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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore;
(1) The “an upper plate extended from the lower plate in an upward direction” of Claims 14, and
(2) The “wherein at least one of the first gas holes and the second gas holes comprises: an upper hole connected to the top surface of the lower plate and extending in a direction inclined at an acute angle to a vertical direction” of Claim 19,
Must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s), See the details in the 112 rejections below. No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “from an edge portion of the lower plate and coupled to the upper shower head part” of Claim 7 should be the “from an edge portion of the lower plate and coupled to the upper plate”, because the claim 7 is dependent from the claim 4 which further limits the “upper shower head part” to the “upper plate”.
(2) The “wherein the supporting pillar is placed in the edge coupling ring” of Claim 7 should be:
“wherein the supporting pillar is placed inside the edge coupling ring”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) The “an upper plate extended from the lower plate in an upward direction” of Claims 14 appears to be a new matter, because the applicants fail to provide further details about the “extended from the lower plate”. See also 112 2nd paragraph below.
(2) The “wherein at least one of the first gas holes and the second gas holes comprises: an upper hole connected to the top surface of the lower plate and extending in a direction inclined at an acute angle to a vertical direction; and a lower hole extending from the upper hole in the vertical direction and connected to a bottom surface of the lower plate” of Claim 19 appears to be a new matter.
Claim 19 is dependent from Claim 16.
Claim 16 recites “a first gas holes in the distribution portion… a second gas holes in the distribution portion”, thus claim 19 is constructed so have the inclined holes in the distribution portion.
According to the applicants’ disclosures,
The paragraphs [0065-0066] of the published instant application disclose “The gas holes 31h may be provided in the distribution portion BP. For example, each of the gas holes 31h, which are provided in the distribution portion BP, may be the vertical hole 311h… The gas holes 31h may be provided in the supporting portion SP. For example, each of the gas holes 31h, which are provided in the supporting portion SP, may be the vertical hole 311h and the inclined hole 313h”.
Consequently, the “distribution portion” does not have the inclined holes, but the claim is constructed in such that way, thus it is a new matter.
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 14 and 16-20 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.
(1) Continued from 112 1st paragraph above,
The “an upper plate extended from the lower plate in an upward direction” of Claims 14 is not clear.
The applicants’ figures do not show the upper plate extended from the lower plate. Further, the applicants’ disclosures do not provide the details of the “extended from the lower plate in an upward direction”, thus the metes and bounds cannot be clearly determined.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“wherein the upper shower head part comprises an upper plate spaced apart from the lower plate in an upward direction”, by referring to the claim 4.
(2) Claim 14 recites the “in an upward direction” twice. The second “an upward direction” is not clear. The second “an upward direction” is different from the first “an upward direction”? if so, it is respectfully requested the applicants to present how they are structurally different.
For the purpose of examination, the second “an upward direction” will be examined inclusive of “the upward direction”.
(3) The “a first gas holes in the distribution portion and arranged in a first pattern on a top surface of the distribution portion, a second gas holes in the distribution portion and arranged in the first pattern on a bottom surface of the distribution portion, a third gas holes in the at least one supporting portion and arranged in a second pattern on a top surface of the at least one supporting portion, the second pattern being different from the first pattern, and a fourth gas holes in the at least one supporting portion and arranged in the first pattern on a bottom surface of the at least one supporting portion” of Claim 16 is not clear.
Frist, each of the “a first gas holes”, “a second gas holes”, “a third gas holes” and “a fourth gas holes” means “a hole” or “holes”?
Second, the “a first gas holes in the distribution portion and arranged in a first pattern on a top surface of the distribution portion” and “a second gas holes in the distribution portion and arranged in the first pattern on a bottom surface of the distribution portion” are not clear.
The claim is constructed such that the “first gas holes on the top surface” and the “second gas holes on the bottom surface” are arranged in the “same first pattern”.
It is not clear how the holes in the same pattern are differentiated at each of top and bottom surfaces.
The “hole” is obtained by penetrating the plate, in other words, the hole is an integrated feature from the top surface of the plate to the bottom surface, thus, the first gas holes in the top surface and the second gas holes in the bottom surface, specifically arranged in the same pattern, are considered to be vertical holes connected from the top surface to the bottom surface. However, the claim defines them as two different holes, thus it is not clear how they are defined as two different holes.
Does the “first and second gas holes” mean a top end of the vertical gas hole and a bottom end of the vertical gas hole?
Third, similarly to the “Second” above, the third and fourth gas holes are also not clear because of the same reason.
The third gas holes in the top surface and the fourth gas holes in the bottom surface, specifically arranged in the different pattern on each of the top and bottom surfaces, are considered to be inclined holes connected from the top surface and bottom surface. However, the claim defines them as two different holes, thus it is not clear how they are defined as two different holes.
Does the “third and fourth gas holes” in a “different pattern” mean a top end of the inclined gas hole and a bottom end of the inclined gas hole?
The metes and bounds of the claim 16 cannot be clearly determined, and an appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
(4) Claim 19 raised the same issue as the item (3) above.
Further, the “top surface of the lower plate” and “the bottom surface of the lower plate” are not clear.
Claim 19 is dependent from the Claim 16. Claim 16 further limits the “lower plate” so to have “a top surface of the distribution portion”, “a bottom surface of the distribution portion”, “a top surface of the at least one supporting portion”, “a bottom surface of the at least one supporting portion”, thus it is not clear that the “top surface of the lower plate” and “the bottom surface of the lower plate” of the claim 19 indicates the same recited features of the claim 16 OR different.
Lastly, continued from the 112 1st paragraph above,
Because the feature is not supported by the applicants’ disclosures, the metes and bounds of the claim 16 cannot be clearly determined.
An appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
(1) Continued from 112 2nd paragraph above,
Claim 19 is dependent from the Claim 16.
The “top surface of the lower plate” and “the bottom surface of the lower plate” of Claim 19 broaden the scope from the “a top surface of the distribution portion”, “a bottom surface of the distribution portion”, “a top surface of the at least one supporting portion”, and “a bottom surface of the at least one supporting portion”.
Thus, the claim 19 fails to further limits the claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by New et al. (US 20120108066, hereafter ‘066).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘066 teaches:
showerhead 1004 (Fig. 1A, [0017], the claimed “A shower head”);
A bottom plate 1012 ([0017], the claimed “comprising: a lower shower head part, wherein the lower shower head part comprises a lower plate”);
apertures 1014 ([0017], the claimed “wherein the lower plate comprises a plurality of gas holes”);
The showerhead 7000 includes a set of edge TEOS delivery apertures 7006 in the edge band 7002, and a set of central TEOS delivery apertures 7008 in the central region 7004…, The edge TEOS delivery apertures 7006 may be slanted outward so as to deliver TEOS gas at an angle less than 90 degrees from a perpendicular to a bottom face 7012 of the showerhead 7000 (Fig. 7, [0027], the claimed “wherein the plurality of gas holes comprises: a vertical hole vertically penetrating the lower plate in a first direction; and an inclined hole penetrating the lower plate in a second direction, which is inclined at an acute angle with respect to the first direction of the vertical hole”);
an average diameter of the edge TEOS delivery apertures 2006 is between 45 and 60 percent larger than an average diameter of the central TEOS delivery apertures 2008 ([0028], note see Fig. 7 showing different sized apertures, the claimed “and wherein the vertical hole has a first diameter and the inclined hole has a second diameter which is different than the first diameter”).
Regarding to Claim 2,
‘066 teaches an average diameter of the edge TEOS delivery apertures 2006 is between 45 and 60 percent larger than an average diameter of the central TEOS delivery apertures 2008 ([0028], note see Fig. 7 showing different sized apertures, the claimed “wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter”).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4, 7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekharan et al. (US 20160340782, hereafter ‘782) in view of ‘066.
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘782 teaches:
the showerhead 100 (Fig. 1, [0052], the claimed “A shower head”);
faceplate 104 ([0052], the claimed “comprising: a lower shower head part, wherein the lower shower head part comprises a lower plate”);
The faceplate 104 may have a plurality of gas distribution holes or through-holes 132 ([0052], note the hole 132 intrinsically has a diameter, the claimed “wherein the lower plate comprises a plurality of gas holes, wherein the plurality of gas holes comprises: a vertical hole vertically penetrating the lower plate in a first direction” and “and wherein the vertical hole has a first diameter”);
Fig. 1 of ‘782 shows plural holes, when one of the plural holes can be defined as a vertical hole, another hole can be defined as a hole having a diameter (the claimed “an hole penetrating the lower plate in a direction, and the hole has a second diameter”).
‘782 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: a vertical hole vertically penetrating the lower plate in a first direction; and an inclined hole penetrating the lower plate in a second direction, which is inclined at an acute angle with respect to the first direction of the vertical hole, and wherein the vertical hole has a first diameter and the inclined hole has a second diameter which is different than the first diameter.
‘066 is analogous art in the field of showerhead (title). ‘066 teaches The showerhead 7000 includes The edge TEOS delivery apertures 7006 may be slanted outward so as to deliver TEOS gas at an angle less than 90 degrees from a perpendicular to a bottom face 7012 of the showerhead 7000 (Fig. 7, [0027]), and an average diameter of the edge TEOS delivery apertures 2006 is between 45 and 60 percent larger than an average diameter of the central TEOS delivery apertures 2008 ([0028], note see Fig. 7 showing different sized apertures).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added gas distribution holes or through-holes which are slanted at an angle less than 90 degrees from a perpendicular to a bottom face of the showerhead and further has a larger diameter, for the purpose of providing uniform gas flow across the substrate.
Regarding to Claim 2,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the imported gas distribution holes or through-holes have a larger diameter (the claimed “wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter”).
Regarding to Claim 4, ‘782 teaches:
The showerhead 100 includes a backplate 102 ([0052], note Fig. 4 shows a plenum volume 430a between the backplate 402a and the faceplate 404a, see also [0061], the claimed “further comprising an upper shower head part on the lower shower head part, wherein the upper shower head part comprises an upper plate spaced apart from the lower plate in an upward direction”);
Fig. 4 shows pillars extending upward from the faceplate 404a and coupled to the backplate 402a, see also pillars of Fig. 2 (the claimed “and wherein the lower shower head part further comprises a supporting pillar extending upward from the lower plate and coupled to the upper plate”).
Regarding to Claim 7,
Fig. 1 of ‘782 shows an edge ring shaped portion is coupled to the backplate 102 and the faceplate 104, and Fig. 4 shows the pillars are inside of the edge ring portion (the claimed “wherein the lower shower head part further comprises an edge coupling ring extending upward from an edge portion of the lower plate and coupled to the upper shower head part, and wherein the supporting pillar is placed in the edge coupling ring”).
Regarding to Claim 9,
Fig. 1 or 4 of ‘782 shows the faceplate 104/404a has a constant thickness and a substantially flat bottom surface of the faceplate (the claimed “wherein the lower plate has a thickness that is constant, and a bottom surface of the lower plate is substantially flat”).
Regarding to Claim 11, ‘782 teaches:
the showerhead 100 (Fig. 1, [0052], the claimed “A shower head”);
The faceplate 104 may have a plurality of gas distribution holes or through-holes 132 ([0052], the claimed “comprising: a lower shower head part”, “wherein the lower shower head part comprises: a lower plate that comprises a plurality of gas holes” and “wherein the plurality of gas holes comprises: a vertical hole penetrating the lower plate in a first direction”);
a backplate 102 ([0052], the claimed “and an upper shower head part on the lower shower head part”);
Fig. 4 shows pillars extending upward from the faceplate 404a and coupled to the backplate 402a, see also pillars of Fig. 2 (the claimed “and at least one supporting pillar extended from a top surface of the lower plate and coupled to the upper shower head part”).
Fig. 1 of ‘782 shows plural holes, thus, when one of the plural holes can be defined as a vertical hole, another hole can be defined as a hole penetrating the faceplate and spaced apart from the vertical hole. Fig. 2 shows an upper end of the hole, which meets the top surface of the faceplate, is beside the pillar, and wherein a lower end of the hole, which meets a bottom surface of the faceplate, is below the a pillar (the claimed “and an hole penetrating the lower plate and spaced apart from the vertical hole, wherein an upper end of the hole, which meets the top surface of the lower plate, is beside the at least one supporting pillar, and wherein a lower end of the hole, which meets a bottom surface of the lower plate, is below the at least one supporting pillar”).
‘782 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 11: wherein the plurality of gas holes comprises: a vertical hole penetrating the lower plate in a first direction; and an inclined hole penetrating the lower plate and spaced apart from the vertical hole, wherein an upper end of the inclined hole, which meets the top surface of the lower plate, is beside the at least one supporting pillar, and wherein a lower end of the inclined hole, which meets a bottom surface of the lower plate, is below the at least one supporting pillar.
‘066 is analogous art in the field of showerhead (title). ‘066 teaches The showerhead 7000 includes The edge TEOS delivery apertures 7006 may be slanted outward so as to deliver TEOS gas at an angle less than 90 degrees from a perpendicular to a bottom face 7012 of the showerhead 7000 (Fig. 7, [0027]), and an average diameter of the edge TEOS delivery apertures 2006 is between 45 and 60 percent larger than an average diameter of the central TEOS delivery apertures 2008 ([0028], note see Fig. 7 showing different sized apertures).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the hole of ‘782, so to be slanted and larger than the vertical hole, for the purpose of providing uniform gas flow across the substrate.
Regarding to Claim 13,
‘782 teaches the faceplate 104 may have a plurality of gas distribution holes or through-holes 132 ([0052], note the hole 132 intrinsically has a diameter, the claimed “wherein the vertical hole has a first diameter”);
As discussed in the claim 11 rejection above, another hole is modified to be slanted and larger, thus the modified hole also intrinsically has a diameter (the claimed “and the inclined hole has a second diameter that is larger than the first diameter”).
Regarding to Claim 14, ‘782 teaches:
a backplate 102 ([0052], the claimed “wherein the upper shower head part comprises: an upper plate extended from the lower plate in an upward direction”);
The gas inlet 120 can include a stem 122, where the stem 122 can include an expanded tube 126 connected to a narrow tube 124. The expanded tube 126 can have a diameter greater than a diameter of the narrow tube 124 to provide a more spatially distributed flow upon reaching the plenum volume 130 ([0053], the claimed “and a supporting member extended from the upper plate in an upward direction, and wherein the supporting member defines a gas supplying pathway, which is connected to a distribution space between the upper plate and the lower plate”).
Regarding to Claim 15,
Fig. 2 or 4 of ‘782 shows plural pillars, one is spaced apart from the other (the claimed “wherein the at least one supporting pillar comprises a plurality of supporting pillars that are spaced apart from each other in a horizontal direction”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘782 and ‘066, as being applied to Claim 2 rejection above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 20150311089, hereafter ‘089).
Regarding to Claim 3,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the modified ‘782 has both vertical holes and imported slanted holes, thus each hole intrinsically has a length and a diameter, and further Fig. 7 of ‘066 clearly shows the length of the center vertical hole 7008 is intrinsically shorter than the length of the edge slanted hole 7006 (the claimed “wherein the vertical hole has a first length and the inclined hole has a second length which is larger than the first length”).
Note, when the diameter and length for each hole are provided, a ratio of a fourth power of the first diameter to the first length and a ratio of a fourth power of the second diameter to the second length can be merely obtained by calculation through a simple calculation device, such as math calculator or computer (the claimed “and wherein a ratio of a fourth power of the first diameter to the first length is” and “a ratio of a fourth power of the second diameter to the second length”).
Thus, ‘782 and ‘066 are merely silent about the “equal to”.
‘089 is analogous art in the field of processing a substrate ([0002]). ‘089 teaches Through-holes 1056 may be configured to control the passage… For example, the aspect ratio of the holes (i.e., the hole diameter to length) and/or the geometry of the holes may be controlled so that the flow of… gas passing through showerhead 1053 is reduced ([0049]), in other words, a ratio of the hole diameter to length is an adjustable parameter to control the flow of the gas passing through the through-hole, thus the ratio is a result effective parameter to control the gas flow rate.
Consequently, even if ‘782 and ‘066 are silent about the feature as recited,
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found the recited equal ratio feature, for the purpose of providing control of the gas flow across the substrate, and/or since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘782 and ‘066, as being applied to Claim 4 rejection above, further in view of Ni et al. (US 20200321193, hereafter ‘193).
Regarding to Claim 5,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the modified ‘782 has both vertical holes and imported slanted holes.
‘782 and ‘066 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 5: wherein a lower end of the inclined hole overlaps the supporting pillar, when viewed in a plan view.
‘193 is analogous art in the field of showerhead (title). ‘193 teaches at least part of the gas outlets of the gas through-holes 110 in the gas outlet face 102 are located in the projection area 104a (Fig. 5C, [0082], see also Fig. 4 clearly showing the lower end of the inclined hole overlaps the pillar shaped layer 104).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured the imported inclined holes, such that the lower end of the inclined hole is to be overlapped the pillars of ‘782, for the purpose of providing more uniform distribution of the gas.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘782 and ‘066, as being applied to Claim 4 rejection above, further in view of Lakshmana et al. (US 20230140263, hereafter ‘263).
Regarding to Claim 8,
Fig. 4 of ‘782 shows pillars extending upward from the faceplate 404a and coupled to the backplate 402a, see also pillars of Fig. 2, therefore, the pillar intrinsically has a diameter (the claimed “wherein the supporting pillar has a diameter”), thus ‘782 and ‘066 are merely silent about the “in a range of 7mm to 13 mm”.
‘263 is analogous art in the field of showerhead (title). ‘263 teaches all of the pillars 220 need not have the same shape and/or size. The pillars 220 can have different shapes. For example, some of the pillars 220 can be circular while others can be hexagonal. The pillars 220 can have different diameters (Fig. 4, [0154]), in other words, a dimeter of the pillar is an adjustable parameter to control supporting the faceplate and the backplate.
Consequently, even if ‘782 and ‘066 are silent about the feature as recited,
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found the recited range feature, for the purpose of providing control supporting the faceplate and the backplate, and/or since it has been held that discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘782 and ‘066, as being applied to Claim 4 rejection above, further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190226089, hereafter ‘089).
Regarding to Claim 10,
‘782 teaches faceplate 104 ([0052], therefore, the faceplate is made of a material, the claimed “wherein the lower plate comprises”).
‘782 and ‘066 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 10: wherein the lower plate comprises aluminum.
‘089 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing (abstract). ‘089 teaches the faceplate 136 is formed from a metal, such as aluminum or stainless steel (Fig. 1, [0018]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the faceplate of ‘782, with an aluminum, for its suitability as a known material with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights