DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-5 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 14, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II (Figs. 8-11) in the reply filed on July 14, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the two species share a substantial overlapping feature. This is not found persuasive because these species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. The two Species have distinct features and therefore lack unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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 1 and 6-8 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 1, the phrase “line-type,” in line 8, is akin to the phase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Examiner understands the term “polyline” and “line-type” in plain English language respectively. However, the combined terms “polyline line-type,” in a claim, which must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of an invention, appear complex or at least redundance in grammar, and signifying something more than just a simple “polyline.” Clarification is respectfully requested. The claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyazik et al. (US20140237840. Knyazik hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Knyazik discloses a separated gas inlet structure (100. Figs. 1-5) for (capable of) blocking plasma backflow, wherein the structure comprises a gas inlet flange (134, 136 and 122), an upper gas inlet nozzle (210) and a lower gas inlet nozzle (230) and the lower gas inlet nozzle made of ceramic materials ([0033]); a top (upper half portion) of the upper gas inlet nozzle extends into a bottom (of 134 and downstream end of 122) of the gas inlet flange; the upper gas inlet nozzle is coaxially nested or coaxially stacked at a top of the lower gas inlet nozzle (Fig. 2), both the top of the upper gas inlet nozzle and the top of the lower gas inlet nozzle are lapped on a coupling window (of 108); a polyline line-type gas inlet channel (channel from 212a, 212b to 350, 306) is provided in the upper gas inlet nozzle and the lower gas inlet nozzle, and the gas inlet channel includes an upper axial channel (206, 208), a radial channel (250a, 250b), a lower axial channel (236, 238) and a gas outlet (350, 306); a top (upstream) of the upper axial channel is in communication with the gas inlet channel of the gas inlet flange, a bottom (downstream) of the upper axial channel is in communication with the radial channel; the radial channel or the lower axial channel is positioned at a mounting matching part of the upper gas inlet nozzle and the lower gas inlet nozzle; and a top of the lower axial channel is in communication with the radial channel and points to (towards) a bottom wall surface of the upper gas inlet nozzle; the bottom of the lower axial channel is in communication with the gas outlet, the gas outlet points to a vacuum reaction chamber obliquely (at least the 306. Fig. 3D).
Knyazik fails to disclose the upper gas inlet nozzle and the lower gas inlet nozzle that both are made of ceramic materials.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to upper gas inlet nozzle of ceramic materials in order to withstand the working conditions of the plasma reactors. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since the lower gas inlet nozzle is made of ceramic materials, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of making the upper gas inlet nozzle of ceramic materials, as taught by Knyazik, in order to match the lower gas inlet nozzle ([0033]).
With respect to claim 6, Knyazik discloses wherein the upper gas inlet nozzle is coaxially stacked at the top of the lower gas inlet nozzle; a center of the upper gas inlet nozzle is provided with an upper axial channel (208), the upper axial channel is a plurality of axial through holes uniformly arranged along a circumferential direction with respect to a central (vertical) axis of the upper gas inlet nozzle; the radial channel is arranged at a top center of the lower gas inlet nozzle (Fig. 3A); the gas outlet is arranged at (near) the bottom edge (bottom portion) of the lower gas inlet nozzle circumferentially; the lower axial channel includes the axial straight non-through holes (236, 238) with the same number as the gas outlets; all axial straight non-through holes are built in an (outer) edge of the lower gas inlet nozzle circumferentially, and are configured to communicate the radial channel with the gas outlet.
With respect to claim 7, Knyazik discloses wherein the radial channel is a circular radial uniform-gas channel (Figs. 3A and 3C).
With respect to claim 8, Knyazik discloses wherein the upper gas inlet nozzle is respectively sealed with the bottom of the gas inlet flange and a side wall surface of the coupling window through a sealing ring (by clamping members 134, 136 and 276, 280, 274. Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) rejection, the Applicant argues that the term “type” is not be read as intending “or the like” because the term comports with standard English language. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, almost all terms in a claim must comport with standard English language. However, not all standard English language in a claim set forth clear metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Second, the term “type (Noun),” typically and in view of the claim as a whole, is defined as “A class, category, or group with similar qualities (e.g., "different types of cars," "a sporty type").” Therefore, the term “type" means a kind, sort, or category of people/things, often implying shared characteristics or an ideal preference (like "your type" in dating), while "like" can mean similar to, or used as a filler/connector, but also means "to be fond of. "So, in everyday use, they're related to grouping/preference. In patent law, the term "type" is generally treated similarly to phrases like "or the like" in that both are considered vague and typically render a claim indefinite. Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, avoiding ambiguity. See MPEP § 2173.05(d) and MPEP § 2181. Third, as explained above, the terms “polyline line-type” appear complex or at least redundance in grammar, and appear to signify something more than just a simple “polyline.” Clarification is respectfully requested.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knyazik. The Applicant argues that Knyazik’s structure are made out of various parts in different portions of different embodiments. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant discussed “Nasik” and “Kazik,” in page 10 of the Applicant’s response. It is unclear who are “Nasik” and “Kazik?” and how are they relevant in this Applincation. Second, Applicant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. No such limitations (the structure in monolithic) can be found in the claimed invention. Third, the polyline line-type gas inlet channel (channel from 212a, 212b to 350, 306) of Knyazik meet the “polyline” definitions provided by the Applicant in page 6 of the Applicant’s response. The “polyline line-type gas inlet channel” of Knyazik comprises an upper axial channel (206, 208), a radial channel (250a, 250b), a lower axial channel (236, 238) and a gas outlet (350, 306) as shown in Fig. 2. Last but not least, the Applicant’s structure, in Fig. 5, comprises various components, namely: a gas inlet flange 52, an upper gas inlet nozzle 60 and a lower gas inlet nozzle 61. [0063]. Almost the same, if not identical, with Knyazik’s structure.
The Applicant further argues that ceramic materials in high-temperature plasma environments is not common knowledge. The Examine respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner suggested more than one reasons to make the upper gas inlet nozzle of ceramic materials. The first reason to make upper gas inlet nozzle of ceramic materials is to provide a nozzle that can withstand the working conditions of the plasma reactors. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The second reason to make the upper gas inlet nozzle of ceramic materials is because since the lower gas inlet nozzle is made of ceramic materials, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of making the upper gas inlet nozzle of ceramic materials, as taught by Knyazik, in order to match the lower gas inlet nozzle ([0033]).
Conclusion
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 6, 2025
Prosecution Insights