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 .
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.
Claim 1, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US Publication 2020/0087784).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a gas mixing device (Figures 1B and 1a, the material being worked upon is considered intended use), comprising: a main conduit defining a main path extending in a first direction (conduit extending from item 351 to 352); and a first gas transferring device connected to the main conduit (item 210, 265, item 300, and 340), wherein the first gas transferring device comprises: a first distribution device surrounding the main conduit (item 300 outer surface surrounds the conduit extending form item 351 to 352); a first supplying conduit connected to the first distribution device and defining a first supplying path (item 210, the space inside is considered the first supplying path); and a connection conduit connecting the first distribution device to the main conduit (item 265), wherein the first distribution device comprises: a first inner cylinder surrounding the main conduit and spaced apart from the main conduit in a radial direction (inner wall of item 300 surrounds the pathway from item 351 to item 352); and a first outer cylinder surrounding the first inner cylinder and spaced apart from the first inner cylinder in a radial direction (see figure 1a item 172 is considered reading on a cylinder surrounding item 300 in a radial direction), wherein a first distribution space is defined between the first inner cylinder and the first outer cylinder (space inside item 265 is considered reading on a distribution space and in between the outer surface of item 172 and the inner surface of item 300), the first supplying conduit is coupled to the first outer cylinder (item 210 extends into item 172 and considered coupled to item 172), such that the first supplying path is connected to the first distribution space (the space from item 210 extends into item 265), and the first connection conduit has outlets apart from each other in a circumferential direction (see items 340 which spaced around the circumference of item 351). Regarding claim 1, Wu is silent to a plurality of first connection conduits. Regarding claim 1, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of conduits for more control over the flow of gas since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches the distribution space having a first height in the first direction (item 265 has a height that extends in the same direction as conduit proximate item 352). Regarding claim 11, Wu is silent to the specific size of the distribution space and supplying path. Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the spaces in order to mix the desired amount of gas since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Wu teaches wherein the first connection conduit is connected to a lower end of the first distribution space (the lower most portion of item 265 is at a lowest most portion of the first distribution space). Regarding claim 13, Wu is silent to a plurality of connection conduits. Regarding claim 13, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of conduits for more control over the flow of gas since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, Wu is silent to eight connection conduits. Regarding claim 14, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of conduits for more control over the flow of gas since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 15, Wu teaches wherein the first supplying conduit is connected to an outer side surface of the first outer cylinder (item 210 extends into item 172 and is considered connected to the outer side of item 172), and an extension direction of the first supplying path is perpendicular to the first direction (the space inside item 210 extends perpendicular to the flow of material downward from item 351 to item 352).
Regarding claim 16, Wu teaches a gas mixing device (Figures 1B and 1a, the material being worked upon is considered intended use), comprising: a main conduit defining a main path extending in a vertical direction (conduit extending from item 351 to 352); and a first gas transferring device connected to the main conduit (item 210, 265, item 300, and 340), wherein the first gas transferring device comprises: a first distribution device surrounding the main conduit (item 300 outer surface surrounds the conduit extending form item 351 to 352); a first supplying conduit connected to the first distribution device and defining a first supplying path (item 210, the space inside is considered the first supplying path); and a connection conduit connecting the first distribution device to the main conduit (item 265), wherein the first distribution device comprises: a first inner cylinder surrounding the main conduit and spaced apart from the main conduit (inner wall of item 300 surrounds the pathway from item 351 to item 352); and a first outer cylinder surrounding the first inner cylinder and spaced apart from the first inner cylinder in a radial direction (see figure 1a item 172 is considered reading on a cylinder surrounding item 300 in a radial direction), wherein a first distribution space is defined between the first inner cylinder and the first outer cylinder (space inside item 265 is considered reading on a distribution space and in between the outer surface of item 172 and the inner surface of item 300), the first supplying conduit is coupled to the first outer cylinder (item 210 extends into item 172 and considered coupled to item 172), such that the first supplying path is connected to the first distribution space (the space from item 210 extends into item 265), and the first connection conduit has outlets apart from each other in a circumferential direction (see items 340 which spaced around the circumference of item 351). Regarding claim 16 Wu is silent to a plurality of first connection conduits and the size. Regarding claim 16, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of conduits for more control over the flow of gas since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Regarding claim 16, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the spaces in order to mix the desired amount of gas since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 17, Wu teaches wherein a first injection hole (hole from item 210 feeding into item 265), where the first supplying path and the first distribution space meet each other, is spaced apart from an upper end of the first distribution space (the opening from item 210 to item 265 is spaced apart from the upper most portion of the space in item 265), and the first injection hole is at a higher vertical level than a center of the first distribution space (opening from item 210 into item 265 is spaced higher than the lower most portion of the space in item 265).
Regarding claim 18, Wu teaches a gas mixing device (Figures 1B and 1a, the material being worked upon is considered intended use), comprising: a main conduit connecting a first gas supplying device to a substrate processing device (conduit extending from item 351 to 352, item 139 and substrate processing device item 111 which receives substrate 110); and a first gas transferring device connected to the main conduit (item 210, 265, item 300, and 340), wherein the first gas transferring device comprises: a first distribution device surrounding the main conduit (item 300 outer surface surrounds the conduit extending form item 351 to 352); a first supplying conduit connecting a second gas supplying device to the distribution device (item 210, the space inside is considered the first supplying path, which receives material from item 138); and a connection conduit connecting the first distribution device to the main conduit (item 265), wherein the first distribution device comprises: a first inner cylinder surrounding the main conduit and spaced apart from the main conduit in a radial direction (inner wall of item 300 surrounds the pathway from item 351 to item 352); and a first outer cylinder surrounding the first inner cylinder and spaced apart from the first inner cylinder in a radial direction (see figure 1a item 172 is considered reading on a cylinder surrounding item 300 in a radial direction), and the first connection conduit has outlets apart from each other in a circumferential direction (see items 340 which spaced around the circumference of item 351). Regarding claim 18, Wu is silent to a plurality of first connection conduits. Regarding claim 18, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of conduits for more control over the flow of gas since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 19, Wu teaches wherein the main conduit is connected to a space in or on a shower head of the substrate processing device (shower head proximate is considered the portion proximate item 160 and 135 that feeds into reaction zone 164).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the gas mixing device with the combination of the first gas transferring device and the second gas transferring device including a second distribution device surround the first distribution device, with a second inner and second outer cylinder.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the gas mixing device with the combination of the first gas transferring device, the connection conduits extending linearly from the first distribution device to the main conduit, and an extension direction of each of the first connection conduits being inclined at an acute angle relative to the first direction.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the gas mixing device with the combination of the first gas transferring device and the second gas transferring device including a second distribution device surround the first distribution device, with a second inner and second outer cylinder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights