DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 03/10/2026.
4. Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are currently pending.
5. Claims 6-10 have been withdrawn.
6. Claims 1-2 have been amended.
7. Claims 4-5 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa et al (US 2009/0111276) in view of Kojima et al (US 5,445,709) and Kitagawa (US 6,217,703).
Regarding claim 1:
Dhindsa teaches a device (plasma processing apparatus) for processing a substrate (32) [fig 1 & 0010], the device (plasma processing apparatus) comprising: a chamber (vacuum processing chamber) [fig 1 & 0012]; a substrate supporting unit (substrate support, 30) provided inside the chamber (vacuum processing chamber) and configured to support the substrate (substrate, 32) provided inside the chamber (vacuum processing chamber) [fig 1 & 0012]; a gas distribution unit (showerhead electrode assembly, 10) provided inside the chamber (vacuum processing chamber) to face the substrate supporting unit (substrate support, 30) and configured to distribute a process gas toward the substrate supporting unit [fig 1 & 0010]; a first temperature control unit (110C) installed only in a central region except for an edge region of the gas distribution unit (10) [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0016, 0019, 0039]; and a second temperature control unit (120A) installed only in an edge region except for the central region of the gas distribution unit (10), the edge region including one or more partial edge regions along an outer peripheral side of the gas distribution unit (10) [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0016, 0019, 0039], wherein the first temperature control unit (110C) comprises: a flow channel (tube) configured to allow a temperature controlling fluid (heat transfer liquid) to flow inside the central region [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0016, 0019, 0039]; an inlet (116C) configured to supply the temperature controlling fluid (heat transfer liquid) to the flow channel (tube) [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0018]; and an outlet (118C) configured to discharge the temperature controlling fluid (heat transfer liquid) from the flow channel (tube) [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0018], wherein the second temperature control unit (120A) comprises an electric heating wire (heater element) buried inside the edge region [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0016, 0019, 0039].
Dhindsa does not specifically disclose a gas distribution unit having a quadrilateral shape.
Kojima teaches a gas distribution unit having a quadrilateral shape (rectangular shape [col 11, lines 10-22].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas distribution unit of Dhindsa to have a quadrilateral shape, as in Kojima, to process an LCD substrate having a rectangular shape [Kojima - col 11, lines 10-22].
Although modified Dhindsa teaches the first temperature control unit (110C) could have a spiral, zig-zag, or other pattern with one or more inlets and one or more outlets [Dhindsa - 0023], Dhindsa modified by Kojima does not specifically teach the first temperature control unit extends in one direction along a first side surface of an outer circumference of the gas distribution unit and a second side surface of the circumference, which is opposite to the first side surface of the circumference.
Kitagawa teaches a first temperature control unit (means for cooling) extends in one direction along a first side surface of an outer circumference of the gas distribution unit and a second side surface of the circumference, which is opposite to the first side surface of the circumference (path extending between 462 and 463) [fig 2 & col 5, lines 41-58].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first temperature control unit of modified Dhindsa to have the shape of Kitagawa because such a shape enables cooling [Kitagawa - col 5, lines 41-58]. Furthermore, this limitation amounts to an obvious change in shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select any shape desired for the first temperature control unit, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04].
The claim limitations “configured to increase a temperature of the central region” and “configured to increase a temperature of the edge region more rapidly than the temperature of the central region” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 2:
Dhindsa teaches a device (plasma processing apparatus) for processing a substrate (32) [fig 1 & 0010], the device (plasma processing apparatus) comprising: a chamber (vacuum processing chamber) [fig 1 & 0012]; a substrate supporting unit (substrate support, 30) provided inside the chamber (vacuum processing chamber) and configured to support the substrate (substrate, 32) provided inside the chamber (vacuum processing chamber) [fig 1 & 0012]; a gas distribution unit (showerhead electrode assembly, 10) provided inside the chamber (vacuum processing chamber) to face the substrate supporting unit (substrate support, 30) and configured to distribute a process gas toward the substrate supporting unit [fig 1 & 0010]; a first temperature control unit (110C) installed only in a central region except for an edge region of the gas distribution unit (10) [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0016, 0019, 0039]; and a second temperature control unit (120A) installed only in an edge region except for the central region of the gas distribution unit (10), the edge region including one or more partial edge regions along an outer peripheral side of the gas distribution unit (10) [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0016, 0019, 0039], wherein the first temperature control unit (110C) comprises: a flow channel (tube) configured to allow a temperature controlling fluid (heat transfer liquid) to flow inside the central region [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0016, 0019, 0039]; an inlet (116C) configured to supply the temperature controlling fluid (heat transfer liquid) to the flow channel (tube) [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0018]; and an outlet (118C) configured to discharge the temperature controlling fluid (heat transfer liquid) from the flow channel (tube) [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0018], wherein the second temperature control unit (120A) comprises an electric heating wire (heater element) buried inside the edge region [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0016, 0019, 0039].
Dhindsa does not specifically disclose a gas distribution unit having a quadrilateral shape.
Kojima teaches a gas distribution unit having a quadrilateral shape (rectangular shape [col 11, lines 10-22].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas distribution unit of Dhindsa to have a quadrilateral shape, as in Kojima, to process an LCD substrate having a rectangular shape [Kojima - col 11, lines 10-22].
Although modified Dhindsa teaches the first temperature control unit (110C) could have a spiral, zig-zag, or other pattern with one or more inlets and one or more outlets [Dhindsa - 0023], Dhindsa modified by Kojima does not specifically teach the first temperature control unit extends in one direction along a first side surface of an outer circumference of the gas distribution unit and a second side surface of the circumference, which is opposite to the first side surface of the circumference.
Kitagawa teaches a first temperature control unit (means for cooling) extends in one direction along a first side surface of an outer circumference of the gas distribution unit and a second side surface of the circumference, which is opposite to the first side surface of the circumference (path extending between 462 and 463) [fig 2 & col 5, lines 41-58].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first temperature control unit of modified Dhindsa to have the shape of Kitagawa because such a shape enables cooling [Kitagawa - col 5, lines 41-58]. Furthermore, this limitation amounts to an obvious change in shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select any shape desired for the first temperature control unit, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04].
The claim limitations “configured to increase or decrease a temperature of the central region” and “configured to increase a temperature of the edge region” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 3:
The claim limitations “wherein the second temperature control unit heats the gas distribution unit to a higher temperature than does the first temperature control unit” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 1-2.
12. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The teachings of Kitagawa (US 6,217,703) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arai et al (JP H08218171A) and Mandrekar et al (US 6,433,314) teach temperature control units [fig 8 and 10, respectively].
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights