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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' submission of replacement drawing, amendment to the specification filed on 04/15/2026, is acknowledged. Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 04/15/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-20 from the non-final office action, mailed on 01/27/2026, by amending claims 1-20, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “a plurality of walls extending upwards from the bottom surface upwards” of Claim 16 should be:
“a plurality of walls extending from the bottom surface upwards”.
(2) The “a first plate having a lower thermal conductivity than the faceplate and the cooling plate arranged between the cooling plate and the base portion” of Claim 16 would have a better form if amended to be:
“a first plate arranged between the cooling plate and the base portion and having a lower thermal conductivity than the faceplate and the cooling plate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “a faceplate comprising: side surfaces attached to the second surface of the base portion” of Claim 15 is not clear, because of the “side surfaces”
The issue was discussed in the claim 1 rejection in the latest OA, mailed on 01/27/2026, thus it is rejected with the same reason.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined as “top surface”, which is the same as the applicants’ amendment of Claim 1.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa (US 20090081878, hereafter ‘878).
Regarding to Claim 15, ‘878 teaches:
Showerhead (title, the claimed “A showerhead”);
heater plate 150 (Fig. 1, [0025], the claimed “comprising: a base portion”);
Process gas is supplied from a gas supply 169 to the central plenum 156 via a gas passage 164 in the heater plate 150. Gas is distributed to the outer plenums 158, 160, 162 via gas passages 165, 167 in fluid communication with the gas supply 169 and radial gas distribution channels 168 and axial passages 171 formed in the heater plate 150 ([0027], the claimed “comprising: a first surface including a gas inlet, a second surface opposite to the first surface and a plurality of passages in fluid communication with the gas inlet”);
The backing member 116 ([0022]), and a plurality of gas passages 135 in the backing plate 142 ([0027], the claimed “a faceplate comprising: side surfaces attached to the second surface of the base portion, a bottom surface including a plurality of outlets”);
Adjacent pairs of the plenums 156, 158; 158, 160; and 160, 162 are separated from each other by respective annular projections 166 ([0026], the claimed “and a plurality of walls extending upwards from the bottom surface upwards and contacting the second surface of the base portion”);
the cooling plate 152 includes liquid channels 174 through which a temperature-controlled liquid is flowed from at least one liquid source 175 to cool the cooling plate 152 ([0037], note it is commonly well-known that the temperature-controlled liquid flows from inlet to the outlet in a circulation mode, the claimed “a cooling plate arranged on the first surface of the base portion, the cooling plate comprising a conduit having an inlet to receive a coolant and an outlet”);
a thermal choke 154 located between and secured to the heater plate 150 and cooling plate 152 ([0039], the claimed “and a first plate, arranged between the cooling plate and the base portion”).
‘878 does not explicitly teach the “having a lower thermal conductivity than the faceplate and the cooling plate”.
However, ‘878 further teaches The thermal choke 154 can alternatively be made of other metals, non-metallic materials or composite materials having desirable thermal conductivity and structural characteristics. The thermal choke 154 has a structure effective to provide the desired thermal resistance between the heater plate 150 and cooling plate 152 ([0042]).
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a thermal conductivity for the thermal choke, as claimed, for the purpose of providing a desired thermal resistance between the heater plate and cooling plate, and/or further since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 04/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights