DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
In view of the Petition decision rendered on April 28, 2026, Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action has been accepted, and the finality of the outstanding Office letter is withdrawn.
The Petition concludes that the examiner did not adequately respond to arguments related to claims 1, 3, 12, and 14 in the response filed on October 30, 2025, as well as the after-final response filed on March 29, 2026. Below is a thorough recapitulation of Applicant’s arguments and the examiner’s response to each.
(1) Regarding the 112(a) rejections of claims 15 and 16, Applicant’s disclosure does, in fact, support the claimed feature of an apparatus that “does not include an air amplifier” (pp. 11-12 of the 3/29/26 reply).
(2) Claim 1 clarifies that the cooling plate has “open channels,” which the specification defines as a “channel structure [that is] open along at least one side…e.g., it has a floor and opposing side walls, but no ceiling.” Fidelman, in contrast, teaches a cooling plate (28) whose channels are necessarily enclosed by virtue of being sandwiched between plates 26 and 30 (pp. 12-13 of the 10/30/25 reply).
(3) With regard to claim 3, the applicant contends that Fidelman expressly states that air is ineffective as a coolant “to keep the plate 26 below the abovementioned target temperature of 200 degrees Celsius.” As such, it would not have been obvious to use air within Fidelman’s apparatus for purposes of cooling (p. 16).
(4) Also, with regard to claim 3, Zhang’s air multipliers would supply ambient facility air, whereas claim 3 explicitly proscribes the supply of “facility ambient air to the serpentine channels.”
(5) With regard to claims 12 and 14, the Office improperly construes element 3 of Kano as a “wall,” but this improper because the element is, in fact, a heat generating layer (p. 18).
(6) Kano’s wall structure is optimized for an electrical heater element rather than a system which generates heat via fluid circulation, as will Fidelman’s system. As such, these two teachings are incompatible (p. 19).
(7) Kano selects the particular wall pattern in order to rectify inconsistencies of thermal distribution that are downstream of the presence of power terminals. Because Fidelman’s fluid-based system does not have power terminals, there is no reason to adopt Kano’s wall pattern since it does not solve a relevant problem (p. 19).
In response,
(1) After further consideration, the examiner understands paragraph [0005] of Applicant’s specification to provide adequate warrant for the contested limitation. The 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn, accordingly.
(2) The examiner notes that Applicant’s argument confuses two different frameworks. That is, the channels of Applicant’s cooling plate can only be considered “open” when it is treated as an isolated structure, i.e., when it is removed from its operational position within the claimed apparatus. But the same is true of Fidelman’s plate – when considering the prior art cooling plate (28) as an isolated structure extracted from the surrounding plates 26 and 30, its channels also lack a ceiling and may be considered “open.”
Of course, when Applicant’s cooling plate is considered within an operational framework, such as in Figure 1, the cooling plate’s channels are no longer open because the transmissive window (108) acts as a ceiling closing the channels. The same is true with Fidelman, as window (26) functions as a ceiling which closes the channels of the cooling plate (28) (Fig. 1). As can now be seen, when Applicant’s cooling plate and Fidelman’s cooling plate are both considered within same framework, there is no distinction between them with regard to the status of the channels: when treated in isolation, the channels of both cooing plates are open; given an operational position, the channels of both cooling plates are closed.
(3) The examiner observes that Fidelman stipulates air may not be effective to maintain the plate below the self-imposed threshold of 200 degrees Celsius, but that threshold is not established by the claim set and, therefore, the prior art is not bound by it. Further, the arbiter of obviousness is one of ordinary skill positioned in the art, not the author of the primary reference. Given a limitation directed to the use of a coolant that does not specify an upper bound of a target temperature range, one of ordinary skill would conclude that air is, in fact, an effective coolant medium.
(4) The examiner cannot locate any evidence to support Applicant’s speculation that Zhang is supplying “facility ambient air.” All the claim requires is the supply of clean air to the serpentine channels, whereby Zhang is cited simply to demonstrate that air, in fact, is a capable cooling medium. The operator, in view of this deliverance, can then charge the gas source of Fidelman’s apparatus with clean air, as it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)). That is, Fidelman already provides a source container for storing gas that is then supplied to the serpentine channels; given Zhang’s demonstration that dry air is an effective coolant, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to charge the source container with fluid of this type, whereby Fidelman’s source container is structurally capable of accommodating the dry air.
(5) The examiner simply rejects the argument. As shown by Figures 2, element 3 has a clear dimension in the width direction, which is the basic condition to satisfy the broad denotation of “wall.”
(6) The examiner acknowledges the distinction between the provenance of heat generation but observes that the distribution of the thermal pattern will necessarily conform to the structural organization of its generative mechanism, e.g., an annular thermal pattern will inhere from an annular heating element or an annular fluid path. Thus, one of ordinary skill would understand that configuring Fidelman’s channels in a manner similar to Kano’s walls would yield a thermal distribution commensurate with that shown by the latter’s system.
(7) The examiner disagrees, noting that the functional result of Kano’s wall pattern is a uniform thermal distribution that obtains irrespective of the reason for the selection of the aforesaid wall pattern. One of ordinary skill, then, would conclude that by adopting Kano’s wall pattern, uniformity can be assured. In other words, the outcome of a uniform thermal distribution obtains by virtue of the wall pattern, not because of an upstream mechanical constraint that factored into the selection of the wall pattern. For this reason, the aforesaid mechanical constraint, i.e., power terminals acting as heat sinks, is not a relevant consideration when selecting for a wall pattern that optimizes thermal uniformity.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “clean dry air source” must be shown or canceled from claim 3. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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].
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