CTNF 18/013,736 CTNF 94932 DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 2/19/2026. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/2026 has been entered. Claim Status Claims 1-2, 4-21, and 24-46 are pending . Claims 1, 7, 11, 13, 15, 20, 25, and 33 are independent. Claims 3 and 22-23 are cancelled . Claims 40-46 are new . Claims 1, 5, 7, 15, and 20 are currently amended . Claim Objections Claims 41-42 are objected to due to a minor informality: in both claims “faraday” should be amended to “Faraday”, as it is a proper noun. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) in view of Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208) . Regarding claim 1 , Sriraman teaches a dielectric window assembly ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E: dielectric window #104 and related elements) for a substrate processing system (Fig. 2A, system #200), the dielectric window assembly comprising: a dielectric window comprising a plate ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E: dielectric window #104); a Faraday shield ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E, Faraday shield #108), wherein the Faraday shield is adjacent to the plate (see Fig. 2A); and cooling channels arranged within the Faraday shield ([0059] and Fig. 2E, hub #202 with cooling plenums), wherein the cooling channels are configured to flow coolant throughout the Faraday shield ([0048]: air, liquids, gases used as coolants). Sriraman does not teach wherein the Faraday shield is embedded within the dielectric window. However, Ohkuni teaches this limitation (Ohkuni – [0072] and Fig. 1, #13 inside #2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the Faraday shield of Sriraman inside the dielectric window in order to suppress adhesion of reaction products on the chamber inner surface (Ohkuni – [0072]). Regarding claim 2 , Sriraman teaches wherein the Faraday shield is adjacent to the dielectric window (see Fig. 2A) or, as modified by Ohkuni, is embedded within said window (see claim 1 above). Regarding claim 4 , the additional limitations of the claim require that claim 1 be met by the (ii) option, when the rejection of claim 1 presented herein is met by the (i) option. As such, the additional limitations of the claim are not required. Regarding claim 5 , Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Ohkuni teaches wherein an upper surface of the Faraday shield is not coplanar with the upper surface of the dielectric window (Ohkuni – [0072] and Fig. 1, #13 inside #2, thus the surfaces would not be coplanar in this configuration). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the Faraday shield of Sriraman inside the dielectric window in order to suppress adhesion of reaction products on the chamber inner surface (Ohkuni – [0072]). Regarding claim 6 , Sriraman does not teach wherein the Faraday shield is embedded within the dielectric window. However, Ohkuni teaches this limitation (Ohkuni – [0072] and Fig. 1, #13 inside #2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the Faraday shield of Sriraman inside the dielectric window in order to suppress adhesion of reaction products on the chamber inner surface (Ohkuni – [0072]). Regarding claim 8 , Sriraman teaches wherein the cooling channels comprise copper tubes ([0053]: hub comprises copper). Regarding claim 9 , Sriraman teaches wherein the dielectric window is flat (see Fig. 2A). Regarding claim 40 , Sriraman teaches wherein the upper surface of the plate is an uppermost surface of the dielectric window (see Fig. 2A) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) and Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 40 above, further in view of Collins (US Patent 6,036,878) . The limitations of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 40 are set forth above. Regarding claim 10 , modified Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Collins teaches wherein the dielectric window is dome- shaped and includes a flat interior region and a curved outer region (Collins – Fig. 38A, Faraday shield #990 with window/ceiling #230, substantially flat small central region and curved remainder). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the flat chamber shape of modified Sriraman to the dome shape of Collins as a simple substitution of known elements to achieve predictable results. Collins explicitly teaches details for such a modification (Collins – C38, L3-49, various figures), and the Examiner submits that a PHOSITA in this art is a highly educated, highly skilled, highly trained engineer that could easily enact such a modification given the details of Collins . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) and Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 40 above, further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2015/0114565) . The limitations of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 40 are set forth above. Regarding claim 12 , Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Kim teaches wherein the cooling channels include a plurality of rings and at least one connecting rod that provides fluid communication between individual ones of the plurality of rings (Kim – [0041]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the spiral cooling channels of Sriraman (see [0051] and Fig. 3B) to the ring-shaped cooling channels of Kim as a simple substitution of known elements to achieve predictable results. Kim explicitly teaches that spiral-shaped passages and ring-shaped passages would be interchangeable (Kim – [0041]), and the Examiner submits that a PHOSITA in this art is a highly educated, highly skilled, highly trained engineer that could easily enact such a modification given the details of Kim . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) and Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 40 above, further in view of Che (US Pub. 2019/0341288) . The limitations of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 40 are set forth above. Regarding claims 26-30 , modified Sriraman does not appear to teach the added limitations of the claims. However, Che teaches a coolant system with a plurality of rings, rods, grids, and supply tubes (Che – [0031] and Figs. 1-3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coolant channel design of modified Sriraman to comprise shapes similar to Che as a matter of simple substitution to obtain a predictable result (Che – [0031]: discusses that the shape/number of cooling channels can be adjusted according to needs). The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning chemical, electronic, and mechanical arts. As such, a PHOSITA would be fully capable of adjusting the cooling channel designs of modified Sriraman to those of Che (or any other desired shape) in the course of routine experimentation . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) and Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 40 above, further in view of Iwai (US Patent 2016/0118284) . The limitations of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 40 are set forth above. Regarding claim 41 , Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Ohkuni teaches wherein the Faraday shield is embedded in the dielectric window (Ohkuni – [0072] and Fig. 1, #13 inside #2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the Faraday shield of Sriraman inside the dielectric window in order to suppress adhesion of reaction products on the chamber inner surface (Ohkuni – [0072]). Modified Sriraman does not teach wherein the plate is a top plate, the dielectric window comprises a bottom plate disposed below the top plate. However, Iwai teaches wherein the plate is a top plate, the dielectric window comprises a bottom plate disposed below the top plate (Iwai – Fig. 2B and [0056], plate electrode #7b acts as a Faraday shield and is embedded in an upper recess of film #7c, which comprises alumina, a known dielectric). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the placement of the Faraday shield of modified Sriraman to be positioned in a two-piece dielectric member since Iwai teaches this arrangement can facilitate removal of material from the dielectric member with only a small application of power (Iwai – [0056]). Modified Sriraman does not explicitly teach wherein the Faraday shield is embedded in the top plate (Iwai teaches embedded in the bottom plate). However, the Examiner notes that the difference in the prior art (notably, Iwai ) and the claimed invention is the placement of the Faraday shield within the top plate instead of the bottom plate. The Examiner respectfully submits this amounts to an obvious matter of design choice and/or a minor rearrangement of parts. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to place the Faraday shield of modified Sriraman into either the top plate or the bottom plate of a two-piece construction (see Iwai ) since either arrangement would be functionally identical despite a minor rearrangement. See MPEP 2144.04(I) and (VI)(C). The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning multiple scientific disciplines (chemical, mechanical, electrical, material, etc.), thus could easily perform the above modification and arrive at the claimed invention without any benefit of the instant application. Regarding claim 42 , Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Ohkuni teaches wherein the Faraday shield is embedded in the dielectric window (Ohkuni – [0072] and Fig. 1, #13 inside #2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the Faraday shield of Sriraman inside the dielectric window in order to suppress adhesion of reaction products on the chamber inner surface (Ohkuni – [0072]). Modified Sriraman does not teach wherein the plate is a top plate, the dielectric window comprises a bottom plate disposed below the top plate. However, Iwai teaches wherein the plate is a top plate, the dielectric window comprises a bottom plate disposed below the top plate (Iwai – Fig. 2B and [0056], plate electrode #7b acts as a Faraday shield and is embedded in an upper recess of film #7c, which comprises alumina, a known dielectric). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the placement of the Faraday shield of modified Sriraman to be positioned in a two-piece dielectric member since Iwai teaches this arrangement can facilitate removal of material from the dielectric member with only a small application of power (Iwai – [0056]). The Examiner notes the additional limitations of the claim require that claim 1 be met by the (ii) option, when the rejection of claim 1 presented herein is met by the (i) option. As such, the additional limitations of the claim are not required. *********************************************** 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) in view of Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208) and Iwai (US Pub. 2016/0118284) . Regarding claim 7 , Sriraman teaches a dielectric window assembly ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E: dielectric window #104 and related elements) for a substrate processing system (Fig. 2A, system #200), the dielectric window assembly comprising: a dielectric window comprising a plate ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E: dielectric window #104); a Faraday shield ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E, Faraday shield #108); and cooling channels arranged within the Faraday shield ([0059] and Fig. 2E, hub #202 with cooling plenums), wherein the cooling channels are configured to flow coolant throughout the Faraday shield ([0048]: air, liquids, gases used as coolants). Sriraman does not teach wherein the Faraday shield is arranged within a portion of a cavity between a bottom plate and a top plate. However, Ohkuni teaches wherein a Faraday shield is embedded within a dielectric plate (Ohkuni – [0072] and Fig. 1, #13 inside #2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the Faraday shield of Sriraman inside the dielectric window in order to suppress adhesion of reaction products on the chamber inner surface (Ohkuni – [0072]). Modified Sriraman does not teach wherein the dielectric window comprises a bottom plate, a top plate, and a cavity defined between the bottom plate and the top plate, wherein the Faraday shield is arranged within a portion of the cavity. However, Iwai teaches this limitation (Iwai – Fig. 2B and [0056], plate electrode #7b acts as a Faraday shield and is embedded in an upper recess of film #7c, which comprises alumina, a known dielectric and #6c, also alumina). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the placement of the Faraday shield of modified Sriraman to be positioned in a two-piece dielectric member since Iwai teaches this arrangement can facilitate removal of material from the dielectric member with only a small application of power (Iwai – [0056]). *********************************************** 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) in view of Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208) and Collins (US Patent 6,036,878) . Regarding claim 11 , Sriraman modified by Ohkuni and Collins teaches a gas distribution assembly including the dielectric window assembly of claim 10 (see as set forth above – the entire rejection is considered to be incorporated herein) and further comprising a gas plate arranged below the dielectric window, wherein a plenum is defined between the dielectric window and the gas plate (Sriraman – [0035]: showerhead delivers process gas to the chamber; showerheads inherently possess an inner plenum for gas distribution). *********************************************** 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) in view of Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208) . Regarding claim 13 , Sriraman in view of Ohkuni teaches a system comprising the dielectric window assembly of claim 1 (see as set forth above – the entire rejection is considered to be incorporated herein) and further comprising: a liquid cooling system in fluid communication with the cooling channels ([0041] and Fig. 2B, fluid delivery control #210), wherein the liquid cooling system is configured to supply coolant to the cooling channels via a supply tube (see Fig. 2B) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) and Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Brcka (US Pub. 2002/0185229) . The limitations of claim 13 are set forth above. Regarding claim 14 , modified Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Brcka teaches an air cooling system configured to circulate air around an outer region of the dielectric window (Brcka – [0044]: dielectric window cooled by air blower). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Sriraman apparatus to comprise the air cooling system of Brcka in order to maintain the dielectric window at a stable operating temperature (Brcka – [0044]). *********************************************** 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) in view of Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208) and Brcka (US Pub. 2002/0185229) . Regarding claim 15 , Sriraman teaches a system, comprising: a dielectric window assembly ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E: dielectric window #104 and related elements) for a substrate processing chamber (Fig. 2A, system #200 with chamber), the dielectric window assembly comprising a dielectric window including a plate ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E: dielectric window #104) including an interior region and an outer region (see Figs above), a Faraday shield ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E, Faraday shield #108), and cooling channels arranged within the Faraday shield ([0059] and Fig. 2E, hub #202 with cooling plenums), wherein the cooling channels are configured to flow coolant throughout the Faraday shield ([0048]: air, liquids, gases used as coolants). Sriraman does not teach wherein the Faraday shield is arranged in the interior region of the dielectric plate and is (i) embedded within the dielectric plate. However, Ohkuni teaches this limitation (Ohkuni – [0072] and Fig. 1, #13 inside #2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the Faraday shield of Sriraman inside the dielectric window in order to suppress adhesion of reaction products on the chamber inner surface (Ohkuni – [0072]). Modified Sriraman does not teach an air cooling system configured to circulate air around the outer region of the dielectric window. However, Brcka teaches an air cooling system configured to circulate air around an outer region of the dielectric window (Brcka – [0044]: dielectric window cooled by air blower). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Sriraman apparatus to comprise the air cooling system of Brcka in order to maintain the dielectric window at a stable operating temperature (Brcka – [0044]). Regarding claim 17 , Sriraman teaches a gas plate arranged below the dielectric window, wherein a plenum is defined between the dielectric window and the gas plate (Sriraman – [0035]: showerhead delivers process gas to the chamber; showerheads inherently possess an inner plenum for gas distribution). Regarding claim 19 , Sriraman teaches a liquid cooling system in fluid communication with the cooling channels (Sriraman - [0041] and Fig. 2B, fluid delivery control #210), wherein the liquid cooling system is configured to supply coolant to the cooling channels via a supply tube (see Fig. 2B) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969), Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), and Brcka (US Pub. 2002/0185229), as applied to claims 15, 17, and 19 above, further in view of Collins (US Patent 6,036,878) . The limitations of claims 15, 17, and 19 are set forth above. Regarding claim 16 , modified Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Collins teaches wherein the dielectric window is dome- shaped and includes a flat interior region and a curved outer region (Collins – Fig. 38A, Faraday shield #990 with window/ceiling #230, substantially flat small central region and curved remainder). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the flat chamber shape of modified Sriraman to the dome shape of Collins as a simple substitution of known elements to achieve predictable results. Collins explicitly teaches details for such a modification (Collins – C38, L3-49, various figures), and the Examiner submits that a PHOSITA in this art is a highly educated, highly skilled, highly trained engineer that could easily enact such a modification given the details of Collins . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969), Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), and Brcka (US Pub. 2002/0185229), as applied to claims 15, 17, and 19 above, further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2015/0114565) . The limitations of claims 15, 17, and 19 are set forth above. Regarding claim 18 , modified Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Kim teaches wherein the cooling channels include a plurality of rings and at least one connecting rod that provides fluid communication between individual ones of the plurality of rings (Kim – [0041]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the spiral cooling channels of Sriraman (see [0051] and Fig. 3B) to the ring-shaped cooling channels of Kim as a simple substitution of known elements to achieve predictable results. Kim explicitly teaches that spiral-shaped passages and ring-shaped passages would be interchangeable (Kim – [0041]), and the Examiner submits that a PHOSITA in this art is a highly educated, highly skilled, highly trained engineer that could easily enact such a modification given the details of Kim. *********************************************** 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 20-21, 32, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) in view of Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208) . Regarding claim 20 , Sriraman teaches a dielectric window assembly ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E: dielectric window #104 and related elements) for a substrate processing system (Fig. 2A, system #200), the dielectric window assembly comprising: a dielectric window comprising ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E: dielectric window #104); a Faraday shield ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E, Faraday shield #108), wherein the Faraday shield is adjacent to the plate (see Fig. 2A); and at least one cooling channel arranged within the Faraday shield ([0059] and Fig. 2E, hub #202 with cooling plenums), wherein the at least one cooling channel is configured to flow coolant throughout the Faraday shield ([0048]: air, liquids, gases used as coolants), and where the disc-shaped cavity is defined by an upper inner planar surface and a lower inner planar surface of the Faraday shield (see Fig. 2A, 2E). Sriraman does not teach wherein the Faraday shield is embedded within the dielectric window. However, Ohkuni teaches this limitation (Ohkuni – [0072] and Fig. 1, #13 inside #2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to arrange the Faraday shield of Sriraman inside the dielectric window in order to suppress adhesion of reaction products on the chamber inner surface (Ohkuni – [0072]). Regarding claim 21 , Sriraman teaches wherein the at least one cooling channel comprises a plurality of cooling channels ([0059] and see Fig. 2E). Regarding claim 32 , Sriraman teaches wherein the at least one cooling channel comprises only one disc-shaped cooling channel ([0013]: describes a single plenum for cooling). Regarding claim 46 , Sriraman teaches wherein: the disc-shaped cavity extends radially from a center passage area of the dielectric window to an outer peripheral area of the dielectric window ([0013] and Fig. 2E: extends from center to periphery); the center passage area referring to an area in the center of the dielectric window extending from a vertical passage extending through the center of the dielectric window to a radially innermost edge of the disc-shaped cavity (see Fig. 2E); and the outer peripheral area referring to an area at a periphery of the dielectric window extending from a radially outermost edge of the disc-shaped cavity to an outer peripheral edge of the dielectric window (see Fig. 2E) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 24 and 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) and Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), as applied to claims 20-21, 32, and 46 above, further in view of Costello (US Patent 6,605,955) . The limitations of claims 20-21, 32, and 46 are set forth above. Regarding claims 24 and 31 , modified Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Costello teaches at least one support column arranged within the at least one cooling channel, wherein the at least one support column extends from a lower surface of the at least one cooling channel to an upper surface of the at least one cooling channel (Costello – C9, L15-25 and Figs. 6-7, pillars #46 disposed in/around channels #44). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Sriraman apparatus to comprise the cooling channel pillars of Costello in order to provide increased surface area for increased cooling performance as well as providing structural integrity to the surrounding structure (Costello – C12, L62-C13, L20). Regarding the “single cooling channel” limitation of claim 31, the limitation is met in view of Costello which teaches a support column arranged within/creating thereby a single channel . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) and Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), as applied to claims 20-21, 32, and 46 above, further in view of Powell (US Patent 6,287,643) . The limitations of claims 20-21, 32, and 46 are set forth above. Regarding claim 43 , modified Sriraman does not explicitly teach wherein the Faraday shield is made of copper (Sriraman merely teaches a metallic material – [0063]). However, Powell teaches wherein Faraday shields comprise copper (Powell – C9, L54-57). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize copper for the Faraday shield of modified Sriraman as an obvious matter of material selection (see Powell). It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) and Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208), as applied to claims 20-21, 32, and 46 above, further in view of Iwai (US Pub. 2016/0118284) . The limitations of claims 20-21, 32, and 46 are set forth above. Regarding claim 44 , Sriraman teaches wherein: the dielectric window comprises a plate ([0033] and Figs. 1, 2A, 2E: dielectric window #104). Modified Sriraman does not teach wherein the Faraday shield is disposed in a recess of a top surface of the plate. However, Iwai teaches this limitation (Iwai – Fig. 2B, #7b arranged in a recess of a top surface of #7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the placement of the Faraday shield of modified Sriraman to be positioned in a two-piece dielectric member since Iwai teaches this arrangement can facilitate removal of material from the dielectric member with only a small application of power (Iwai – [0056]). Regarding claim 45 , modified Sriraman does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Iwai teaches wherein the Faraday shield comprises a top surface that is flush with the top surface of the dielectric window (Iwai – Fig. 2B, #7b arranged in a recess of a top surface of #7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the placement of the Faraday shield of modified Sriraman to be positioned in a two-piece dielectric member since Iwai teaches this arrangement can facilitate removal of material from the dielectric member with only a small application of power (Iwai – [0056]). *********************************************** 07-21-aia AIA Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriraman (US Pub. 2015/0020969) in view of Ohkuni (US Pub. 2007/0004208) and Brcka (US Pub. 2002/0185229) . Regarding claim 25 , modified Sriraman teaches a system (Sriraman - Fig. 2A, system #200), comprising: the dielectric window assembly of claim 20 (see as set forth above – the entire rejection is considered to be incorporated herein); and a liquid cooling system in fluid communication with the at least one cooling channel (Sriraman – [0041] and Fig. 2B, fluid control #210), wherein the liquid cooling system is configured to supply coolant to the at least one cooling channel via a supply tube (Sriraman - [0048]: air, liquids, gases used as coolants; see Fig. 2E), and where the disc-shaped cavity is defined by an upper inner planar surface and a lower inner planar surface of the Faraday shield (see Fig. 2A, 2E). Modified Sriraman does not teach an air cooling system configured to circulate air around an outer region of the dielectric window. However, Brcka teaches an air cooling system configured to circulate air around an outer region of the dielectric window (Brcka – [0044]: dielectric window cooled by air blower). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Sriraman apparatus to comprise the air cooling system of Brcka in order to maintain the dielectric window at a stable operating temperature (Brcka – [0044]). *********************************************** 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 33-36 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto (US Pub. 2011/0168673) in view of Shamouilian (US Patent 5,745,331) . Regarding claim 33 , Nishimoto teaches a dielectric window assembly for a substrate processing system ([0083] and Fig. 1, dielectric window #3 for apparatus #1), the dielectric window assembly comprising: a dielectric window ([0083] and Fig. 1, dielectric window #3); and a first plurality of cooling channels arranged within the dielectric window ([0131], not pictured), wherein the first plurality of cooling channels are configured to flow coolant throughout the dielectric window ([0131]). Nishimoto does not teach wherein the cooling channels are linearly shaped and fluidically connect to each other at a center of the dielectric window. However, Shamouilian teaches this limitation (Shamouilian – Figs. 8a-8e). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the cooling channels of Nishimoto in the design of Shamouilian in order to provide substantially uniform cooling (Shamouilian – C6, L56-C7, L5). Regarding claim 34 , Nishimoto does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Shamouilian teaches a second plurality of cooling channels, which are concentric rings fluidically connected via the first plurality of cooling channels (see Fig. 8e). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the cooling channels of Nishimoto in the design of Shamouilian in order to provide substantially uniform cooling (Shamouilian – C6, L56-C7, L5). Regarding claim 35 , Nishimoto does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Shamouilian teaches wherein the first plurality of cooling channels fluidically connect to each other at a center of a radially innermost one of the concentric rings (see Fig. 8e). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the cooling channels of Nishimoto in the design of Shamouilian in order to provide substantially uniform cooling (Shamouilian – C6, L56-C7, L5). Regarding claim 36 , Nishimoto does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Shamouilian teaches wherein: the first plurality of cooling channels are arranged in a spoke-like configuration that defines a plurality of azimuthal zones; and at least one of the plurality of azimuthal zones comprises a plurality of interior connecting rods fluidically connecting adjacent ones of the first plurality of cooling channels (see Fig. 8b). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the cooling channels of Nishimoto in the design of Shamouilian in order to provide substantially uniform cooling (Shamouilian – C6, L56-C7, L5). Regarding claim 38 , Nishimoto does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Shamouilian teaches a ring-shaped channel bisected by one of the first plurality of cooling channels (see Fig. 8e). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the cooling channels of Nishimoto in the design of Shamouilian in order to provide substantially uniform cooling (Shamouilian – C6, L56-C7, L5). Regarding claim 39 , Nishimoto does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Shamouilian teaches wherein the one of the first plurality of cooling channels supplies coolant to a plurality of cooling channel grids (see Fig. 8e). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the cooling channels of Nishimoto in the design of Shamouilian in order to provide substantially uniform cooling (Shamouilian – C6, L56-C7, L5) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto (US Pub. 2011/0168673) and Shamouilian (US Patent 5,745,331), as applied to claims 33-36 and 38-39 above, further in view of Che (US Pub. 2019/0341288) . The limitations of claims 33-36 and 38-39 are set forth above. Regarding claim 37 , modified Nishimoto does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Che teaches a coolant system with a plurality of rings, rods, grids, and supply tubes (Che – [0031] and Figs. 1-3, particularly Fig. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coolant channel design of Nishimoto to comprise shapes similar to Che as a matter of simple substitution to obtain a predictable result (Che – [0031]: discusses that the shape/number of cooling channels can be adjusted according to needs). The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning chemical, electronic, and mechanical arts. As such, a PHOSITA would be fully capable of adjusting the cooling channel designs of modified Nishimoto to those of Che (or any other desired shape) in the course of routine experimentation. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments concerning the §102(a)(1) rejections of claims 20-21 and 23-24 in view of Kim have been carefully considered and are persuasive , as agreed during the Interview held 5-Feb-2026. The §102(a)(1) rejections are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection under §103 are set forth herein. The new §103 rejections of claim 20 and its dependent claims include the Sriraman and Ohkuni references, thus these rejections are supported by the Examiner’s rebuttal below. The Examiner notes Applicant has not specifically argued the rejections of independent claims 11 and 25. Independent claim 11 ultimately recites the limitations of independent claim 1, and independent claim 25 recites the limitations of independent claim 20. In accordance, these rejections are also supported by the Examiner’s rebuttal below. Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections of independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 15 (as well as independent claims 11, 20, and 25) as they relate to Sriraman and Ohkuni have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive . Applicant first argues that the combination of references Sriraman and Ohkuni fail to teach: “cooling channels arranged within a Faraday shield, wherein the Faraday shield is one of (i) embedded within a plate of a dielectric window, and (ii) arranged in a recess in an upper surface of the plate, wherein the upper surface is a top surface of the dielectric window” (Remarks, pg. 13-14). This argument is not persuasive because it seeks a recitation of all of the features above in a single reference, and does not consider the particular combination of references as presented by the Examiner in teaching these features. 07-37-13 AIA The courts have held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As is set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Sriraman teaches cooling channels arranged within a Faraday shield. Applicant has not disputed this particular point . The Examiner has explicitly conceded where Sriraman does not teach wherein the Faraday shield (and its internal cooling channels) is embedded within the dielectric window. The Examiner has also explicitly noted that Sriraman teaches wherein the Faraday shield is merely adjacent to the dielectric window, not contained therein. However, the Examiner has utilized the Ohkuni reference as teaching where embedding a Faraday shield within a dielectric window instead of adjacent to a dielectric window would be obvious to a PHOSITA ( Id. ). Applicant has not disputed this particular point . Additionally, Applicant has explicitly conceded where they agree with this assessment (screenshot below from pg. 15, Id. ): PNG media_image1.png 64 638 media_image1.png Greyscale Applicant discusses Iwai as not teaching the above feature ( Id. ), but Iwai is not relied upon for the rejections of claims 1, 11, or 13- only claim 7. Applicant’s arguments to Iwai are not persuasive because in the structure depicted in Fig. 2B of Iwai , each of #3, #6c, and #7c are dielectrics (see pars. [0043],[0069], [0071] of Iwai – white alumina is a known dielectric – see Tsuji US2005/0094910). As such, these structures can reasonably be considered a “dielectric window”, even though they comprise multiple pieces. The claim language does not exclude this reading. Since 7b is located in a recess of #7c, it reasonably meets the limitations of the claim. Applicant next argues that the combination of references Sriraman , Ohkuni¸ and Iwai would not be obvious to a PHOSITA due to an alleged difficulty in manufacturing such a structure (Remarks, pg. 14-15). The Examiner respectfully submits that the technical arguments behind this alleged manufacturing difficulty are not grounded in fact or evidence . They are merely speculative assertions provided in an attempt to disprove the Examiner’s reasonably established prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner does not agree with the Applicant’s technical arguments. The Applicant has provided no evidence in support of these arguments, nor can any of these arguments be found in the original disclosure. The Examiner respectfully posits that if Applicant knew of a difficulty in manufacturing the claimed dielectric window, as alleged, then Applicant would have likely stated this difficulty in the original disclosure and then set forth the merits of their invention, which is alleged to have solved this alleged difficulty. No such disclosure can be found . In the absence of any factual evidence requiring specific rebuttal, the Examiner has no choice but to maintain the rejections on their current grounds. As further support of this position, the Examiner notes that any obviousness rejections provided herein have been set forth with consideration of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as is required by law. The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning multiple scientific disciplines (chemical, mechanical, electrical, material, etc.). Additionally, the courts have held that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007); and "in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. See MPEP 2141.03. In light of all of the above, the Examiner maintains that a PHOSITA would be able to arrive at the claimed invention using only the prior art even if manufacturing difficulties were to be discovered, as alleged by Applicant. Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections of independent claim 33 (and claims dependent thereon) as they relate to Nishimoto and Che have been carefully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Shamouilian remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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. /Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 2 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 3 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 6 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 7 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 8 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 10 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 11 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 12 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 13 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 14 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 15 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 16 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 17 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 18 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 19 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 20 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 21 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 22 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 23 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 24 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 26 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 27 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 28 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/013,736 Page 29 Art Unit: 1718
Prosecution Insights