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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 14-15, 17 and 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add orientation and positioning, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2014/0224174 to Abedijaberi et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0017971 to Kao et al is presented below.
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- 6 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.
Specifically, the claim limitation of “the gas exhaust frame” in lines 17-18 of Claim 1, appears to either refer to the gas exhaust outlet or the first exhaust frame, but it is unclear which one it is referring to as it could apply to either. For the purposes of examining based on the merits, the claim will be interpreted as the first exhaust frame.
Claims 2-6 are rejected in part due to their dependency on 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 (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) 1-12, 14, 15, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0224174 to Abedijaberi et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0017971 to Kao et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Abedijaberi teaches a processing chamber 12 Fig. 1 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0025], comprising: a chamber body (body of 12) comprising a gas exhaust outlet 18; a window 24, the chamber body and the window at least partially defining a processing volume 22; one or more heat sources 30 configured to heat the processing volume; a substrate support 34 disposed in the processing volume; a liner 48 at least partially lining the chamber body; a pre-heat ring 32 disposed in the processing volume and at least partially supported by the liner 48;one or more gas inlets;
a first frame comprising: an arcuate bar (body of 46) comprising a first outer face, the first outer face defining a width between a first end and a second end, and the first outer face configured to face a processing volume in the installed position (as shown in Fig. 3 and 6); a second outer face (top surface); a third outer face (bottom surface), the second outer face and the third outer face extending relative to the first outer face along a length of the gas exhaust frame (see length of legs 138), the gas exhaust frame having a height extending between the second outer face and the third outer face; and a plurality of legs 138 extending radially relative to the arcuate bar, the plurality of legs bounding a plurality of exhaust pathways (space between 138), the plurality of exhaust pathways including a plurality of opening sections extending from the second outer face and to the third outer face (as they form the channels that extend between the surfaces), and the plurality of exhaust pathways comprising: a first end exhaust pathway that is nearest to the first end of the width of the gas exhaust frame and has a first cross-sectional area [0025-0058], as shown in the annotated figures of Abedijaberi above.
Abedijaberi teaches a first set of pathways positioned opposite of the one or more gas inlets on a first side of a reference plane (134a, 134b left of 134c), the first set of exhaust pathways positioned above a vertical section of the gas exhaust outlet (as shown in Fig. 1), the first set of pathways including a plurality of opening sections extending from the second outer face and to the third outer face (openings between 138), and the first set of pathways comprising: a first end pathway that is nearest to the first end of the width of the first frame (left) and has a first cross-sectional area, and a second end pathway that is nearest to the second end of the width of the first frame (or closer to 134c), a second set of pathways (134a, 134b to the right of 134c) positioned opposite of the one or more gas inlets on a second side of the reference plane.
Abedijaberi does not expressly teach that the gas frame is a gas exhaust frame.
Kao teaches that the gas frame structure can be the same as the gas exhaust frame (as shown in 202, 203 Fig. 1, and also in Fig. 2A vs. Fig. 2B and Fig. 2C vs Fig. 2D [0023, 0029]. Kao further teaches this allows for gas flow outlet’s effective purging and reduces purge time and uniform purging [0034].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have made the frame structure of Abedijaberi the same in both the gas inlet and the gas outlet/exhaust, as Kao teaches the gas inlet frame and the gas outlet/exhaust frame are the same structurally. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of effective purging and reducing purge time and uniform purging of gases. The resulting structure would create a gas exhaust frame with gas exhaust pathways in the same structure as the gas, the first set of exhaust pathways positioned above a vertical direction of the gas exhaust outlet 44, which lies below the entirety of the liner 24 vertically.
Kao teaches a gas flow outlet guide 203 Fig. 2B, 2D, or gas exhaust frame for insertion in a processing chamber 100 Fig. 1 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0018], the gas exhaust frame comprising: a first outer face; a second outer (top) face; a third outer (bottom) face, the second outer face and the third outer face extending relative to the first outer face along a length (as shown in Fig. 2B), the gas exhaust frame having a height 241 between the second outer face and the third outer face; and plurality of exhaust pathways 217, 237, 245 having a size variation such that at least part of each exhaust pathway of the plurality of exhaust pathways is different in size than each of the other exhaust pathways of the plurality of exhaust pathways (as shown in the gradient of openings in Fig. 2D [0018-0035]).
Kao teaches a first opening sections (outer opening side) the plurality of second opening sections (first opening side) include the size variation in the form of a cross sectional gradient as shown in Fig. 2A-2D, and the plurality of exhaust pathways comprise: a first end exhaust pathway that is nearest to a first end of the gas exhaust frame and has a first cross-sectional area, and a second end exhaust pathway that is nearest to a second end of the gas exhaust frame has a second cross-sectional area that is larger than the first cross- sectional area, as the openings are smaller on the first outer face than the second outer face, as shown in Fig. 2B
PNG
media_image1.png
256
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kao further teaches that this arrangement provides uniform delivery of process gas flows by allowing for individual flow to have the same velocity and volume to adjust for the center to edge pressure change [0034].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have changed the opening sizes and cross-sectional areas of Abedijaberi with those found in Kao. Because the gas exhaust frame of Abedijaberi is used for distributing gases and Kao teaches the benefit of using changing the opening sizes and cross sectional areas for the purpose of uniform delivery of process gas flows by allowing for individual flow to have the same velocity and volume to adjust for the center to edge pressure change, one would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating uniform gas flow in Abedijaberi to modify Abedijaberi with the teachings of Kao. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regards to Claim 2, Abedijaberi teaches an inward exhaust pathway of each of the first set and the second set that is nearest to the reference plane has a first cross-sectional area, and an outward exhaust pathway of each of the first set and the second set that is farthest from the reference plane has a second cross-sectional area that is larger than the first cross-sectional area by a ratio of the first cross-sectional area, as shown in the gradient of the openings, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach wherein the ratio is 0.2 or greater.
However, the diameter or opening sizes, and thus implicitly the step of the gradient is chosen to account for differences of the channel outlets so that each individual flow has substantially the same velocity and volume for uniform distribution across the processing region, Kao [0034], thus also being a result effective variable for uniform gas distribution.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Abedijaberi in view of Kao expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for uniform gas distribution, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 3, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teach an outward exhaust pathway of each of the first set and the second set that is farthest from the reference plane has a first cross-sectional area, and an inward exhaust pathway of each of the first set and the second set that is closest to the reference plane has a second cross-sectional area that is larger than the first cross-sectional area by a ratio of the first cross-sectional area, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach wherein the ratio is 0.2 or greater.
However, the diameter or opening sizes, and thus implicitly the step of the gradient is chosen to account for differences of the channel outlets so that each individual flow has substantially the same velocity and volume for uniform distribution across the processing region, Kao [0034], thus also being a result effective variable for uniform gas distribution.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Abedijaberi in view of Kao expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for uniform gas distribution, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 4, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teaches a first gas exhaust frame (left side of 134/138) having the first set of exhaust pathways, wherein the first set of exhaust pathways comprise a plurality of opening sections extending into an outer face of the first gas exhaust frame, wherein the plurality of opening sections of the first set include the first cross-sectional area gradient (as per the rejection of Claim 1 above; and a second gas exhaust frame (right side of 134/138) having the second set of exhaust pathways, wherein the second set of exhaust pathways comprise a plurality of opening sections extending into an outer face of the second gas exhaust frame, wherein the plurality of opening sections of the second set include the second cross-sectional area gradient, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 5, Abedijaberi teaches the first gas exhaust frame and the second gas exhaust frame are positioned at least partially in an opening formed in the liner, as shown in 134/138 formed in Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 6, Abedijaberi teaches the plurality of opening sections of the first set and the plurality of opening sections of the second set are aligned above the pre-heat ring, as generally shown in where the preheat ring is presented below 46 in Fig. 3 of Hirosawa.
In regards to Claim 7, Abedijaberi teaches a gas frame 46, 128 Fig. 1-6 for insertion in an installed position in a processing chamber 40, 42 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the gas exhaust frame comprising: an arcuate bar (body of 46) comprising a first outer face, the first outer face defining a width between a first end and a second end, and the first outer face configured to face a processing volume in the installed position (as shown in Fig. 3 and 6); a second outer face (top surface); a third outer face (bottom surface), the second outer face and the third outer face extending relative to the first outer face along a length of the gas exhaust frame, the gas exhaust frame having a height extending between the second outer face and the third outer face; and a plurality of legs extending radially relative to the arcuate bar, the plurality of legs bounding a plurality of exhaust pathways (space between 138), the plurality of exhaust pathways including a plurality of opening sections extending from the second outer face and to the third outer face (as they form the channels that extend between the surfaces), and the plurality of exhaust pathways comprising: a first end exhaust pathway that is nearest to the first end of the width of the gas exhaust frame and has a first cross-sectional area [0025-0058], as shown in the annotated figures of Abedijaberi below:
PNG
media_image2.png
442
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
360
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
512
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Abedijaberi does not expressly teach that the gas frame is a gas exhaust frame.
Kao teaches that the gas frame structure can be the same as the gas exhaust frame (as shown in 202, 203 Fig. 1, and also in Fig. 2A vs. Fig. 2B and Fig. 2C vs Fig. 2D [0023, 0029]. Kao further teaches this allows for gas flow outlet’s effective purging and reduces purge time and uniform purging [0034].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have made the frame structure of Abedijaberi the same in both the gas inlet and the gas outlet/exhaust, as Kao teaches the gas inlet frame and the gas outlet/exhaust frame are the same structurally. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of effective purging and reducing purge time and uniform purging of gases. The resulting structure would create a gas exhaust frame with gas exhaust pathways in the same structure as the gas, the first set of exhaust pathways positioned above a vertical direction of the gas exhaust outlet 44, which lies below the entirety of the liner 24 vertically.
Abedijaberi does not expressly teach the plurality of exhaust pathways (space between 138) having a cross-sectional area gradient or that the plurality of opening sections including the cross-sectional area gradient, or a second end exhaust pathway that is nearest to the second end of the width of the gas exhaust frame has a second cross-sectional area that is larger than the first cross-sectional area.
Kao teaches a gas flow outlet guide 203 Fig. 2B, 2D, or gas exhaust frame for insertion in a processing chamber 100 Fig. 1 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0018], the gas exhaust frame comprising: a first outer face; a second outer (top) face; a third outer (bottom) face, the second outer face and the third outer face extending relative to the first outer face along a length (as shown in Fig. 2B), the gas exhaust frame having a height 241 between the second outer face and the third outer face; and plurality of exhaust pathways 217, 237, 245 having a size variation such that at least part of each exhaust pathway of the plurality of exhaust pathways is different in size than each of the other exhaust pathways of the plurality of exhaust pathways (as shown in the gradient of openings in Fig. 2D [0018-0035]).
Kao teaches a first opening sections (outer opening side) the plurality of second opening sections (first opening side) include the size variation in the form of a cross sectional gradient as shown in Fig. 2A-2D, and the plurality of exhaust pathways comprise: a first end exhaust pathway that is nearest to a first end of the gas exhaust frame and has a first cross-sectional area, and a second end exhaust pathway that is nearest to a second end of the gas exhaust frame has a second cross-sectional area that is larger than the first cross- sectional area, as the openings are smaller on the first outer face than the second outer face, as shown in Fig. 2B
PNG
media_image1.png
256
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kao further teaches that this arrangement provides uniform delivery of process gas flows by allowing for individual flow to have the same velocity and volume to adjust for the center to edge pressure change [0034].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have changed the opening sizes and cross-sectional areas of Hirosawa with those found in Kao. Because the gas exhaust frame of Hirosawa is used for distributing gases and Kao teaches the benefit of using changing the opening sizes and cross sectional areas for the purpose of uniform delivery of process gas flows by allowing for individual flow to have the same velocity and volume to adjust for the center to edge pressure change, one would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating uniform gas flow in Hirosawa to modify Hirosawa with the teachings of Kao. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regards to Claim 8, Abedijaberi teaches the first outer face is arcuate, and the width is larger than the length along 138.
In regards to Claim 9, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teach the size variation is a size gradient, as per the rejection of Claim 7 above.
In regards to Claim 10, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teach wherein the size gradient is a cross- sectional area gradient, as per the rejection of Claim 7 above.
In regards to Claim 11, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teaches the cross-sectional area gradient increases along a direction parallel to the first outer face, as shown in Fig. 2A-2D of Kao.
In regards to Claim 12, 14, and 15, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teaches the size variation is a cross-sectional area gradient, the cross-sectional area gradient increases by a step between the plurality of exhaust pathways (as shown in Kao Fig. 2D, which is outside), but does not expressly teach the step is within a range of 0.2 or greater, or 4.6% to 6.8%, or 5.7-5.8%.
However, the diameter or opening sizes, and thus implicitly the step of the gradient is chosen to account for differences of the channel outlets so that each individual flow has substantially the same velocity and volume for uniform distribution across the processing region [0034], thus also being a result effective variable for uniform gas distribution.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Abedijaberi in view of Kao expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for uniform gas distribution, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 17, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teaches the plurality of exhaust pathways further comprise: a plurality of first opening sections (left and right sides of the openings); and a plurality of second opening sections (left and right sides) intersecting the plurality of first opening sections at an angle (as they are angled), wherein the plurality of second opening sections include the cross-sectional area gradient, as per the rejection of Claim 7 above.
In regards to Claim 21, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teaches at least part of each exhaust pathway of the plurality of exhaust pathways is different in size than each of the other exhaust pathways of the plurality of exhaust pathways, as per the rejection of Claim 7 above.
In regards to Claim 22, Abedijaberi teaches a gas exhaust frame 46 Fig. 1-6 for insertion on a liner 48 in a processing chamber 12 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, the gas frame comprising: an arcuate bar (body of 46) comprising a first outer face, the first outer face defining a width between a first end and a second end, and the first outer face configured to face a processing volume in the installed position (as shown in Fig. 3 and 6); a second outer face (top surface); a third outer face (bottom surface), the second outer face and the third outer face extending relative to the first outer face along a length of the gas exhaust frame (see length of legs 138), the gas exhaust frame having a height extending between the second outer face and the third outer face; and a plurality of legs 138 extending radially relative to the arcuate bar, the plurality of legs bounding a plurality of exhaust pathways (space between 138), the plurality of exhaust pathways including a plurality of opening sections extending from the second outer face and to the third outer face (as they form the channels that extend between the surfaces), and the plurality of exhaust pathways comprising: a first end exhaust pathway that is nearest to the first end of the width of the gas exhaust frame and has a first cross-sectional area [0025-0058], as shown in the annotated figures of Abedijaberi below:
PNG
media_image2.png
442
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
360
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
512
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Abedijaberi does not expressly teach that the gas frame is a gas exhaust frame.
Kao teaches that the gas frame structure can be the same as the gas exhaust frame (as shown in 202, 203 Fig. 1, and also in Fig. 2A vs. Fig. 2B and Fig. 2C vs Fig. 2D [0023, 0029]. Kao further teaches this allows for gas flow outlet’s effective purging and reduces purge time and uniform purging [0034].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have made the frame structure of Abedijaberi the same in both the gas inlet and the gas outlet/exhaust, as Kao teaches the gas inlet frame and the gas outlet/exhaust frame are the same structurally. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of effective purging and reducing purge time and uniform purging of gases. The resulting structure would create a gas exhaust frame with gas exhaust pathways in the same structure as the gas, the first set of exhaust pathways positioned above a vertical direction of the gas exhaust outlet 44, which lies below the entirety of the liner 24 vertically.
Abedijaberi does not expressly teach the plurality of exhaust pathways (space between 138) having a cross-sectional area gradient or that the plurality of opening sections including the cross-sectional area gradient, or a second end exhaust pathway that is nearest to the second end of the width of the gas exhaust frame has a second cross-sectional area that is larger than the first cross-sectional area.
Kao teaches a gas flow outlet guide 203 Fig. 2B, 2D, or gas exhaust frame for insertion in a processing chamber 100 Fig. 1 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0018], the gas exhaust frame comprising: a first outer face; a second outer (top) face; a third outer (bottom) face, the second outer face and the third outer face extending relative to the first outer face along a length (as shown in Fig. 2B), the gas exhaust frame having a height 241 between the second outer face and the third outer face; and plurality of exhaust pathways 217, 237, 245 having a size variation such that at least part of each exhaust pathway of the plurality of exhaust pathways is different in size than each of the other exhaust pathways of the plurality of exhaust pathways (as shown in the gradient of openings in Fig. 2D [0018-0035]).
Kao teaches a first opening sections (outer opening side) the plurality of second opening sections (first opening side) include the size variation in the form of a cross sectional gradient as shown in Fig. 2A-2D, and the plurality of exhaust pathways comprise: a first end exhaust pathway that is nearest to a first end of the gas exhaust frame and has a first cross-sectional area, and a second end exhaust pathway that is nearest to a second end of the gas exhaust frame has a second cross-sectional area that is larger than the first cross- sectional area, as the openings are smaller on the first outer face than the second outer face, as shown in Fig. 2B
PNG
media_image1.png
256
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kao further teaches that this arrangement provides uniform delivery of process gas flows by allowing for individual flow to have the same velocity and volume to adjust for the center to edge pressure change [0034].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have changed the opening sizes and cross-sectional areas of Hirosawa with those found in Kao. Because the gas exhaust frame of Hirosawa is used for distributing gases and Kao teaches the benefit of using changing the opening sizes and cross sectional areas for the purpose of uniform delivery of process gas flows by allowing for individual flow to have the same velocity and volume to adjust for the center to edge pressure change, one would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating uniform gas flow in Hirosawa to modify Hirosawa with the teachings of Kao. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regards to Claim 23, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teaches the plurality of first opening sections are substantially equal to each other in cross-sectional area size (as shown in the central portion of holes as shown in Fig. 2B and the central holes (not 221) being substantially equal to each other, as broadly recited in the claim.
In regards to Claim 24, Abedijaberi teaches the plurality of second opening sections are formed in a ledge section of the gas exhaust frame, as they are opening in the ledge of the chamber, as shown in the arrangement of 40 in 20 Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 25, Abedijaberi in view of Kao teaches the size variation is a cross-sectional area gradient, the cross-sectional area gradient increases by a step between the plurality of exhaust pathways (as shown in Fig. 2D, which is outside), but does not expressly teach the step is within a range of 4.6% to 6.8%.
However, the diameter or opening sizes, and thus implicitly the step of the gradient is chosen to account for differences of the channel outlets so that each individual flow has substantially the same velocity and volume for uniform distribution across the processing region [0034], thus also being a result effective variable for uniform gas distribution.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Abedijaberi in view of Kao expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for uniform gas distribution, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights