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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 14, 15, 17 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 the frames and arcuate bars, 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. 2007/0281084 to Hirosawa in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0017971 to Kao et al is presented below.
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 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) 7-12, 14, 15, 17, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2007/0281084 to Hirosawa in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0017971 to Kao et al.
In regards to Claim 7, Hirosawa teaches gas frame 40 Fig. 5A-6 for insertion in a processing chamber 20 Fig. 1 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0010], the gas frame comprising: an arcuate bar 40a comprising a first outer face (outer surface); 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 frame, the gas frame having a height extending between the second outer face and the third outer face; a plurality of legs 40B extending relative to the arcuate bar, the plurality of legs bounding a plurality of pathways 40C, the plurality of pathways including a plurality of opening sections extending from the second outer face and to the third outer face (spaces of 40C), and the plurality of pathways comprising: a first end pathway that is nearest to a first end of the gas frame and has a first cross-sectional area, and a second end pathway that is nearest to a second end of the gas frame (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 5A, 5B) below [0040-0113]:
PNG
media_image1.png
436
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hirosawa 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 Hirosawa 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.
Hirosawa does not expressly teach the plurality of exhaust pathways 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 cross-sectional area gradient, or that the second end exhaust pathway 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_image2.png
256
888
media_image2.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. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 8, Hirosawa teaches the first outer face is arcuate, as shown in Fig. 5A.
In regards to Claim 9, Hirosawa in view of Kao teaches the size variation is a size gradient, as per the rejection of Claim 7 above.
In regards to Claim 10, Hirosawa in view of Kao teaches the size gradient is a cross-sectional area gradient, as per the rejection of Claim 7 above.
In regards to Claim 11, Hirosawa 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, Hirosawa 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 Hirosawa 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, Hirosawa 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, Hirosawa 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, Hirosawa teaches gas frame 40 Fig. 5A-6 for insertion in a processing chamber 20 Fig. 1 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0010], the gas frame comprising: a first outer face (outer surface); 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 frame, the gas frame having a height extending between the second outer face and the third outer face; and a plurality of pathways 40C, the plurality of pathways including a plurality of first opening sections, and a plurality of second opening sections intersecting the plurality of first opening sections at an angle (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 5A, 5B) [0040-0113].
Hirosawa 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 Hirosawa 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.
Hirosawa does not expressly teach the exhaust pathways have 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 or wherein the plurality of second opening sections include the size variation, 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.
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, 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_image2.png
256
888
media_image2.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. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 23, Hirosawa 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, Hirosawa 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, Hirosawa 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 Hirosawa 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2007/0281084 to Hirosawa in view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0017971 to Kao et al and United States Patent Application No. 2012/0240853 to Carlson et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Hirosawa teaches a processing chamber 20, 20A Fig. 1 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing [0010], comprising: a chamber body 20A; a window 22, the chamber body and the window at least partially defining a processing volume (interior of 20A); one or more heat sources 32 configured to heat the processing volume; a substrate support 26 disposed in the processing volume; a liner 24 at least partially lining the chamber body; a pre-heat ring (generally shown in Fig. 1 but not expressly taught) disposed in the processing volume and at least partially supported by the liner; one or more gas inlets 35; and a first frame/gas frame an arcuate bar 40a comprising a first outer face (outer surface); 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 frame, the gas frame having a height extending between the second outer face and the third outer face; a plurality of legs 40B extending relative to the arcuate bar, the plurality of legs bounding a plurality of pathways 40C, the plurality of pathways including a plurality of opening sections extending from the second outer face and to the third outer face (spaces of 40C), and the plurality of pathways comprising: a first end pathway that is nearest to a first end of the gas frame and has a first cross-sectional area, and a second end pathway that is nearest to a second end of the gas frame (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 5A, 5B) below [0040-0113]:
PNG
media_image1.png
436
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hirosawa 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 Hirosawa 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.
Hirosawa does not expressly teach the plurality of exhaust pathways 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 cross-sectional area gradient, or that the second end exhaust pathway 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_image2.png
256
888
media_image2.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.
Carlson teaches a preheat ring 140 [0035, 0040], which is analogous to the structure shown in Fig. 1 or Hirosawa.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Hirosawa in view of Kao, by expressly placing a pre-heat ring where is generally shown in Hirosawa.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Hirosawa 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 Hirosawa 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, Hirosawa 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 Hirosawa 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, Hirosawa in view of Kao teaches a first gas exhaust frame (left side of 40) 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 40) 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, Hirosawa 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 40 formed in 24 in Fig. 1.
In regards to Claim 6, Hirosawa 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 in Fig. 1 of Hirosawa.
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 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