DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (6/7/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) were pending. In response to an election requirement the applicant elected claims 1-16 dated 12/09/2025. The election was without traverse. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawing of Fig 3 is objected to. According to specification 304 pertains to joining structures which are structured like pins or studs and 306 pertains to gas divider wall which is an annular wall. Fig 4 shows this correctly. Fig 3 however labels joining structures as 306 and gas divider wall as 304. A sensor for flow rate detection is shown embedded in the wall. This appears incorrect.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 8, 11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 15 recite sensors embedded in the gas distribution nozzle to measure flow rate of the coolant. Fig 3 appears to show the embedded sensor. It is however unclear how this sensor could detect the flow when it is not even in contact with coolant.
Regarding claims 11 and 16 sensors are recited embedded in joining structures but it is unclear as to what is measured by them. It is further noted that claim 1 is directed to digital information required to make a gas distribution nozzle but not to make external heat transfer equipment as would be suggested by these claims.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “A structure embodied in a machine-readable medium used in a design process, the structure comprising: a unitary gas distribution nozzle assembly” is not fully understood. From the specification, it appears that the claimed invention is about digital information generated to make a chamber component using additive manufacturing.
Claims 8, 11, 15 and 16 are directed to sensors associated with temperature control of the gas distribution nozzle and could be to detect and control temperature of the nozzle and flow rate or temperature of the heat transfer fluid. As discussed above, their disposition is unclear.
However, as these were well known in the art, they are interpreted as generic sensors disposed appropriately to measure temperature and flow rate.
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 1-7, 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazarika et al (US 20240062997) in view of Zhou et al (US 8440049) and Barns et al (US 6818096).
Hazarika et al disclose a structure embodied in a machine-readable medium used in a design process, the structure could be a component of a semiconductor processing chamber made by additive manufacturing process (Abstract and Fig 1). The controller for such manufacturing disclosed in Fig 11 includes machine readable medium (1102-1104, 1106 and 116) and actuator to control an additive manufacturing system disclosed in Fig 1. The component is made layer by layer and could be a gas distribution nozzle which would be called unitary. Hazarika’s gas distribution nozzle discloses an upper electrode but does not disclose two portions of the electrode and other parts as claimed.
Zhou et al disclose a gas distribution nozzle (130) and discloses an upper electrode portion (204), a lower electrode portion (206); and a plurality of joining structures that join the lower electrode portion and the upper electrode portion (228). Zhou et al disclose one gas zone divider walls to create two gas plenum chambers where the gas zone divider walls are coupled to upper and lower electrode portions.
Zhou et al disclose the showerhead coupled to the lid 104 and therefore being of conductive material like aluminum (Col 3 lines 23-26). The showerhead functions as ground electrode since RF power is coupled to the substrate support.
Regarding materials and use of joining structures to help transfer RF and thermal energy between upper and lower electrodes, Barns et al disclose them more explicitly.
As Hazarika et al disclose instructions and digital information to allow manufacturing of components of the plasma chamber including gas distribution nozzle, using such information to make it to the specification of Zhou et al or Barns et al as discussed below would have been obvious before the filing date of this application.
Barns et al disclose an upper electrode portion (Fig 1, 1); a lower electrode portion (2); and a plurality of joining structures that join the lower electrode portion and the upper electrode portion (4).
Wherein the upper electrode portion, the lower electrode portion, the plurality of joining structures, and the one or more gas zone divider walls are of a same material like aluminum (Col 2 lines 9-13); each of the plurality of joining structures is positioned between and coupled to the upper electrode portion and the lower electrode portion (Fig 1).
the one or more gas zone divider walls are configured to separate a region between the upper electrode portion and the lower electrode portion into two or more plenum chambers ().
Regarding the limitation “each of the plurality of joining structures is configured to transfer radio- frequency (RF) energy and thermal energy between the upper electrode portion and the lower electrode portion”, it is noted that the electrical and thermal conductivity of aluminum provides that (Abstract, Col 2 line 1-8, lines 42-48 and 59-65 and claim 1).
Claim 2-3 are disclosed by Hazarika et al as disclosed above.
Claims 4 is disclosed more explicitly by Barns et al as discussed above.
Claim 5 is disclosed more explicitly by Zhou et al as discussed above.
Claim 6 is disclosed more explicitly by Zhou et al as discussed above.
Regarding claims 7 and 14 cooling portion above the upper electrode portion is disclosed in Barns et al (Fig 1, 20) and Zhou et al (Fig 3, 112 and 202).
Regarding claim 9 RF power to couple RF energy to gas is disclosed (Barns Col 1 lines 58-67).
Regarding claim 10 joining structures appear to be cylindrical (Barns Fig 2 and Zhou Fig 4).
Claim 12 is rejected along with claim 1 for the same reason.
Regarding claim 13 same material is aluminum as discussed above.
Claims 8, 11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazarika et al (US 20240062997) in view of Barns et al (US 6818096) and Zhou et al (US 8440049) and Mandrekar et al (US 6117245).
Hazarika et al in view of Barns et al and Zhou et al disclose a unitary gas distribution nozzle and temperature control using coolant channels but Mandrekar et al disclose such control and use of plurality of sensors.
Mandrekar et al disclose a temperature control system for controlling temperature of the gas distribution nozzle and disclose detection and control of temperature and flow rate of fluid (Fig 2, 4 Col 7 lines 23-65).
Therefore, having sensors embedded in the gas distribution nozzle for feedback control of temperature would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alon Ganany (US 20230131502) disclosed a 3D printed showerhead (Fig 2 and Para 34, 50).
Carlo Waldfried (US 20230093910) also disclosed a 3D printed showerhead (Fig 3).
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