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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 4th 2026 has been entered.
Claims Status:
Claims 2, 4-10 and 12-14 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 11 and 15-21 are cancelled.
Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 2 and 4-10 are amended.
Claims 2, 6-10 and 12-14 are examined as follow:
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.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronet et al (US5155336 previously cited) herein set forth as Gronet, in view of RANISH et al (US2015/0345023A1 previously cited) herein set forth as RANISH, and further in view of NPL-Bonding Material Data Sheet by Morgan Advance Material (newly cited) herein set forth as Morgan Advance.
Regarding claim 10, Gronet discloses a lamp housing (#18, fig.3) for a process chamber (#14, refer to fig.3), comprising: a first plate (#22, fig.3) made of first material (refer as any material therefore read on prior art) and having a plurality of first openings (refer to opening of #21 on #22 in fig.3); a second plate (#23, fig.3) having a plurality of second openings (refer to opening of #21 on #23 in fig.3); a plurality of tubes (#21, fig.3) brazed via a braze alloy (refer to Col 3 line 41-43 cited: “…The ends of the pipes are brazed or welded to openings in upper and lower cooling chamber walls 22 and 23…”) to the first plate (#22, fig.3) at first ends of the plurality of tubes (#21, fig.3) and brazed (refer to the Col 3 line 41-43 cited above) to the second plate (#23, fig.3) via the braze alloy at second ends of the plurality of tubes (#21, fig.3), wherein the plurality of tubes (#21, fig.3) have central openings (refer to the center opening of #21in fig.3) that are aligned with the plurality of first openings (refer to opening of #21 on #22 in fig.3) and the plurality of second openings (refer to opening of #21 on #23 in fig.3), and an annular jacket (#24, fig.3) made of the first material (refer as any material therefore read on prior art) and circumscribing the plurality of tubes (#21, fig.3) and brazed (refer to the Col 5 line 21-26 cited above) to the first plate (#42, fig.6) via the braze alloy.
PNG
media_image1.png
494
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
361
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gronet does not explicitly disclose the second plate is a copper plate; and wherein the braze alloy comprises a copper-germanium-nickel alloy.
In the same field of lamp housing for a process chamber, RANISH discloses the housing of the lamp housing formed from copper (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…The lamp housing 150 is formed from a metal, such as stainless steel or copper, and can be formed to relatively exact tolerances using modern machining techniques, such as computer numerical control (CNC) machining.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s lamp housing with copper plate, as taught by RANISH, in order to provide easier manufacturing of the plate and a planar plate and also better heat conduction as one of the purpose of the plate is to form cooling chamber (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…The lamp housing 150 is formed from a metal, such as stainless steel or copper, and can be formed to relatively exact tolerances using modern machining techniques, such as computer numerical control (CNC) machining. Thus, the upper surface 150a is relatively planar. In contrast, the lower surface 104a of the lower window 104 is not capable of be produced to as exact of tolerances as the lamp housing 150 due to the difficulties of machining the material from which the lower window 104 is constructed. In one example, the lower surface 104a may have as much as 1 millimeter difference in planarity, resulting in the height of the gap 151 varying along the length of the lower window 104. The difference in the height of the gap 151 can affect the heat transfer between the lower window 104 and the lamp housing 150 at different locations, primarily due to the difference in conduction length path across the gap 151 …”).
RANISH does not explicitly discloses wherein the braze alloy comprises a copper-germanium-nickel alloy, having, by weight, 60 to 90 percent copper, 5 to 40 percent germanium, and 0.1 to 0.5 percent nickel.
In the field of bonding material choices, Morgan Advance discloses a braze alloy comprises a copper-germanium-nickel alloy, having, by weight, 87.75% percent copper, 12% percent germanium, and 0.25 percent nickel (refer to NPL-Bonding Material Data Sheet by Morgan Advance Materials on “nominal composition section”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s bonding material composition to be by weight, 87.75% percent copper, 12% percent germanium and 0.25 percent nickel, as taught by Morgan Advance, in order to provide a better bonding material that have economical high temperature hermitic bonding to keep the lamp housing bonded securely, such that a longer operational life span is possible for the lamp housing.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Gronet does not explicitly discloses the first material does not include copper.
In the same field of lamp housing for a process chamber, RANISH discloses the housing of the lamp housing formed from stainless steel or copper (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…The lamp housing 150 is formed from a metal, such as stainless steel or copper, and can be formed to relatively exact tolerances using modern machining techniques, such as computer numerical control (CNC) machining.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s lamp housing with or stainless steel or copper, as taught by RANISH, in order to provide easier manufacturing of the plate and a planar plate and also better heat conduction as one of the purpose of the plate is to form cooling chamber (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…The lamp housing 150 is formed from a metal, such as stainless steel or copper, and can be formed to relatively exact tolerances using modern machining techniques, such as computer numerical control (CNC) machining. Thus, the upper surface 150a is relatively planar. In contrast, the lower surface 104a of the lower window 104 is not capable of be produced to as exact of tolerances as the lamp housing 150 due to the difficulties of machining the material from which the lower window 104 is constructed. In one example, the lower surface 104a may have as much as 1 millimeter difference in planarity, resulting in the height of the gap 151 varying along the length of the lower window 104. The difference in the height of the gap 151 can affect the heat transfer between the lower window 104 and the lamp housing 150 at different locations, primarily due to the difference in conduction length path across the gap 151 …”).
RANISH does not explicitly disclose that the first plate does not include copper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s lamp housing with the combination of copper and stainless steel plate as that the skilled artisan would have had reason to try these methods with the reasonable expectation that both would be successful (refer to MPEP 2143 (e)).
Regarding claim 13, the modification of Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Gronet does not explicitly discloses the first material does not include copper.
In the same field of lamp housing for a process chamber, RANISH discloses the housing of the lamp housing formed from stainless steel or copper (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…The lamp housing 150 is formed from a metal, such as stainless steel or copper, and can be formed to relatively exact tolerances using modern machining techniques, such as computer numerical control (CNC) machining.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s lamp housing with or stainless steel or copper, as taught by RANISH, in order to provide easier manufacturing of the plate and a planar plate and also better heat conduction as one of the purpose of the plate is to form cooling chamber (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…The lamp housing 150 is formed from a metal, such as stainless steel or copper, and can be formed to relatively exact tolerances using modern machining techniques, such as computer numerical control (CNC) machining. Thus, the upper surface 150a is relatively planar. In contrast, the lower surface 104a of the lower window 104 is not capable of be produced to as exact of tolerances as the lamp housing 150 due to the difficulties of machining the material from which the lower window 104 is constructed. In one example, the lower surface 104a may have as much as 1 millimeter difference in planarity, resulting in the height of the gap 151 varying along the length of the lower window 104. The difference in the height of the gap 151 can affect the heat transfer between the lower window 104 and the lamp housing 150 at different locations, primarily due to the difference in conduction length path across the gap 151 …”).
RANISH does not explicitly disclose that the first plate does not include copper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s lamp housing with the combination of copper and stainless steel plate as that the skilled artisan would have had reason to try these material with the reasonable expectation that both would be successful (refer to MPEP 2143 (e)).
Regarding claim 14, the modification of Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Gronet further discloses a rapid thermal processing chamber (#14, fig.3), comprising: a chamber body (#14, fig.3) defining an interior volume (refer to the volume of #14 in fig.3) therein; the lamp housing of claim 10 (#18, fig.3) disposed in an upper portion of the interior volume (refer to the volume of #14 in fig.3); a plurality of lamps (#19, fig.3) disposed in the lamp housing (#18, fig.3); and a substrate support (#62 and #63, fig.3) disposed in the interior volume (refer to the volume of #14 in fig.3), wherein a quartz window (#17, fig.3) is disposed between the plurality of lamps (#19, fig.3) and the substrate support (#62 and #63, fig.3).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronet et al (US5155336 previously cited) herein set forth as Gronet, in view of RANISH et al (US2015/0345023A1 previously cited) herein set forth as RANISH, further in view NPL-Bonding Material Data Sheet by Morgan Advance Material (newly cited) herein set forth as Morgan Advance, and further in view of Ranish et al (US2008/0067416A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Ranish7416A1.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of tubes extend only partially through the copper plate.
In the same field of lamp housing for a process chamber, Ranish7416A1 discloses wherein the plurality of tubes (#111, fig.1) extend only partially (refer to #111 partially through #117 in fig.1) through the copper plate (#117, fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
491
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s plurality of tubes with wherein the plurality of tubes extend only partially through the copper plate, as taught by Ranish6741A1, in order to reduce manufacturing material, a shorter tube and also utilizing the copper plate for better cooling.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, the modification of Gronet, RANISH and WEIHL already discloses in claim 10 rejection, the second plate is a copper plate (refer to claim 10 rejection), Gronet further discloses a bottom flange (#17, fig.3) disposed about the second plate (#23, fig.3) and coupled to the second plate (#23, fig.3). However, the modification of Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance does not specifically discloses wherein the bottom flange includes an annular lip that extends into an annular groove on an upper surface of the copper plate.
In the same field of lamp housing for a process chamber, Ranish7416A1 discloses wherein the bottom flange (refer to the “bottom flange” annotated in ZOOM IN fig.1) includes an annular lip that extends into an annular groove on an upper surface of the copper plate (refer to “annular lip extends into an annular groove on upper” annotated in ZOOM IN fig.1).
PNG
media_image4.png
556
678
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s invention with wherein the bottom flange includes an annular lip that extends into an annular groove on an upper surface of the copper plate, as taught by Ranish, in order to provide a better and more secure attachment, and better sealed chamber for the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronet et al (US5155336 previously cited) herein set forth as Gronet, in view of RANISH et al (US2015/0345023A1 previously cited) herein set forth as RANISH, further in view NPL-Bonding Material Data Sheet by Morgan Advance Material (newly cited) herein set forth as Morgan Advance, and further in view of HOWELLS (US2018/0340835A1 previously cited) herein set forth as HOWELLS.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, the modification of Gronet, Ranish and Morgan Advance already discloses in claim 10 rejection, the second plate is a copper plate (refer to claim 10 rejection), the modification of Gronet, Ranish and Morgan Advance does not explicitly disclose wherein the second plate includes an annular groove on an upper surface of the second plate to accommodate the annular jacket.
In the field lamp housing for process chamber, HOWELLS discloses wherein the second plate (refer to “second plate” annotated in fig.1) includes an annular groove (refer to “lower groove” annotated in Zoom In fig.1) on an upper surface of the second plate (refer to “second plate” annotated in fig.1) to accommodate the annular jacket (refer to “jacket” annotated in fig.1).
PNG
media_image5.png
444
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
441
420
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the lamp housing structure of Gronet with HOWELLS, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronet et al (US5155336 previously cited) herein set forth as Gronet, in view of RANISH et al (US2015/0345023A1 previously cited) herein set forth as RANISH, further in view NPL-Bonding Material Data Sheet by Morgan Advance Material (newly cited) herein set forth as Morgan Advance, further in view of HOWELLS (US2018/0340835A1 previously cited) herein set forth as HOWELLS, and further in view of “NPL-Brazing Assembly: How to braze a joint”(previously cited) herein set forth as NPLBrazing.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Gronet, RANISH, Morgan Advance and HOWELLS discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 6, the modification of Gronet, Ranish and Morgan Advance already discloses the annular jacket is connect to the copper plate via the annular groove (refer to claim 6 rejection) and brazing connection of plate and jacket (refer to claim 10 rejection), the modification of Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance does not explicitly discloses wherein the braze alloy is disposed along an inner surface of the annular groove, an outer surface of the annular groove, and a lower surface of the annular groove.
In the field of Brazing a joint, NPLBrazing discloses brazing a joint, the filler metal should be filled in the entire joint area (refer to NPL Page 3 cited: “…The heated assembly will melt off a portion of the filler metal, which will instantly be drawn by capillary action throughout the entire joint area…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s groove with the braze alloy is disposed along an inner surface of the annular groove, an outer surface of the annular groove, and a lower surface of the annular groove, as taught by NPLBrazing, in order to provide the strongest possible brazing bond available, such that the joint would have a longer working lifespan and improve the invention structure.
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Gronet, RANISH and Morgan Advance discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, the modification of Gronet , RANISH and Morgan Advance dos not explicitly disclose wherein the first plate includes an annular groove to accommodate an upper lip of the annular jacket, and wherein the braze alloy disposed between the annular jacket and the first plate extends along an outer sidewall of the upper lip, a top surface of the upper lip, and an inner sidewall of the upper lip.
In the similar field lamp housing for process chamber, HOWELLS discloses wherein a plate and jacket structure connection utilizing groove (refer to Zoom in Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the lamp housing top plate and jacket connection of Gronet with HOWELLS plate and jacket connection, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results.
However, HOWELLS does not explicitly discloses wherein the braze alloy is disposed along an inner surface of the annular groove, an outer surface of the annular groove, and a lower surface of the annular groove.
In the field of Brazing a joint, NPLBrazing discloses brazing a joint, the filler metal should be filled in the entire joint area (refer to NPL Page 3 cited: “…The heated assembly will melt off a portion of the filler metal, which will instantly be drawn by capillary action throughout the entire joint area…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gronet’s groove with the braze alloy is disposed along an inner surface of the annular groove, an outer surface of the annular groove, and a lower surface of the annular groove, as taught by NPLBrazing, in order to provide the strongest possible brazing bond available, such that the joint would have a longer working lifespan and improve the invention structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the NPL-Bonding Material Data Sheet by Morgan Advance Material found during updated NPL search.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gonczy (US4472351) discloses a bonding material contain Copper, Germanium and Nickel, but does not discloses the percentage by weight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 April 30th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights