DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 29, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 10-11, 16-17, and 19 are amended; claim 18 is canceled.
In the after-final response submitted on March 30th, Applicant argued that Higashi fails to disclose the feature of a “single exhaust conduit,” which is presently recited by independent claims 1, 10, and 17.
In response, the examiner has restructured the 103 rejections of the independent claims to address this feature in view of deliverances by both Higashi and Yang. Briefly, Higashi discloses an exhaust conduit, configured like feature 904 of Figure 9, that is fluidly connected to the second plurality of apertures. The opening of the exhaust conduit may be interpreted as the claimed “main exhaust port.” Higashi, though, is silent with regard to the new material specifying an “exhaust channel.” Intuitively, though, given the annular organization of Higashi’s second apertures, it would have been reasonable to construct the corresponding channel of similar dimension and shape to guide the effluent stream to the exhaust port.
Yang, too, provides a gas distribution plate comprising an annular array of exhaust apertures (412) (Fig. 8). In order to direct the effluent passing through these apertures to the main exhaust port (910), Yang situates an annular channel (420, 422) around the exhaust apertures to route the gas flow to said port ([0050]; Figs. 5, 6B, 9). Because Higashi shares the desideratum of efficiently routing effluent from the processing region to the exhaust port, it would have been obvious to form an annular channel about the annular array of second apertures to contain and guide the gas stream.
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, 16-17, and 19-20 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
Claims 1, 19: 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).
Although not depicted, Higashi contemplates an exhaust conduit for removing gas from the distribution plate, whereby the opening of said conduit may be construed as the claimed “main exhaust port” [0049]. The reference, though, does not segregate the second plurality of apertures into first and second subsets of differing diameter, nor does the reference depict the new material of a “single exhaust channel.” Addressing both omissions is Yang, who discloses an annular pumping liner (410) comprising a series of exhaust apertures (412), where an annular exhaust channel (420, 422) guides the effluent passing through these apertures to a main exhaust port (910) ([0050, 0067-68]; Figs. 5-6, 8-9).
As shown by Figures 8-10, the spacing between successive apertures (912) decreases about the liner’s circumference with increasing distance from the exhaust port (910) [0070]. 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 channel to guide the effluent stream toward the exhaust port, 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 the claimed configuration of 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, Rasheed 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, since selecting between these two means of pressure equalization is obvious over the other.
Claims 2-3: Membership of the second aperture in either the first or second subset can be designated arbitrarily.
Claim 4: Higashi’s second plurality of apertures (54) are arranged along an outer edge of the gas distribution plate (Fig. 4).
Claim 5: Higashi’s second plurality of apertures (54) 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: Higashi’s first plurality of apertures (34) are arranged within the central region of the distribution plate (Fig. 3).
Claims 10, 13: Collectively, the rejections of claims 1 and 6, above, address these limitations.
Claim 11: As shown by Figure 3, 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.
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).
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