DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on October 30, 2025. Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are amended; claim 5 is canceled; claims 15-17 are new.
The applicant contends:
(1) Claim 13 has been withdrawn erroneously, as Applicant’s election indicated the claim as being drawn to the elected embodiment (p. 11).
(2) The cited prior art, Fidelman, fails to disclose the feature of “open channels,” which is now recited by claim 1. Paragraph [0058] of Applicant’s specification offers the following definition: “the term ‘open’ channel…is open along at least one side along its length…Thus, fluid that flows through an open channel would be able to leave…at any point along its length if subjected to a suitable urging force.” In contrast, Fidelman discloses enclosed channels (pp. 12-13).
In response,
(1) Applicant’s assumption that claim 13 is drawn to the elected embodiment is erroneous. The claim is directed to a non-elected embodiment and has been withdrawn accordingly, as the Non-final Rejection of 7/30/25 clearly stipulated.
(2) The examiner notes that the contested limitation of “open channel,” even in view of the special definition, is remarkably broad, and it appears that Fidelman safely satisfies its criterion. For instance, the outermost circumferential wall set of Fidelman’s cooling plate comprises four discrete walls with four gaps respectively situated between each pair of adjacent walls. The outer sides of these four walls, along with the inner side of the continuous boundary wall, structure a channel therebetween, i.e., an outermost channel. The aforementioned gaps constitute an outlet so that fluid can flow from the outermost channel to an inner channel if urged by a suitable force. Because the fluid can exit the outermost channel via the gaps, it is appropriate to characterize the outermost channel as “open” in accordance with Applicant’s own definition. It is in this way that Fidelman discloses “at least one set of walls” that are “open.” The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. Both of these claims stipulate that the “apparatus does not include an air amplifier,” but the specification does not provide support for this language. The invention should be claimed by what it is rather than by what it is not, as negative limitations necessarily broaden the scope of the disclosure beyond its original metes. In this case, Applicant’s apparatus embodies a single embodiment of all conceivable apparatuses lacking an air amplifier, but the unbounded syntax of “does not include an air amplifier” implicitly lays claim to all of the aforesaid apparatuses. As such, the claims are rejected for the recitation of new matter. Nevertheless, to expedite prosecution, the claims 15 and 16 will be examined as written.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fidelman, US 6,284,051.
Claim 1: Fidelman discloses an apparatus comprising a semiconductor processing chamber having a radio-frequency transmissive window (26), against which a cooling plate (28, 30) is positioned (4, 14-30; Fig. 1). In turn, the cooling plate includes a ceiling portion (30), a set of walls (28), and a fluidic inlet (34) (4, 41-51). The fifth paragraph of claim 1 requires a “plurality of fluidic inlets,” whereas Fidelman discloses “at least one inlet” (4, 46-47). Even so, the examiner understands the mere addition of a fluidic inlet to be within the scope of ordinary skill, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
As Figure 2 delineates, set of walls (28) defines a plurality of serpentine channels having a first and second end, arranged in a circular pattern centered on a first axis of the cooling plate, whereby the fluidic inlet is fluidically connected to the first end. Further, the walls protrude from the ceiling portion parallel to the first axis such that the window defines the serpentine channels.
Regarding the new material directed to the feature of “open channels,” the outermost circumferential wall set of Fidelman’s cooling plate comprises four discrete walls with four gaps respectively situated between each pair of adjacent walls. The outer sides of these four walls, along with the inner side of the continuous boundary wall, structure a channel therebetween, i.e., an outermost channel. The aforementioned gaps constitute an outlet so that fluid can flow from the outermost channel to an inner channel if urged by a suitable force. In this way, Fidelman discloses “at least one set of walls” which form an “open channel.”
Claim 4: Fidelman provides a plurality of annularly nested sets of walls. Inherently, a first set of walls will have a smaller diameter than a second set of walls.
Claim 5: The serpentine channels are open (Fig. 2).
Claim 7: Taking the floor portion as the site vertically opposed to the fluidic inlet (34), the nearest annulus radially inward may be taken as the “first subset of walls,” and the nearest annulus radially outward may be taken as the “second subset of walls.”
Claim 8: The cooling plate is formed of quartz, which is transmissive to radio frequencies (4, 24-27).
Claim 16: Fidelman does not disclose an “air amplifier.”
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fidelman in view of Zhang et al., US 2019/0148118.
Claim 3: Fidelman does not avail a pressurized air source, but this Zhang suggests the application of pressurized air to a cooling plate positioned adjacent a dielectric window for purposes of cooling [0038]. Given this demonstration as to its suitability, it would have been obvious to avail air as the cooling fluid within Fidelman’s apparatus.
Claim 15: The rejection of claim 16, above, addresses this limitation.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fidelman in view of Kano et al., US 6,242,719.
Claim 12: Fidelman’s cooling plate does not comprise first and second radial walls. In supplementation, Kano discloses a thermal control plate comprising a series of walls (3) for conducting heat (Figs. 1). A given wall subset comprises first and second radial walls, as well as first and second peninsular walls extending from each radial wall, respectively. As detailed in the annotated figure, below, Kano’s peninsular walls alternate along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis. In view of Kano’s demonstration that the disclosed wall pattern is adequate for uniformly distributing a thermal load to an adjacent surface, it would have been obvious to configure Fidelman’s walls accordingly, as a change of shape is an obvious matter of design choice that is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, MPEP 2144.04 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966).
Claim 14: The rejection of claim 12, above, substantially addresses these limitations. In addition, Kano provides an island wall located between the first and second radial walls, with a gap on either side of the island wall situated between the first and second radial walls. Further, simply replicating Kano’s kernel pattern of radial, peninsular, and island walls is sufficient to generate the third thru sixth radial and peninsular walls, respectively, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fidelman in view of Kim et al., US 2019/0062907.
Fidelman does not disclose the claimed feature of a “floor portion.” Kim, though, describes an analogous cooling plate in which a guide plate (15) is situated offset from and opposite to a fluid inlet (12) so as to orient the incoming flow path toward the intended channel (Fig. 10B). By directing the incoming flow strategically, uniformity of cooling is improved [0127]. It would have been obvious, then, to situate a plate opposing Fidelman’s fluidic inlet (34) in order to control the direction of flow for reasons of thermal regulation.
Although Kim does not clarify whether the floor portion spans two adjacent walls, as the claim’s final paragraph requires, the portion must necessarily affix to some support structure to maintain the opposing relationship with the inlet upon integration within Fidelman’s cooling plate. Plausible solutions would include affixing the plate to either the ceiling or to one or both of the adjacent walls surrounding inlet, whereby these possibilities are obvious over the other. Regardless of the chosen solution, the portion’s width would approximate the claimed characterization of a “bridge that spans between two adjacent walls.”
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Nishimoto, US 2011/0108195. Nishimoto discloses a semiconductor processing chamber comprising a cooling plate (6) having a plurality of channels coupled to an RF-transmissive window (3) ([0048]; Fig. 1). Figure 3 depicts a plurality of serpentine channels formed within the cooling plate [0067].
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights