DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 3/11/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 7, 16, and 20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11-13, and 17-19 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to due to an improper status identifier: should be (Currently Amended) instead of (Original). Applicant is advised to use the (Previously Presented) identifier in future responses if no additional amendments are made.
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 13 and 18-19 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 13, the limitation: “wherein a welding material comprises tungsten” is regarded as indefinite. While the Examiner believes the Applicant to be reciting a further limitation of “the weld” of the claim, the above phrase is not so limited. Applicant should clearly state where “the weld comprises a welding material, wherein the welding material is tungsten” or a similar limitation. The Examiner interprets the claim as such in the interest of compact and expedited prosecution.
Regarding claim 18, line 17 should read: “wherein the second cooling system comprises” for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected at least based upon its dependency.
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, 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent 5,906,683) in view of Yang (US Pub. 2018/0122680) and Kishimoto (US Pub. 2008/0164144).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a cooling system for a gas phase reactor (Abstract, Figs. 2-5, elements as follows), the cooling system comprising: a first plate comprising a first surface (Figs. 1-5, base plate #10 with upper surface), a first width and a first thickness (see Figs. 1-5); a second plate comprising a second surface (Figs. 1-5, annular cap #110), a second width and a second thickness (see Figs. 1-5), wherein a groove is formed within the first plate and extends to the first surface of the first plate (Fig. 2, recess #109), and wherein the first plate and the second plate are coupled together at the first surface and the second surface to form a conduit comprising the groove enclosed by a portion of the second surface (Fig. 3, coolant passage #94), wherein the first plate and the second plate each form an annular structure (see Figs. 1-5), the second plate comprising an inner diameter and an outer diameter (see Fig. 2), and wherein a cooling fluid inlet and cooling fluid outlet are disposed radially outward from the inner diameter of the second plate (Figs. 1 and 4, manifold #30 comprises inlet #32 and outlet #34 radially outward from #110).
Chen does not teach a tube, wherein the tube is disposed within the conduit; and wherein the tube comprises a cooling fluid inlet at a first end of the tube and a cooling fluid outlet at a second end of the tube.
However, Yang teaches wherein cooling systems can include just channels or channels with pipes (Yang – [0036]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Chen apparatus to comprise tubes within the cooling conduits as a matter of simple substitution to obtain predictable results ([0036]: Yang teaches wherein either structure can be used effectively for cooling).
Modified Chen does not teach wherein the tube is metal (Yang is silent as to the materials used).
However, Kishimoto teaches wherein a cooling tube is metal (Kishimoto – [0083]: stainless steel).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the tube of modified Chen (Yang) from stainless steel as a matter of obvious material selection suitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches teach wherein the first width is greater than the second width (see Fig. 1, #10 wider than #110).
Regarding claim 4, Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness.
However, the difference between the prior art structure (Chen) and the claimed invention is merely a recitation of relative dimensions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to change the thickness of the plates of Chen as a matter of obvious change in size/proportion. The courts have held that such a difference does not render the claimed invention patentably distinct. See MPEP 2144.04(IV) and In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
The Examiner respectfully submits that changing the width or thickness of either plate of Chen would not cause it to perform differently with minor to moderate changes in size.
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen does not teach wherein the tube is formed of stainless steel (Yang is silent as to the materials used).
However, Kishimoto teaches wherein a cooling tube is stainless steel (Kishimoto – [0083]: stainless steel).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the tube of modified Chen from stainless steel as a matter of obvious material selection suitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches wherein the groove is continuous and comprises a plurality of concentric arcuate shaped sections (see Fig. 2).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent 5,906,683), Yang (US Pub. 2018/0122680), and Kishimoto (US Pub. 2008/0164144), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8 above, further in view of Sajoto (US Patent 6,527,865).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen does not teach wherein the first plate and the second plate are formed of aluminum (Chen is silent as to the materials used).
However, Sajoto teaches wherein a lid and/or chamber can comprise aluminum (Sajoto – C4, L66- C5, L1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the plates of modified Chen from aluminum as a matter of obvious material selection suitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent 5,906,683), Yang (US Pub. 2018/0122680), and Kishimoto (US Pub. 2008/0164144), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8 above, further in view of Demaray (US Patent 5,433,835).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the first plate and the second plate are brazed together at the first surface and the second surface (Chen teaches welding – C6, L4-6).
However, Demaray teaches wherein welding and brazing are art-recognized equivalent techniques for joining members (Demaray – [0022]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize either brazing or soldering for joining the first and second plates of modified Chen as a matter of obvious substitution of art-recognized equivalent techniques. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claims 9-12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent 5,906,683) in view of Sajoto (US Patent 6,527,865).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches a cooling system for a gas phase reactor (Abstract, Figs. 2-5, elements as follows), the cooling system comprising: a first plate comprising a first surface (Figs. 1-5, base plate #10 with upper surface), a first thickness, a first width (see Figs. 1-5), and a groove is formed within the first plate, wherein the groove extends to the first surface of the first plate (Fig. 2, recess #109), a second plate comprising a first layer (Figs. 1-5, annular cap #110), wherein the second plate comprises a second thickness and a second width (see Figs. 1-5), wherein the first plate and the second plate are coupled together using a weld (C6, L4-6) at the first surface and the second surface to form a conduit comprising the groove enclosed by a portion of the second surface (Fig. 3, coolant passage #94), and a cooling fluid inlet and cooling fluid outlet fluidly connected to the conduit (Figs. 1 and 4, manifold #30 comprises inlet #32 and outlet #34 radially outward from #110).
Chen does not teach wherein the first plate is formed of a first metal (Chen is silent as to the materials used).
However, Sajoto teaches wherein a plate is formed of a first metal (Sajoto – C4, L66- C5, L1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the plates of Chen from metal as a matter of obvious material selection suitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the second plate comprises a first layer and a second layer.
However, the difference between the prior art structure and the limitation above is merely including an additional plate/layer in addition to the second plate of Chen.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to simply duplicate the second plate of Chen to comprise an additional plate/layer as a matter of obvious duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
The Examiner notes that the instant disclosure does not describe any particular advantages or criticality of having multiple plates/layers, and that both the first and second layers comprise a metal (par. [0047] of the instant PG-Pub). Additionally, that both layers can comprise stainless steel (id.).
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of expertise in a variety of disciplines (chemistry, electronics, physics, materials science, etc.) As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that the limitation above can reasonably met by an obvious variation of the Chen apparatus, as would be understood by a PHOSITA.
Thus, as a combination of references, Sajoto would also teach wherein the first layer is also formed of the first metal.
Regarding claim 10, Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Sajoto teaches wherein a chamber lid can comprise a plurality of different materials (Sajoto – C4, L66- C5, L1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the plates of Chen from different materials as a matter of obvious material selection suitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 11, Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Sajoto teaches wherein a first metal is stainless steel (Sajoto – C4, L66- C5, L1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the plates of Chen from stainless steel as a matter of obvious material selection suitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12, Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Sajoto teaches wherein a second metal is aluminum (Sajoto – C4, L66- C5, L1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the plates of Chen from aluminum as a matter of obvious material selection suitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches teach wherein the first width is greater than the second width (see Fig. 1, #10 wider than #110).
Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness.
However, the difference between the prior art structure (Chen) and the claimed invention is merely a recitation of relative dimensions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to change the thickness of the plates of Chen as a matter of obvious change in size/proportion. The courts have held that such a difference does not render the claimed invention patentably distinct. See MPEP 2144.04(IV) and In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
The Examiner respectfully submits that changing the width or thickness of either plate of Chen would not cause it to perform differently with minor to moderate changes in size.
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches wherein the first plate and the second plate each form an annular structure (see Figs. 1-5), the second plate comprising an inner diameter and an outer diameter (see Fig. 2), and wherein a cooling fluid inlet and cooling fluid outlet are disposed radially outward from the inner diameter of the second plate (Figs. 1 and 4, manifold #30 comprises inlet #32 and outlet #34 radially outward from #110), wherein the groove comprises a continuous serpentine path between the inlet/outlet (see Fig. 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent 5,906,683) and Sajoto (US Patent 6,527,865), as applied to claims 9-12, 15, and 17 above, further in view of Batzer (US Pub. 2018/0163305).
The limitations of claims 9-12, 15, and 17 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches wherein the weld is directly in contact with the second plate and the first plate (C6, L4-6: e-beam welding).
Modified Chen does not teach wherein a material used for the weld comprises tungsten.
However, Batzer teaches wherein e-beam welding and tungsten inert gas welding are art-recognized equivalents for apparatus fabrication (Batzer – [0058]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize either e-beam or TIG welding for joining the first and second plates of modified Chen as a matter of obvious substitution of art-recognized equivalent techniques. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent 5,906,683) and Sajoto (US Patent 6,527,865), as applied to claims 9-12, 15, and 17 above, further in view of Yang (US Pub. 2018/0122680) and Kishimoto (US Pub. 2008/0164144).
The limitations of claims 9-12, 15, and 17 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, modified Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Yang teaches wherein cooling systems can include just channels or channels with pipes (Yang – [0036]).
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 Chen apparatus to comprise tubes within the cooling conduits as a matter of simple substitution to obtain predictable results ([0036]: Yang teaches wherein either structure can be used effectively for cooling).
Modified Chen does not teach wherein the tube is metal (Yang is silent as to the materials used).
However, Kishimoto teaches wherein a cooling tube is metal (Kishimoto – [0083]: stainless steel).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the tube of modified Chen (Yang) from stainless steel as a matter of obvious material selection suitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn (US Pub. 2014/0000843) in view of Chiang (US Pub. 2002/0076490), Chen (US Patent 5,906,683), Yang (US Pub. 2018/0122680) and Kishimoto (US Pub. 2008/0164144).
Regarding claim 18, Dunn teaches a gas phase reactor system (Fig. 1, entirety), comprising: a reaction chamber (Fig. 1, chamber #10) comprising an upper region (Fig. 1, above susceptor #18), a lower region (Fig. 1, below susceptor #18), a bottom plate defining a bottom of the reaction chamber (Fig. 1, bottom wall #62), a susceptor disposed above the bottom plate (Fig. 1, susceptor #18); and a showerhead disposed within the upper region (Fig. 1, showerhead #12).
Dunn does not teach a first cooling system disposed below the lower region and coupled to the bottom plate, and a second cooling system disposed above the showerhead.
However, Chiang teaches this limitation (Chiang – [0109] and Fig. 13, cooling plate #110 and adjacent components form first system; [0104] and Fig. 13, cooling channels #146 above showerhead form second system).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Dunn apparatus to comprise the first/second cooling systems of Chiang in order to control lid temperatures (Chiang – [0104]) and support temperatures (Chiang – [0163]) during processing (Chiang – [0009], [0019], [0025])
Modified Dunn does not teach wherein the first cooling system comprises: a first plate comprising a first surface; a second plate comprising a second surface, wherein a first groove is formed within the first plate and extends to the first surface of the first plate, and wherein the first plate and the second plate are coupled together at the first surface and the second surface to form a first conduit comprising the first groove enclosed by a portion of the second surface, wherein the second cooling system (see as rejected under §112(b)) comprises: a third plate comprising a third surface; a fourth plate comprising a fourth surface, wherein a second groove is formed within the third plate and extends to the third surface of the third plate, and wherein the third plate and the fourth plate are coupled together at the third surface and the fourth surface to form a second conduit comprising the second groove enclosed by a portion of the fourth surface
However, Chen teaches wherein the first cooling system comprises: a first plate comprising a first surface (Figs. 1-5, base plate #10 with upper surface); a second plate comprising a second surface (Figs. 1-5, annular cap #110), wherein a first groove is formed within the first plate and extends to the first surface of the first plate (Fig. 2, recess #109), and wherein the first plate and the second plate are coupled together at the first surface and the second surface to form a first conduit comprising the first groove enclosed by a portion of the second surface (Fig. 3, coolant passage #94).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify each cooling system of modified Dunn to comprise the plate structure of Chen in order to allow temperature control, minimize leakage of fluids, facilitate cleaning, ease assembly/disassembly (Chen – C2, L12-36).
Modified Dunn does not teach a first tube, wherein the tube is disposed within the conduit; and wherein the first tube comprises a first cooling fluid inlet at a first end of the first tube and a first cooling fluid outlet at a second end of the first tube, and a second tube disposed within the conduit, and wherein the second tube comprises a second cooling fluid inlet at a first end of the second tube and a second cooling fluid outlet at a second end of the second tube.
However, Yang teaches wherein cooling systems can include just channels or channels with pipes (Yang – [0036]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify each cooling system of the modified Dunn apparatus to comprise tubes within the cooling conduits as a matter of simple substitution to obtain predictable results ([0036]: Yang teaches wherein either structure can be used effectively for cooling).
Modified Dunn does not teach wherein the tube(s) is/are metal.
However, Kishimoto teaches wherein a cooling tube is metal (Kishimoto – [0083]: stainless steel).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the tube of modified Chen (Yang) from stainless steel as a matter of obvious material selection suitable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 19, Dunn modified by Chiang does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first cooling system further comprises a first coupling assembly for connecting the first cooling fluid inlet and the first cooling fluid outlet to a cooling fluid source (Chen – Fig. 1, inlet/outlet #32/34 for connection to a fluid source).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify each cooling system of modified Dunn to comprise the plate structure of Chen in order to allow temperature control, minimize leakage of fluids, facilitate cleaning, ease assembly/disassembly (Chen – C2, L12-36).
Response to Arguments
Claims 10 and 18 have been amended to obviate the previous objections, which are withdrawn.
Claims 8 and 19 have been suitably corrected to eliminate indefinite claim language, thus the previous §112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, claims 13 and 18-19 are newly rejected herein under §112(b) for issues introduced with the most recent amendments.
The arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that the newly added prior art remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
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 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
Prosecution Insights