DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on December 11, 2025. Claims 1-3, 10, and 16-17 are amended; claims 14 and 15 are canceled.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to teach the new material presently recited by independent claims 1, 10, and 17 – namely, a main exhaust port located closer to a smaller-diameter first aperture than a larger-diameter second aperture (p. 6).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization and has withdrawn the outstanding 102 rejections. Subsequent further search, new rejections have been elaborated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. This claim invokes a “main exhaust,” but this term lacks antecedent basis. To promote compact prosecution, the examiner will provisionally interpret the contested limitations as further clarifying the previously claimed “main exhaust port.”
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 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashi et al., US 2016/0047042, in view of Yang et al., US 2021/0079524, and Rasheed et al., US 2017/0283947
Claim 1: Higashi discloses a gas distribution plate, comprising:
A first plurality of apertures (50) configured to supply a source gas [0042];
Wherein each aperture has the same diameter (Fig. 3);
A second plurality of apertures (54) surrounding the first plurality of apertures and configured to exhaust the source gas ([0043]; Fig. 4).
Higashi does not segregate the second plurality of apertures into first and second subsets of differing diameter, nor does the reference depict the claimed “main exhaust port.” Remedying both omissions is Yang, who discloses an annular pumping liner (410) comprising a series of apertures (412), whereby the liner is situated adjacent to a main exhaust port (910) ([0067-68]; Figs. 8-9). As shown, the spacing between successive apertures decreases about the liner along with increasing circumferential distance from the exhaust port (Fig. 10). The technique of asymmetrically spacing the apertures offsets the asymmetrical pressure conditions induced by the use of a single exhaust port, thereby generating improved uniformity within the exhaust stream [0070]. It would have been obvious, then, to incorporate an exhaust port to evacuate an effluent stream, as well as to vary aperture spacing to offset pressure differentials within the distribution plate.
Now, although increasing the density of similarly-sized apertures appears functionally proportionate to increasing the diameter of similarly-spaced apertures, Yang does not contemplate the equivalency. Rasheed, however, like Yang, prescribes the technique of decreasing the spacing of successive apertures as distance increases from a fluid source (Fig. 8H). That is, decreasing pressure along the length of a conduit can be offset by decreasing aperture spacing, i.e., increasing density [0074]. Critically, Yang discloses an equivalent means by which to achieve the same objective: increasing aperture diameter as distance increases from the fluid source ([0077]; Fig. 8J). Given this demonstration of equivalency between decreasing aperture spacing and increasing aperture diameter, it would have been obvious to widen the diameter of Higashi’s second apertures as their distance increases relative to the exhaust port.
Claims 2-3: Membership of the second aperture in either the first or second subset can be designated arbitrarily.
Claim 4: The second plurality of apertures (50) are arranged along an outer edge of the gas distribution plate (Fig. 4).
Claim 5: The second plurality of apertures (50) are arranged equidistantly (Fig. 4).
Claims 6-7, 20: As shown by Figures 8-10, Yang variably spaces the apertures, decreasing their successive distance therebetween along with circumferential distance from the exhaust port.
Claim 8: Higashi contemplates an embodiment in which the apertures are arranged circularly [0036].
Claim 9: The first plurality of apertures (34) are arranged within the central region of the distribution plate (Fig. 4).
Claims 10, 13: Collectively, the rejections of claims 1 and 6, above, address these limitations.
Claim 11: As shown by Figure 4, Higashi’s first plurality of apertures (34) are arranged within a central region and the second plurality of apertures (54) are arranged along an outer edge of the gas distribution plate.
Claim 12: Higashi contemplates an embodiment in which the apertures are arranged circularly [0036].
Claim 16: Arbitrarily, the apertures closest to the main exhaust port can be designated as the “first set.”
Claim 17: Collectively, the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 8 address these limitations.
Claim 18: Higashi provides an exhaust conduit (904) which necessarily couples to the second plurality of apertures. It is unclear if the channel extends along the “outer edge” of the distributor, but its placement is a matter which can be resolved through routine experimentation –it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Claim 19: The aperture opening to the exhaust channel may be named the “main exhaust port.”
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Baek et al., US 2007/0095286. Baek discloses a gas distribution plate (500) comprising a first plurality of apertures (412) configured to supply a source gas, as well as a second plurality of apertures (616) surrounding the first plurality and configured to exhaust the source gas ([0077]; Figs. 5-6).
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