DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (5/3/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) were examined in a Non-Final on 4/8/2026. This office action is in response to the submission dated 7/8/2026. Claims 1, 11 and 17 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments related to the amendment are not persuasive in view of the present rejection. As noted, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the showerhead diffusion plate separate or integrated.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of recesses, each recess of the plurality of recesses having a dielectric plate of a plurality of dielectric plates disposed therein”. It is noted however that the dielectric plate 150 sits on the recess and not disposed therein as recited in the claim.
Further the specification states that the bottom of the plate 150 is exposed to vacuum (Para 22). This however does not appear to be correct since according to Fig 3A and 3B, the plate which includes diffusion channels is below the recess.
Fig 3A does not appear to show the dielectric plate of the recess.
The following rejection is based on the interpretation as above. Corrections are requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima et al (US 20190108984) and Yamazaki et al (TW 1556309B).
Morishima et al disclose a gas distribution assembly for a lid assembly (31, 32), the gas distribution assembly comprising:
a first diffuser (Fig 2, 71), the first diffuser comprises:
one or more first diffuser inlets disposed in a plate for the lid assembly; and
a plurality of first channels in fluid communication with at least one of the first diffuser inlets, each first channel of the plurality of first channels is disposed in the plate (Fig 8); and
a second diffuser (65, 64), the second diffuser comprises:
one or more second diffuser inlets disposed in the plate and in fluid communication with a plurality of second channels (Fig 6), each of the second channels is intersecting each of the first channels.
Regarding claim 12, 14 and 18 and 19, first and second diffusers are associated with respective holes.
Regarding claim 13, 15 and 17 mass flow controllers are typically used for controlling gas flow to process requirements.
Regarding the amendment it is noted that the term plate in the claim does not appear to be a single plate as applicant argues.
However, it is noted as below:
“According to in re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (MPEP 2144.04 V.C making separable) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design a two-piece separable showerhead clamp in order to obtain a simple to assemble and disassemble clamp unit. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 V.B making integral).
Example: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design a two-piece separable cavity in order to obtain a simple to assemble and disassemble cavity unit.”
Still further this is demonstrated by Yamazaki et al who disclose gas diffusion channels 144 being perpendicular to channels 142 while both are embedded in a single plate in Fig 1. Also disclosed are other embodiments where the plate includes several laminations (Fig 2).
Therefore, having plate electrode in Morishima et al being upper and lower electrode would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application.
Claims 1-10, 16 and 20 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20110036499) in view of Morishima et al (US 20190108984) and Yamazaki et al (TW 1556309B).
Regarding claims 1,11 and 17, Lee et al disclose a plate for a lid assembly (Fig 2, 112a), the plate comprising:
a plasma generation system, the plasma generation system comprising one or more cavities disposed in parallel in the plate (114), each of the cavities comprises:
recesses (space below the dielectric plate) for a plurality of dielectric plates (116);
Lee et al disclose gas distribution using diffusers and channels as disclosed in Fig 3-5. The diffusers allow at least two gas sources 176a and 176b to create first and second diffusers and channels in the lid assembly. The diffusers do not clearly and explicitly disclose first and second channels.
Prior art showerheads disclose diffusers disposed in the showerhead which assume different dispositions including intersecting channels.
For example, Morishima et al disclose a showerhead allowing at least two gas sources through channels in the showerhead
Regarding claim 2 and 4 first and second, diffusers are associated with respective holes.
Regarding claim 3 and 5 mass flow controllers are typically used for controlling gas flow to process requirement.
Regarding claim 6 the lid is made of aluminum (Para 26).
Regarding claims 7, the dielectric plates are made of ceramic (Para 26) which means they could include aluminum oxide or aluminum nitride as being common ceramics.
Regarding claims 8 Lee et al disclose one or more coils positioned on or over the plurality of dielectric plates (118); and a gas distribution assembly,
Regarding claims 9, 10, 16 and 20, Lee et al disclose refrigerant cycling for a flow path 138 (para 28) coupled to antenna and lid.
Yamazaki et al is used with Morishima et al as above for claims 11-15 and 17-19.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.12312689 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the elements of instant claims like cavity, dielectric plate, recess and distribution assembly with intersecting plurality of channels in the plate are disclosed in claims 1-18 of 12312689.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stowell et al (US 20160111256) disclose a showerhead allowing at least two gas sources through channels in the showerhead. Fig 6 discloses the two gas sources 240-1 and 240-2 through vertical and horizontal channels appearing to be intersecting.
Jung et al (US 20170121815) disclose a gas distribution assembly for a lid assembly (31, 32), the gas distribution assembly comprising:
a first diffuser (Fig 14 and 15, 117), the first diffuser comprises:
one or more first diffuser inlets disposed in a plate for the lid assembly; and
a plurality of first channels in fluid communication with at least one of the first diffuser inlets, each first channel of the plurality of first channels is disposed in the plate (Fig 8); and
a second diffuser (116), the second diffuser comprises:
one or more second diffuser inlets disposed in the plate and in fluid communication with a plurality of second channels 99 each of the second channels is intersecting each of the first channels.
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights