for linear connecting channels C1, C2, C3 and E1 and E2.
The claim term “arc-shaped” is inclusive of any generally arc-shaped structure and does not require a perfectly continuous curvature.
The claim term “fan-shaped sector” is interpreted inclusive of an arbitrarily drawn section of the top surface that is less than the entire circular top surface.
The claim term “fluid inlet port” is interpreted inclusive of part 61 or at least a portion of a channel connected to the inlet hole (i.e. a portion of E1 connected to 61 in Fig 2).
In claim 17 and claims dependent therefrom, it is noted that the “arc angle” may arbitrarily be drawn short than the full length of each arc-shaped segment (i.e. each of A1, A2, A3, A4 in Fig 2) such that the recited relative arc angles may be met.
In claim 18, “connecting” is interpreted inclusive of fluidically connecting such that the channels are not required to be directly physically connected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claim 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites in line 9-11 “the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels are located underneath the fan-shaped sector of the top surface and located at opposite sides of the gas inlet port from a top view” (emphasis added). This represents new matter because it is impossible to have three structures at “opposite sides” of the same structure. Further, within the fan-shaped sector (shown as extending α1, α2, or α3), arc shaped channel A1 (Fig 2) is on one side of the gas inlet structure (51 or 55 Fig 2) and the remaining arc shaped channels (A2, A3, A4) are on the other side (i.e. opposite side). Therefore, even if “opposite sides” is interpreted broadly as being uniformly spaced around, the instant application does not teach such an arrangement. Therefore the claim limitation represents new matter. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim will be examined on the merits using the previously presented limitation of one arc shaped channel of the first, second, and third arc shaped channels is located on an opposite side to another of the arc shaped channels of the first, second, and third arc shaped channels (i.e. that two of the channels are located on opposite sides of the gas inlet relative to each other) because the currently recited limitation is directed to an arrangement that is impossible. Note that the claim previously recited the first and second arc-shaped channels were located on opposite sides; however, applicant has amended to recite a third arc-shaped channels and made numerous amendments related to the positioning of the arc-shaped channels such that this broader interpretation is applied.
Regarding claim 6, the claim depends from claim 1 and further requires a fourth arc-shaped channel and that the “first, second, third, and fourth arc-shaped channels are arranged in order along a direction away from the center of the wafer chuck”. When “in order” requires them to be arranged as “first, second, third, fourth” arranged such that first is closest to the center and fourth is arranged farthest from the center (i.e. along a direction moving away for the center of the chuck), this interpretation is not supported by the instant specification as filed because the opposite arrangement is recited [0088] and in the drawings, this would require A1 to be the fourth arc-shaped channel, however if A1 is the fourth arc-shaped channel, then the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels (A2-A4) are all on the same side of the gas inlet (51, 55) such that none of the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels may be considered on opposite side of the gas inlet to another of the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim will be examined using the interpretation of claim 6 provided in the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6-7 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.
Claim 6 requires “the first, second, third, and fourth arc-shaped channels are arranged in order along a direction away from the center of the wafer chuck”. It is unclear if “in order along a direction away from the center of the wafer chuck” requires the “order” to be first, second, third, then fourth such that the first is the most radially inward and the fourth is the most radially outward (i.e. ascending order), as the plain language of the claim text would suggest, or if “in order” merely requires them to be arranged so that “first” is at one end, “second” is between “first” and “third”, “third” is between “second” and “fourth, and “fourth” is at the opposite end (i.e. ascending or descending order). As indicated above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claim 6, the plan language first interpretation represents new matter. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim will be interpreted as inclusive of “in order” merely requires them to be arranged so that “first” is at one end, “second” is between “first” and “third”, “third” is between “second” and “fourth, and “fourth” is at the opposite end (i.e. ascending or descending order) and that “away from the center” is interpreted inclusive of a direction along which the order is applied (i.e. radially vs circumferentially), such that the arc-shaped channels may be arranged in descending order in a radially outward direction.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2008/0017104 of Matyushkin et al., hereinafter Matyushkin.
Regarding claim 11, Matyushkin teaches a wafer fabricating system (Fig 1 [0018]), comprising: a process chamber (106 Fig 1 [0018]); a wafer chuck (90 including electrostatic chuck 20 Fig 1 [0032]) in the process chamber (Fig 1); a fluid inlet port formed in the wafer chuck (95 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version I(b) and II below); a fluid outlet port (97 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version I(b) and II below) formed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II below); a first arc-shaped cooling channel disposed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II below); a second arc-shaped cooling channel disposed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II below) and fluidly communicated with the first arc-shaped cooling channel, the fluid outlet port, and the fluid inlet port (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II below), the first and second arc-shaped cooling channels being concentric about a center of the wafer chuck from a top view (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II below), wherein the first arc-shaped cooling channel is disposed at a first radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II below), and the second arc-shaped cooling channel is disposed at a second radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II below), and a radial distance from the fluid inlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than the second radial distance and less than the first radial distance (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II below), and wherein, from the top view, the fluid outlet port is located within a radial span defined by the first arc-shaped cooling channel with respect to the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II below); and a fluid containing source (chiller [0033]) fluidly connected to the first and second arc-shaped cooling channels [0033].
PNG
media_image1.png
432
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
434
833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Matyushkin teaches a third arc-shaped cooling channel disposed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II above) and fluidly communicated with the first and second arc-shaped cooling channels (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II above), the first, second, and third arc-shaped cooling channels being concentric about the center of the wafer chuck from the top view (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II above).
Regarding claim 13, Matyushkin teaches a first linear connection channel connecting the first arc-shaped cooling channel to the second arc-shaped cooling channel (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II above), and a second linear connection channel connecting the second arc-shaped cooling channel to the third arc-shaped cooling channel (Fig 4B and see annotated version I(b) and II above). Note that “connecting” does not require directly connecting.
Regarding claim 14, Matyushkin teaches the second linear connection channel has a longer length than the first linear connection channel (Fig 4B and see annotated version II above, also note that version I(b) applies when the channels may are arbitrarily defined lengths of the labeled channels in version I(b)).
Regarding claim 23, Matyushkin teaches from the top view, the fluid inlet port (95 Fig 4B, see annotated version I(b) or II above) is disposed between the first and second linear connection channels (Fig 4B, see annotated version I(b) above) along a circumferential direction about the center of the wafer chuck (note the circumferential direction starts at the first linear channel and extends in a clockwise direction to the second linear channel), and the fluid outlet port is disposed between the first and second linear connection channels along the circumferential direction (Fig 4B, see annotated version I(b) above, note the discussion of the circumferential direction provided above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushkin in view of Watanabe (prev. presented US 2009/0168292) and Mine (prev. presented US 2020/0312684).
Regarding claim 1, Matyushkin teaches a wafer fabricating system (Fig 1 [0018]), comprising: a wafer chuck (90 Fig 1 including electrostatic chuck 20 [0032]) having a top surface (Fig 1); a fluid inlet port (95 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)) formed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B); a fluid outlet port (97 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)) formed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B); a first arc-shaped channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)), a second arc-shaped channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)), and a third arc-shaped channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)) fluidly communicated with the fluid inlet port (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)), wherein the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels are located underneath a fan-shaped sector of the top surface (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)); a first linear connection channel(Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)) fluidly connecting the first arc-shaped channel to the second arc-shaped channel at a first location (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b), note they are not required to be directly connected); a second linear connection channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)) fluidly connecting the second arc-shaped channel to the third arc-shaped channel at a second location different from the first location (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b), note they are not required to be directly connected), wherein the first and second linear connection channels are fluidly communicated with the fluid inlet port and the fluid outlet port (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b)), the fluid inlet port is disposed between the first and second linear connection channels along a circumferential direction about a center of the wafer chuck from the top view (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b), note the circumferential direction starts at the first linear channel and extends clockwise around the chuck to the second linear channel), and the fluid outlet port is disposed between the first and second linear connection channels along the circumferential direction from the top view(Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b), note the circumferential direction starts at the first linear channel and extends clockwise around the chuck to the second linear channel); and a fluid containing source (chiller [0033]) fluidly connected to the fluid inlet port [0033]. Matyushkin fails to teach a plurality of orifices are formed on the top surface; a gas inlet port formed in the wafer chuck and located underneath the fan-shaped sector of the top surface, wherein the gas inlet port is fluidly communicated with the orifices; and the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels are located at opposite sides of the gas inlet port from a top view; and a gas source fluidly connected to the gas inlet port. Matyushkin does teach a backside gas for heat transfer between the substrate and the support [0023] but teaches using mesas (30 Fig 3) and open space (32). In the same field of endeavor of a wafer fabricating system, Watanabe teaches a singular gas inlet (18a1 Fig 1-4) fluidly communicated with a plurality of orifices (18b1 Fig 1-4) for backside gas for heat transfer [0063-0064], and a gas source fluidly connected to the gas inlet port [0063-0064]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matyushkin to include the plurality of orifices on the top surface with a gas inlet port fluidly communicated with the orifices and a gas source fluidly connected to the gas inlet port because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (backside gas supply structure of Watanabe) for another (backside gas supply structure of Matyushkin) to achieve predictable results (supply of backside gas to the substrate supporting surface for heat transfer). Regarding a gas inlet port formed in the wafer chuck and located underneath the fan-shaped sector of the top surface and the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels are located at opposite sides of the gas inlet port from a top view, initially it is noted that this represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the gas channel through the coolant. Watanabe demonstrates the gas inlet line (108a Fig 1, 18a Fig 3) travelling through the coolant channels (104 Fig 1, 14 Fig 3). Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, Mine teaches a gas inlet port (27c Fig 2, 6, 7, [0040]) formed in the wafer chuck and located underneath a fan-shaped sector of the top surface (Fig 6, 7), positioned between arc-shaped channels of the coolant line (Fig 7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matyushkin to include the gas inlet line is positioned such that one of the first through third arc-shaped channels is on an opposite side of the gas inlet line relative to another of the first through third arc-shaped channels because this represents a mere rearrangement of parts and because Mine teaches the gas line traveling through arc-shaped channels of the coolant line.
PNG
media_image3.png
432
833
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Matyushkin teaches first, second, and third arc-shaped channels are concentrically arranged relative to a center of the wafer chuck in a different embodiment (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b) above).
Regarding claim 3, Matyushkin teaches the first, second, and third arc-shaped have an arc angle greater than about 180 degrees relative to a center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b) above).
Regarding claim 4, Matyushkin teaches the second arc-shaped channel has a greater arc angle than the first arc-shaped channel (see annotated Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b) above and note that the first arc-shaped channel may extend shorter than the colored portion).
Regarding claim 6, Matyushkin teaches a fourth arc-shaped channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b) above) fluidly communicated with the fluid inlet port (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) and I(b) above), wherein the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels are arranged in order along a direction toward a center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(a) above and note applied claim interpretation).
Regarding claim 7, Matyushkin remains as applied to claim 6 above. Matyushkin teaches a third linear connection channel connecting the third arc-shaped channel to the fourth arc-shaped channel (see annotated Fig 4B, version I(a) above and note that connecting does not require directly connecting).
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Watanabe as applied in the combination to teach the gas outlets teaches an inner annular groove (middle ring Fig 2 or inner ring Fig 4 of Watanabe) formed on the top surface of the wafer chuck (Fig 1 or Fig 3) and fluidly communicated with the gas inlet port (Fig 1-4), the inner annular groove overlapping the second arc-shaped channel (Fig 1 or 3 shows the ring inner of the outermost ring is overlapped with the cooling channel that is inner of the outermost channel, which is the second arc-shaped channel of Matyushkin). It is additionally noted that the combination renders obvious the annular grooves overlapping with the cooling channels and the specific overlapping arrangement represents a mere rearrangement of parts. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 22, Matyushkin teaches from the top view, the fluid outlet port is located within a radial span defined by the third arc-shaped channel with respect to the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B, see annotated Version I(b) above).
Claim(s) 16-18, 20, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushkin in view of Forderhase (prev. presented US 2019/0326139).
Regarding claim 16, Matyushkin teaches wafer fabricating system (Fig 1 [0018]), comprising: a deposition chamber (106 Fig 1) [0002]; a wafer chuck (90 Fig 1 including electrostatic chuck 20 [0032]); a fluid guiding structure (110 Fig 4B) disposed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B), the fluid guiding structure including a fluid inlet port (95 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version III) formed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B); a fluid outlet port (97 Fig 4B [0033], see annotated Version III) formed in the wafer chuck (Fig 4B); a first arc-shaped channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version III), a second arc-shaped channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version III), and a third arc-shaped channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version III) fluidly communicated with the fluid inlet port (Fig 4B, see annotated Version III), and a first linear connection channel (Fig 4B, see annotated Version III), the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels each having an arc angle greater than about 180 degrees relative to a center of the wafer chuck from a top view (Fig 4B, see annotated version III), wherein the first arc-shaped channel is disposed at a first radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B, see annotated version III), and the second arc-shaped channel is disposed at a second radial distance from the center of the wafer chuck (Fig 4B, see annotated version III), and a radial distance from the fluid outlet port to the center of the wafer chuck is greater than the second radial distance and less than the first radial distance (Fig 4B, see annotated version III), wherein the first linear connection channel extends from the fluid inlet port (95 Fig 4B) to the third arc-shaped channel (Fig 4B, see annotated version III), the third arc-shaped channel circumferentially surrounds the fluid outlet port (97 Fig 4B) from the top view (Fig 4B, see annotated version III); and a fluid containing source (chiller [0033]) fluidly connected to the first and second arc-shaped cooling channels [0033]. Matyushkin fails to teach a showerhead in the deposition chamber and therefore also fails to teach the wafer chuck is positioned below the showerhead. Matyushkin teaches a different gas inlet structure (203 Fig 1). In the same field of endeavor of cooled substrate supports (abstract, Fig 1), Forderhase teaches a deposition chamber (130 Fig 1), a showerhead (120 Fig 1) and the wafer chuck in the deposition chamber and below the shower head (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matyushkin to include the showerhead and chamber arrangement of Forderhase because these allow for controlled introduction of gas to treat the substrate surface of the substrate held by the support of Matyushkin and because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (gas introduction showerhead of Forderhase) for another (gas introduction structure of Matyushkin) to achieve predictable results (controlled introduction of gas to the chamber).
PNG
media_image4.png
434
833
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Matyushkin teaches the second arc-shaped channel has a greater arc angle than the first arc-shaped channel (see annotated Fig 4B Version III, note that the arc angle may be selected to be a sub portion of the colored arc)
Regarding claim 18, Matyushkin teaches a second linear connection channel connecting the first arc-shaped channel to the second arc-shaped channel (see annotated Fig 4B Version III).
Regarding claim 20, in Matyushkin the first and second arc-shaped channels are at the same level height (see annotated Fig 4B Version III).
Regarding claim 24, Matyuskin teaches from the top view, the fluid outlet port is located within a radial span defined by the third arc-shaped channel with respect to the center of the wafer chuck (see annotated Fig 4B Version III).
Regarding claim 25, Matyushkin teaches the third arc-shaped channel circumferentially surrounds the first and second arc-shaped channels from the top view (see annotated Fig 4B Version III).
Regarding claim 26, Matyushkin teaches the fluid inlet port is fluidly communicated with the fluid outlet port, the first, second, and third arc-shaped channels, and the first linear connection channel (see annotated Fig 4B Version III).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments regarding Mine (reply p10-14) as the primary reference teaching the locations and arrangement of the arc shaped channels are moot because the reference is no longer being applied for such teachings. New reference Matyushkin teaches or renders obvious the amended language as explained above.. Additionally it is noted that Mine is now merely used to demonstrate the obviousness of the gas line being positioned between arc shaped cooling channels as explained in the rejections above. Therefore the arguments regarding the teachings of Mine for the specific position or arrangement of the cooling channels are moot.
For all of these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2006/0076109 teaches cooling channel arrangements (Fig 8 with the inlet and outlet radially inward of the outer cooling channel arc). US 2011/0154843 demonstrates a cooling channel arrangement (Fig 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716