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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/28/2026 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 05/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending Claims 14-16 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-13 and 17-20 are under examination. In the amendment filed 05/28/2026, claims 1 and 17 were amended; no claims were canceled; and no claims were newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-16 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/29/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The term “inlet hole” in the claims, such as claim 1, is interpreted, consistent with the instant specification and claims as including both the hole on the inlet face and a distance below the hole on the inlet face (i.e. the hole is three dimensional rather than two dimensional).
The term “around the perimeter” is interpreted as inclusive of along or within the perimeter. The term is not interpreted as requiring the structure to be outward of the perimeter.
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.
Claims 8-10 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.
Regarding claim 8, the claim requires in line 4 that the secondary inlet holes are “equiangular from each adjacent secondary inlet hole about a circle centered at the inlet central bore”. It is unclear what angle is being measured between adjacent secondary inlet holes. For purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant specification, the claim will be examined inclusive of the secondary holes are equally spaced apart along a circle such than an angle formed by lines connecting the holes to the center of the circle between two adjacent secondary holes is the same for every set of adjacent secondary holes. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity such as stating the holes are arranged along a circle and spaced apart an equidistant from the neighboring hole.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xia (prev. presented US 2013/0344245).
Regarding claim 1, Xia teaches a gas injector (fig 1) comprising: an inlet portion (upper portion of 72 and unnumbered plate sitting on part 81 Fig 1) including an inlet hole on an inlet face of the inlet portion (opening and upper portion of 72 Fig 1), the inlet portion to receive a processing gas introduced via the inlet hole during semiconductor processing (flow direction arrow in Fig 1), the inlet portion further including a conformal channel (84 Fig 1, see that it extends into the plate sitting on 81) disposed between the inlet hole and a sidewall of the inlet portion (Fig 1), the conformal channel disposed radially between the inlet hole (opening and upper portion of 72 Fig 1) and the sidewall (outer side of plate sitting on 81 in Fig 1) and extending around substantially an a perimeter of the inlet portion and the collar (hole is around the entire of 72, see Fig 1 and 2); an outlet portion (lowermost portion of 72 Fig 1) including an outlet hole from which the processing gas is provided from the gas injector during the semiconductor processing (lower portion of 72 Fig 1 introduces processing gas to region 75 for flow into the chamber), the outlet hole connected to the inlet hole (Fig 1); and a collar (collar 80 including stem portion 83 Fig 1) disposed between the inlet portion and the outlet portion (Fig 1), the collar having a larger diameter than the inlet portion and the outlet portion (Fig 1), the conformal channel (84 Fig 1) extending into the collar (Fig 1) (see also [0040-0041] and terminating before extending into the outlet (terminates before lowermost portion of 72 Fig 1).
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (prev. presented US 2015/0380281), in view of Leeser (prev. presented US 2013/0316094).
Regarding claim 1, Sriraman teaches a gas injector (20 Fig 1 [0019]) comprising: an inlet portion (uppermost portion of 20 including uppermost surface, Fig 1) including an inlet hole (opening of 21 on uppermost surface, Fig 1) on an inlet face of the inlet portion (Fig 1), the inlet portion to receive a processing gas introduced via the inlet hole during semiconductor processing [0022]; an outlet portion (lowermost portion of 20, including lowermost surface of 20 Fig 1) including an outlet hole (lowermost portion of 21 Fig 1) from which the processing gas is provided from the gas injector during the semiconductor processing [0022], the outlet hole connected to the inlet hole (Fig 1); and a collar (23 Fig 4) disposed between the inlet portion (portion at end opposite to the end having holes 21a Fig 4) and the outlet portion (portion having holes 21a Fig 4), the collar having a larger diameter than the inlet portion (Fig 4) and the outlet portion (Fig 4). Sriraman fails to teach the inlet portion further including a conformal channel disposed between the inlet hole and a sidewall of the inlet portion and fails to teach the conformal channel extending into the collar. Addressing the same problem of introducing process gas into a processing chamber (abstract), Leeser teaches a gas injector (20 Fig 1-3B), including an inlet portion (upper portion of 32, Fig 2, 3B) and an outlet portion (lowermost portion of 32 that flows into 34 Fig 2) and a sidewall of the inlet portion (25 Fig 2-3A, [0032]) and a conformal channel (channel having passages 73 including 73-1, 73-2 Fig 3B [0037]) disposed between the inlet hole and a sidewall of the inlet portion (Fig 3B, note this is between 32 and sidewall of 25, see Fig 2 and 3B), the conformal channel disposed radially between the inlet hole (see Fig 2, inlet hole is within 32 Fig 2) and the sidewall (see Fig 2, sidewall is outer side of 25 and note as Fig 1-2 show this is a circular shape such that the horizontal direction outward from the center of 32 is a radial direction) and extending substantially around an entire perimeter of the inlet portion and the collar (see Fig 2-3B and note the path as a whole travels such that it broadly travels around the perimeter of the inlet portion) the conformal channel terminates before extending into the outlet portion (Fig 4A). Leeser teaches this conformal channel extends into a collar (portion 80 shown in Fig 3A and shown, not numbered in Fig 3B). 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 Sriraman to include the conformal channel of Leeser because Leeser teaches this conformal channel allows for a cooler to include a heat exchange medium for cooling [0036] which keeps the gas introduction stem cooled and provides a constant temperature [0042] and allows for temperature control of the gas introduction structure [0048] which is important because Leeser teaches temperature changes tend to negatively affect the quality of the film being deposited and precise temperature control is desired [0005-0006].
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Leeser as applied in the combination teaches the conformal channel comprises a plurality of channel sections (73-1, 73-2 Fig 3B) and each channel section of the plurality of channel sections extends through the inlet portion and terminates at a corresponding inlet channel end before reaching the inlet face (Fig 3B).
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Leeser as applied in the combination teaches each channel section also terminates at a corresponding collar channel end before reaching the outlet portion (Fig 3B, see lower ends at shown, not numbered collar 80).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 3 above. Leeser as applied in the combination teaches each channel section is connected via its inlet channel end to one immediately adjacent channel section and is not connected via the inlet channel end to another immediately adjacent channel section, and at least some of the plurality of channel sections not connected via the inlet channel ends are connected via the collar channel end (see flow arrows shown in Fig 3B in which the flow is up 73-2 from below the neighboring section (at collar end) and over 72-2 (at inlet end) to 73-2 and then under 72-1) [0036-0037] (see also Fig 4C demonstrating the flow). Note that while Leeser teaches the inlet and outlet are at the upper ends (Fig 3A), moving them to the bottom such that each top requires a connection represents a mere rearrangement of parts and would not alter the operation of the cooling jacket of Lesser.
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Sriraman teaches the collar has a sidewall (see 23 Fig 4). Leeser as applied in the combination teaches a sidewall has ports (70 for inlet with flow 68 and 74 for outlet with flow 68 Fig 3A, [0036-0037]) for the gas flow introduction and exit. Leeser teaches the inlet and outlet are connected to sections which do not connect to each other (see Fig 4A-C and [0036-0037]) but fails to teach this is at the collar channel end because Leeser demonstrates it at the inlet end. The position of the inlet and outlet ports at the channel end represents a mere rearrangement of parts. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sriraman in view of Leeser to include the ports and the ends not connected due to the ports are positioned at the channel end because this 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 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Leeser as applied in the combination teaches the conformal channel is a single channel that extends around substantially an entirety of the inlet hole ([0036-0037] and Fig 3A-4C).
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Leeser as applied in the combination teaches at least one of the inlet channel ends or the collar channel ends of each channel section have an arcuate shape (Fig 3A-4C, note the arcuate shape at ends connecting 73-1 and 73-2 because of the curve of the inner tube and outer tube).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman in view of Leeser as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Liu (prev. presented US 2009/0159424).
Regarding claim 8, Sriraman teaches the inlet hole comprises a single inlet central bore (21 Fig 1) and a plurality of secondary inlet holes (22 Fig 1) surrounding the inlet central bore, which is a circular shape (Fig 1 [0023]), the secondary inlet holes are equidistant from a center of the inlet central bore ([0023], see line 22 equidistant from central bore 21 Fig 1 and see outlets 21b equidistant from 21a Fig 4), , the outlet hole comprises a single outlet central bore connected with the inlet central bore (21 Fig 1 or see 21a Fig 4, note [0027] teaches 21a may be 1 hole) and a plurality of secondary outlet holes connected with the secondary inlet holes (21b Fig 4), the secondary outlet holes are disposed on a sidewall of the outlet portion (21b Fig 4). Sriraman fails to teach an arc of one of each inlet channel end or each collar channel end is centered angularly around a different secondary inlet hole and fails to teach each secondary inlet hole is equiangular from each adjacent secondary inlet hole. Regarding the arc of each inlet end or each collar channel end, Leeser remains as applied to teach these arcs. Regarding the arc being centered around a secondary hole, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the passages of the cooling channel as taught by Leeser. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arc centered around a secondary hole because this allows for the cooling channel to travel vertically between adjacent secondary holes rather than at the same position of the secondary holes. Regarding each secondary inlet hole is equiangular from each adjacent secondary inlet hole, Sriraman appears to demonstrate this arrangement in Fig 4 with the holes 21b but fails to explicitly teach the arrangement. In the same field of endeavor of a gas injector (abstract), Liu teaches the secondary outlets (421 Fig 3) are evenly distributed (i.e. equally spaced around the injector) [0041]. 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 Sriraman to include the secondary holes are equiangular about a circle centered at the inlet central bore because Liu teaches having the passaged evenly distributed to supply the gas through the secondary outlets.
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. Regarding an arc of at least another of each inlet channel end or each collar channel end is centered angularly between adjacent secondary inlet holes, as noted above this represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the ends of the coolant passages tubes of the combination.
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. Regarding each channel section has a diameter smaller than a diameter of each secondary inlet hole, this represents a mere change of shape and optimization of the size for gas delivery flow rate and cooling rate. Further it represents an obvious to try modification of choosing between a finite number of options (the diameters are the same, the diameters of the channel section is larger, or the diameter of the channel section is smaller).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman in view of Leeser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (prev. presented US 2014/0083615), and Yamazawa (prev. presented US 2019/0098740).
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Sriraman fails to teach a connector integrally formed with the sidewall of the inlet portion, the connector sized to be connected to a gas manifold configured to supply the gas to the gas injector and fails to the gas injector formed from a ceramic material because Sriraman teaches quartz [0027]. Regarding a connector integrally formed with the sidewall of the inlet portion, the connector sized to be connected to a gas manifold configured to supply the gas to the gas injector, in the same field of endeavor of a gas injector, Kim teaches a gas manifold (50 Fig 2) configured to supply the gas to the gas injector [0032] and teaches a connector (threaded surface 45 Fig 2) integrally formed with the sidewall of the inlet portion (Fig 2), the connector sized to be connected to the gas manifold (Fig 2, [0032]). 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 Sriraman to include the connector as taught by Kim because Kim teaches this allows for secure attachment to a gas manifold [0032]. Regarding the gas injector formed from a ceramic material, Sriraman teaches quartz [0027]. In the same field of endeavor of a gas injector, Yamazawa teaches the gas injector (41 Fig 1) may be made of ceramic or quartz [0098]. 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 Sriraman to include the injector formed of ceramic because Yamazawa teaches this is a suitable alternative material for the gas injector.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman in view of Leeser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shah (prev. presented US 2014/0014270).
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Sriraman and Sriraman in view of Leeser fails to teach the conformal channel is disposed such that at least one radial material thickness separating the conformal channel from at least one of the inlet hole and the sidewall of the inlet portion is less than about 6mm. Addressing the same problem of introducing gas into a chamber or container (abstract), Shah teaches the alternating baffles (501 Fig 5) for providing a serpentine gas flow and controlling gas flow (Fig 5 [0031]) may be 0.5 to 1 mm thick [0031]. 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 Sriraman and the combination of Sriraman in view of Leeser to include the baffles and sidewall of the coolant channel (baffles 72-1, 72-2, 72-3 Fig 3B of Leeser) are 0.5 to 1mm thick because Leeser is silent as to the thickness of the baffles or sidewall and Shah teaches this thickness is sufficient for directing gas flow.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman in view of Leeser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abeshaus (prev. presented US 2019/0366436).
Regarding claim 13, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Sriraman and Sriraman in view of Leeser fails to teach a depth of damage of the gas injector is less than about 1 micron. Initially it is noted that this appears to be a result of the additive manufacturing process and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to minimize the depth of damage and ideally have no damage (i.e. 0 depth of damage). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a gas introduction structure (abstract), Abeshaus teaches a gas injector (18 Fig 1) with a cooling channel (14 Fig 1B) may be formed by additive manufacturing (3D printing) [0042] and may be made of ceramic [0037]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sriraman to form the injector by additive manufacturing because Sriraman teaches this is a functional alternative method for forming the structure. Because the structure of the combination is formed in the same manner, it will have the same depth of damage unless applicant is relying on essential limitations that have not been claimed.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman in view of Leeser, Kim, and Liu.
Regarding claim 17 and 20, Sriraman teaches a semiconductor processing system (10 Fig 1) comprising: a gas injector (20 Fig 1, 4) comprising: an inlet portion (upper end of 20 Fig 1, 4) coupled with the gas supply (234 Fig 1) and to which the gasses are to be introduced via an inlet hole (upper end of 21 Fig 1) on an inlet face (uppermost surface of 20 Fig 1) of the inlet portion (upper end of 20 Fig 1), the inlet portion comprising a sidewall of the inlet portion (sidewall of upper end of 20 Fig 1) , the inlet hole comprising a single inlet central bore (21 Fig 1) and a plurality of secondary inlet holes (22 Fig 1) surrounding the inlet central bore (Fig 1, [0023]) , the secondary inlet holes being equidistant from a center of the inlet central bore (Fig 1 and [0023]); an outlet portion (lower end of 20 Fig 1, 4) from which the gasses are provided from the gas injector via an outlet hole connected to the inlet hole (lower end of 21 Fig 1 or 21a Fig 2, note [0027] teaches 21a may be one hole), the outlet hole comprising a single outlet central bore connected with the inlet central bore (lower end of 21 Fig 1 or 21a Fig 2, note [0027] teaches 21a may be one hole) and a plurality of secondary outlet holes (21b Fig 4) connected with the secondary inlet holes [0027], the secondary outlet holes disposed on a sidewall of the outlet portion (Fig 4 and [0027]); and a collar (23 Fig 4) disposed between the inlet portion and the outlet portion (Fig 4), the collar having a larger diameter than the inlet portion and the outlet portion (Fig 4); and a processing chamber (40 Fig 1) within which a semiconductor wafer (5 Fig 1) is disposed [0019], the gas injector coupled to the processing chamber such that the gasses are provided into the processing chamber from the outlet portion (Fig 1). Sriraman teaches a gas supply but fails to teach a gas manifold configured to supply gasses used during semiconductor processing and an inlet portion coupled with the gas manifold, Sriraman fails to teach the inlet portion comprising a conformal channel disposed between the inlet hole and a sidewall of the inlet portion, the conformal channel extending into the collar, and fails to teach each secondary inlet hole equiangular from each adjacent secondary inlet hole. Regarding the inlet portion comprising a conformal channel disposed between the inlet hole and a sidewall of the inlet portion, the conformal channel extending into the collar , addressing the same problem of introducing process gas into a processing chamber (abstract), Leeser teaches a gas injector (20 Fig 1-3B), including an inlet portion (upper portion of 32, Fig 2, 3B) and an outlet portion (lower portion of 32 that flows into 34 Fig 2) and a sidewall of the inlet portion (25 Fig 2-3A, [0032]) and a conformal channel (channel having passages 73 including 73-1, 73-2 Fig 3B [0037]) disposed between the inlet hole and a sidewall of the inlet portion (Fig 3B, note this is between 32 and sidewall of 25, see Fig 2 and 3B) the conformal channel disposed radially between the inlet hole (see Fig 2, inlet hole is within 32 Fig 2) and the sidewall (see Fig 2, sidewall is outer side of 25 and note as Fig 1-2 show this is a circular shape such that the horizontal direction outward from the center of 32 is a radial direction) and extending substantially around an entire perimeter of the inlet portion and the collar (see Fig 2-3B and note the path as a whole travels such that it broadly travels around the perimeter of the inlet portion) the conformal channel terminates before extending into the outlet portion (Fig 4A). Leeser teaches this conformal channel extends into a collar (portion 80 shown in Fig 3A and shown, not numbered in Fig 3B). 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 Sriraman to include the conformal channel of Leeser because Leeser teaches this conformal channel allows for a cooler to include a heat exchange medium for cooling [0036] which keeps the gas introduction stem cooled and provides a constant temperature [0042] and allows for temperature control of the gas introduction structure [0048] which is important because Leeser teaches temperature changes tend to negatively affect the quality of the film being deposited and precise temperature control is desired [0005-0006]. Regarding the gas manifold, in the same field of endeavor of a gas injector, Kim teaches a gas manifold (50 Fig 2) configured to supply the gas to the gas injector [0032] and teaches a connector (threaded surface 45 Fig 2) integrally formed with the sidewall of the inlet portion (Fig 2), the connector sized to be connected to the gas manifold (Fig 2, [0032]). 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 Sriraman to include the gas manifold connected to the inlet and the connector as taught by Kim because Kim teaches this allows for supply of gas to the inlet and secure attachment to a gas manifold [0032]. Regarding each secondary inlet hole is equiangular from each adjacent secondary inlet hole, Sriraman appears to demonstrate this arrangement in Fig 4 with the holes 21b around the central circular inlet hole 21 but fails to explicitly teach the arrangement. In the same field of endeavor of a gas injector (abstract), Liu teaches the secondary outlets (421 Fig 3) are evenly distributed (i.e. equally spaced around the injector) [0041] around a circular central bore (see Fig 3 and 4A). 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 Sriraman to include the secondary holes are equiangular because Liu teaches having the passaged evenly distributed to supply the gas through the secondary outlets.
Regarding claim 18, the combination remains as applied to claim 17 above. Leeser as applied in the combination teaches the conformal channel has a plurality of channel sections (73-1, 73-2 Fig 3B) and each channel section of the plurality of channel sections extends through the inlet portion and terminates at inlet channel ends before reaching the inlet face (Fig 3B). Leeser as applied in the combination teaches each channel section also terminates at collar channel ends before reaching the outlet portion (Fig 3B, see lower ends at shown, not numbered collar 80).
Regarding claim 19, the combination remains as applied to claim 18 above. Leeser as applied in the combination teaches each channel section is connected via its inlet channel end to one immediately adjacent channel section and is not connected via the inlet channel end to another immediately adjacent channel section, and at least some of the plurality of channel sections not connected via the inlet channel ends are connected via the collar channel end (see flow arrows shown in Fig 3B in which the flow is up 73-2 from below the neighboring section (at collar end) and over 72-2 (at inlet end) to 73-2 and then under 72-1) [0036-0037] (see also Fig 4C demonstrating the flow). Note that while Leeser teaches the inlet and outlet are at the upper ends (Fig 3A), moving them to the bottom such that each top requires a connection represents a mere rearrangement of parts and would not alter the operation of the cooling jacket of Leeser. Sriraman teaches the collar has a sidewall (see 23 Fig 4). Leeser as applied in the combination teaches a sidewall has ports (70 for inlet with flow 68 and 74 for outlet with flow 68 Fig 3A, [0036-0037]) for the gas flow introduction and exit. Leeser teaches the inlet and outlet are connected to sections which do not connect to each other (see Fig 4A-C and [0036-0037]) but fails to teach this is at the collar channel end because Leeser demonstrates it at the inlet end. The position of the inlet and outlet ports at the channel end represents a mere rearrangement of parts. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sriraman in view of Leeser to include the ports and the ends not connected due to the ports are positioned at the channel end because this 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Examiner disagrees and has updated the rejections to reflect where the amended limitations have not overcome the clarity rejections. Also note the amendments raised issues of new matter as explained above.
The arguments regarding Xia (reply p 12-15) are not persuasive because applicant argues Xia’s cavity is not within the inlet portion but does not discuss the applied matching of the space between the pipe 72 and the plate sitting on 81 other than to argue an interpretation which requires a narrow definition of the inlet structure. Applicant has not require the structure to be unibody or otherwise limited to the extent that applicant’s arguments presume. Therefore this argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that channel is not around the entire perimeter. This is not persuasive because 72 and 81 are shown as having an annular shape and there is no indication the gap between them is also not annular. Further the inclusion of the slots does not change the shape of the gap or prevent the gap from following an annular path, as applicant’s arguments appear to suggest. Applicant broadly argues the spacing is not radially positioned while not addressing that both structures are circular (see Fig 2). Therefore the arguments regarding Xia are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the channel does not terminate at the required position, but as cited above, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues a narrower definition of each structure than the current claims require. Applicant is encouraged to ensure the claims match the narrower applied interpretation if applicant wishes to pursue such an interpretation.
The arguments regarding Sriraman in view of Leeser (see reply p16-31) are not persuasive because applicant argues that the passage is not within the claimed structures. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to a narrower interpretation that is not supported or described by the instant specification as originally filed because the inner wall is the hole. Regarding not teaching a radial positioning, the structures of Leeser are circular as cited above and therefore the channel is radially between the inlet hole and the sidewall, as explained above. If applicant has a narrower or special definition of radial, applicant is reminded that this should have been presented in the specification as originally filed. Applicant argues that Leeser does not terminate before extending to the outlet, but as cited above, Leeser does teach this. Therefore the argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the motivation to combine is not present because applicant believes the cooling requirements are different. However examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Leeser does not teach the structure of claim 4. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the same passage of upward and downward is demonstrated. Applicant is encouraged to more narrowly define the structure of the channel to distinguish over Leeser. Applicant argues the rearrangement of parts but does not persuasively explain why this would result in different cooling performance. Regarding claim 6, the passages extend around in the same manner that applicant’s passages extend around.
For all of these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
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
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights