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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 15-16 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The original election in the response dated 03/30/2026 was for Claims 12-18, which encompassed a method of forming an apparatus for a process chamber (See Claims filed 03/30/2026). Claims 15-16, as submitted 08/19/2026, contain limitations pertaining to the method of using the controller and therefore, the apparatus. There is no indication in the specification that the method of using the controller to control the process chamber is a part of the method of forming the apparatus.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 12-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung (US20200157682A1) in view of Morgan (US20230235458A1), Tham (US20160103031A1) and Bravo (US20230234294A1).
Claim 12
Sung teaches an apparatus (152, 154, 156) for a process chamber (110), comprising: forming a showerhead body (152, 154, 156) having a first gas channel (Figure 1); and providing one or more first gas pressure sensors (170) such that the one or more first gas pressure sensors are within the showerhead body at a surface of the first gas channel. (Figure 1 shows the gas pressure sensors are embedded in the walls of the channel(s).)
Sung does not explicitly disclose the formation method of the showerhead body.
However, Morgan teaches a formation method of the showerhead body. (Morgan teaches a showerhead for semiconductor processing operations (abs) that is made using additive manufacturing (¶0005) that includes selective laser melting using ceramics (¶0005).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known additive manufacturing technique of Morgan to the showerhead production method of Sung in view of Tham in order to permit the adaption of showerhead geometries that would be difficult to produce using conventional techniques and allow for a decreasing of the amount of gas needed to provide a desired gas flow through the showerhead. (Morgan ¶0008)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known additive manufacturing technique of Morgan to the showerhead production method of Sung in view of Tham because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Sung does not explicitly disclose forming one or more first gas pressure sensors using an additive manufacturing process.
However, Tham (US20160103031A1) teaches forming one or more first pressure sensors using an additive manufacturing process. (Figures 1-2 teach pressure sensors made using a 3-D printing method (¶0073).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known 3-D printing technique of Tham to the pressure sensors of Sung in order to use a method that makes it possible to generate nearly pore-free base bodies and/or measuring membranes with more complex shapes, in particular shapes having undercuts. Accordingly, base bodies having structures and/or measuring membranes with high pressure resistance can be generated, and the structures which are largely pressure resistant can be printed on the base body and/or the measuring membrane. (See Tham ¶0070)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known 3-D printing technique of Tham to the pressure sensors of Sung because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Sung in view of Morgan and Tham does not explicitly disclose the first gas pressure sensors are integrally formed with the first showerhead body.
However, Bravo teaches the sensors are integrally formed with the body of the 3D printed object. (Figures 3A-3B and ¶0040-0041 teach the embedding of a sensor in a 3D object using additive manufacturing techniques.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known combined 3-D printing technique of Bravo to the separate 3-D printing method of Sung in view of Morgan and Tham in order to use a method that fabricates the sensor as part of the fabrication method for the 3D object (Bravo ¶0040), therefore reducing manufacturing steps/improving efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known combined 3-D printing technique of Bravo to the separate 3-D printing method of Sung in view of Morgan and Tham because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Since both Morgan and Tham teach the use of the same 3-D printing method (Selective Laser Melting) using a similar material (ceramic), the predictable result of the addition of the teaching of efficiency from Bravo will be that the showerhead and sensors are created together in the same 3-D printing process.
Claim 13
Sung in view of Morgan, Tham and Bravo teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: forming the showerhead body with a second gas channel (Sung, Figure 1 teaches a plurality of gas channels passing through the showerhead (152, 154, 156).); and forming one or more second gas pressure sensors positioned at a surface of the second gas channel of the showerhead body (Sung, Figure 1 teaches a plurality of pressure sensors (170) located within the plurality of gas channels passing through the showerhead body (152, 154, 156).) using the additive manufacturing process. (Tham, Figures 1-2 teach pressure sensors made using a 3-D printing method (¶0073).) such that one or more second gas pressure sensors are integrally formed with the showerhead body at a surface of the second gas channel. (A similar limitation was addressed in Claim 12 for the first gas pressure sensor. Sung, Figure 1 teaches that the gas pressure sensors are embedded within the channel. Tham, Figures 1-2 and ¶0073 teach the additive manufacturing of pressure sensors. Bravo, ¶0040-0041 teach the embedding of sensors within a 3-D printed object by printing both.)
Claim 14
Sung in view of Morgan, Tham and Bravo teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: electrically connecting the one or more first gas pressure sensors and the one or more second gas pressure sensors to a controller (Sung, ¶0050 teaches a controller connected to the pressure sensor(s). Tham, Figures 1-2 and ¶0085 teaches an electrical connection (17, 19) that is created during the additive manufacturing.) that detects differential pressure between the one or more first gas pressure sensors and the one or more second gas pressure sensors. (Sung ¶0050-0052 teach the controller is connected to a comparator (164) through a circuit. The comparator compares the signals received by the pressure sensors through the detector (162).)
Claim 17
Sung in view of Morgan, Tham and Bravo teaches method of claim 12, further comprising: forming the showerhead body (Morgan, ¶0005), the one or more first gas pressure sensors (Tham, ¶0062), and the first gas channel (Morgan, ¶0005 and Sung, Figure 1) using a single continuous additive manufacturing process. (Bravo ¶0040-0041)
Claim 18
Sung in view of Morgan, Tham and Bravo teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising: forming electrical connections to the one or more first gas pressure sensors through the showerhead body during the single continuous additive manufacturing process. (Tham, Figures 1-2 and ¶0085 teaches an electrical connection (17, 19) that is created during the additive manufacturing. Sung Figure 1 shows connections from the sensors (170) to the controller that pass through the body.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 12 using Sung and Tham has been withdrawn.
As a preliminary note, a new rejection is presented above using new references to address the newly added limitations to Claim 12.
The arguments generally pertain to:
The forming steps in amended Claim 12 (Pages 6-8 of the remarks);
The forming steps argument is addressed in the new rejection.
The integrally formed limitations in amended Claim 12 (Pages 8-9 of the remarks);
The integrally formed argument is addressed in the new rejection with the combination of Sung in view of Morgan, Tham and Bravo teaching a showerhead, forming the showerhead, forming the sensor, and forming an object and embedded sensor using 3-D printing teachings found in the respective references.
The separate manufacturing of the showerhead and sensor in the prior rejection (Pages 8-10 of the remarks);
The separate manufacturing techniques argument is addressed by the addition of Bravo in the rejection above.
Tham’s pressure sensor manufacturing method is not analogous to the claimed invention (Page 10 of the remarks);
The claim requires 3-D printing of pressure sensors, and Tham teaches this in ¶0008.
The predictable result of combining Sung and Tham does not meet the claim (Page 11 of the remarks);
The rejection above has been amended to suit the amendments to Claim 12.
The motivation to combine Sung and Tham does not arrive at an integrally formed limitation as amended in Claim 12 (Page 11 of the remarks);
The rejection above has been amended to suit the amendments to Claim 12.
Sung and Tham do not discuss the problem presented in Applicant’s specification (Page 11 of the remarks)
The references used in the rejection above meet the claimed limitations. If the additional features of applicant’s invention discussed on Page 11 of the remarks are critical to the functioning of the invention, they should be added to Claim 12.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 13 using Sung and Tham has been withdrawn.
Applicant provides similar arguments on Pages 11-13 regarding the integrally formed limitations added to Claims 12 and 13. As noted in the response to arguments for Claim 12, the integrally formed limitations are addressed by the new rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 14 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Sung in view of Tham fails to teach Claims 12 and 13 (Page 14 of the remarks).
Sung in view of Tham fails to teach connections that extend from sensors embedded within or formed onto the showerhead body structure itself – requiring the connections to be routed through or from the showerhead body to reach an external controller (Page 14 of the remarks).
These limitations were not found in Claim 14.
Sung’s sensors are discretely installed (Page 15 of the remarks).
The integrally formed limitations for the sensors is addressed by the new rejection.
Sung’s differential pressure detection serves a different purpose (Page 15 of the remarks)
Claim 14 requires that the controller detects a differential pressure, and does not require any specific purpose for the detection.
Sung’s system does not indicate a gasket failure (Page 15 of the remarks.
This limitation was not found in Claim 14.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Sung in view of Tham does not teach amended Claim 12 (Page 16 of the remarks)
The amended Claim 12 is addressed by a new rejection above.
There are advantages to integrally formed sensors (Pages 16-17 of the remarks)
No argument is presented in these sections.
Sung’s sensors are not integrally formed in the showerhead injection holes. (Page 17-18 of the remarks) There are a plurality of different arguments on these pages that center on the different of integrally formed sensors and discrete sensors.
The integrally formed sensors limitations are addressed in the new rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The rejection of Claim 15 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 17 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Sung in view of Tham does not teach amended Claim 12 (Page 23 of the remarks)
The amended Claim 12 is addressed by a new rejection above.
The combination arrives at two separate manufacturing methods (Page 24 of the remarks).
This argument is addressed by the combination Sung in view of Morgan, Tham and Bravo, with Bravo specifically teaching a combined method to form an object and sensor in a single additive manufacturing process (¶0040-0041)
Morgan does not disclose additively manufacturing pressure sensors (Page 24 of the remarks).
Morgan is not relied upon for additively manufacturing pressure sensors.
Morgan and Tham teach different methods and different materials (Page 25 of the remarks).
As to the method of manufacture, Morgan ¶0065 teaches the use of selective laser melting and Tham ¶0044 teaches the use of selective laser melting. For one example of the materials: Morgan ¶129 teaches the use of aluminum oxide and Tham ¶0065 teaches the use of aluminum oxide.
The combination does not teach a single continuous additive manufacturing method or the predictable result thereof.
The new rejection uses Bravo to teach forming the sensor and the 3-D object in a single additive manufacturing method.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 18 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Sung in view of Tham and Morgan does not teach Claims 12 and 17 (Page 26 of the remarks).
The new rejection presented above addresses the amendments to Claim 12.
Tham’s pressure sensor is a discrete base body and does not address forming the sensor lines through the showerhead body (Page 27 of the remarks)
Sung, Figure 1 shows the pressure sensor lines run through the body of the showerhead. When combined with Tham, which teaches 3-D printing of the connecting lines, Morgan, which teaches 3-D printing of a showerhead, and Bravo, which teaches printing the sensor and 3-D base body in the same process, the predictable result is that the sensor lines will be printed alongside the sensors and connected to the controller.
The prior art does not teach a multi-nozzle printer (Page 28 of the remarks)
Claim 18 does not require this feature at this time.
Sung does not disclose additively manufacturing sensor connections (Page 28 of the remarks)
Sung is not relied upon for teaching this limitation. It is the combination of references that arrives at this feature from the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20230234294A1
2022-01-26
Figures 3A-3B and ¶0040-0041 teach the embedding of a sensor in a 3D object using additive manufacturing techniques. The motivation use this technique to fabricate the sensor as part of the fabrication method for the 3D object (¶0040), therefore reducing manufacturing steps/improving efficiency.
US20190346313A1
2018-06-29
Figure 9 teaches a method for manufacturing an object with a sensor embedded within the body of the object.
US20190040529A1
2018-07-23
Figure 5 teaches a sensor (534) that is embedded within the body of a showerhead (502). The showerhead portion where the sensor is located is formed via additive manufacturing (¶0026)
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 Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights