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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tso et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0004681 A1) in view of Park (KR20060117613A) and Lau et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0071833 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Tso et al. teach a gas diffuser support structure for a vacuum chamber (Figs. 1-4), the gas diffuser support structure comprising: a backing plate made of a material (Paragraph 0025); a central bore formed in the backing plate (Paragraph 0026); and a gas deflector coupled to the backing plate by a plurality of outward fasteners coupled to a plurality of outward threaded holes formed in the backing plate, wherein a spacer is disposed between the backing plate and the gas deflector (Paragraphs 0039-0057 especially Paragraph 0052 - blocker plate deflects gas. Screws attached to backing plate via threaded holes - Figs. 2, 3)
The difference not between Tso et al. and claim 1 is that the gas deflector having a length and a width unequal to the length is not discussed (Claim 1) and wherein a length to width ratio of the gas deflector is about 0.1:1 to about 10:1 is not discussed (Claim 1) and utilizing a central fastener coupled to a center threaded hole formed in the backing plate is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding the gas deflector having a length and a width unequal to the length (Claim
1):
Park teaches that a baffle can be circle or oval in shape or polygonal in shape. (See Machine Translation)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the circular deflector plate of Tso et al. with an oval deflector plate of Park because modifying the shape of the deflector plate would have been obvious to tune flow characteristics of gas to achieve flow uniformity as suggested by Park.
Regarding wherein a length to width ratio of the gas deflector is about 0. 1:1 to about
10:1 (Claim 1):
Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improved gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
Regarding utilizing a central fastener coupled to a center threaded hole formed in the backing plate (Claim 1):
Lau et al. teach utilizing a central fastener coupled to a center threaded hole formed in a backing plate. (Paragraphs 0017, 0027, Fig. 1, 2A)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cover is disposed beneath each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners.
Regarding claim 3, Tso et al. teach wherein the cover is disposed beneath each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners. (Figs. 1, 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
Regarding claim 4, Tso et al. teach wherein the spacer is about 0. 1 inches to about 1 inch thick. (Paragraph 0045)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of outward fasteners comprises about 2 to about 20 outward fasteners.
Regarding claim 5, Tso et al. teach wherein the plurality of outward fasteners comprises about 2 to about 20 outward fasteners. (Figs. 2, 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the length to width ratio is about 1.3:1 to about 1.5:1.
Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improved gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the length to width ratio is 1.3:1.
Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior
art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improved gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the length to width ratio is 1.5:1.
Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improved gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of outward threaded holes are disposed in a circular pattern equidistant from the center threaded hole, wherein the center threaded hole is disposed at a center of the gas deflector.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Tso et al. and Lau et al. suggest this feature. (See Tso et al. Fig. 3 and Lau et al. Fig. 2A, paragraph 0017 – Combining the two teachings)
The motivation for utilizing the feature of Park is that it allows for uniformly distributing gas. (See Machine Translation)
The motivation for utilizing the supporting the showerhead at the center with additional outer supports as taught by Lau et al. is that it allows for mitigating drooping and sagging due to heat, gravity and vacuum. (Paragraph 0017)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Tso et al. with Park and Lau et al. because it allows for uniformly distributing gas while mitigating drooping and sagging due to heat, gravity and vacuum.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tso et al. in view of Park and Lau et al. as applied to claims 1, 4-8, 21 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (JP 2022-079944 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprised of a cover disposed beneath each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners and coupled to the gas deflector.
Regarding claim 2, Saski et al. teach utilizing covers for each screw disposed beneath each screw and coupled to the gas deflector. (Paragraphs 0058-0062; Figs. 4-6)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sasaki et al. is that it allows for reducing particles for contamination. (Paragraph 0066)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Sasaki et al. because it allows for reducing particles for contamination.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12-16, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tso et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0004681 A1) in view of Park (KR20060117613A) and Sasaki et al. (JP 2022-079944 A).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
Regarding claim 9, A gas diffuser support structure for a vacuum chamber (Figs. 1-4), the gas diffuser support structure comprising: a backing plate having a central bore formed therein (Paragraph 0026; Figs. 1, 2); a gas deflector coupled to the backing plate by a plurality of outward fasteners coupled to a plurality of outward threaded holes formed in the backing plate (Paragraphs 0039-0057 especially Paragraph 0052 - blocker plate deflects gas. Screws attached to backing plate via threaded holes - Figs. 2, 3); and a cover coupled to the gas deflector (Paragraph 0024).
The difference not between Tso et al. and claim 1 is that the gas deflector having a length and a width unequal to the length is not discussed (Claim 9) and wherein a length to width ratio of the gas deflector is about 0.1:1 to about 10:1 is not discussed (Claim 9) and each fastener of the plurality of the outward fasteners comprises a head and a cover disposed beneath each head of each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners is not discussed. (Claim 9)
Regarding the gas deflector having a length and a width unequal to the length (Claim
9):
Park teaches that a baffle can be circle or oval in shape or polygonal in shape. (See Machine Translation)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the circular deflector plate of Tso et al. with an oval deflector plate of Park because modifying the shape of the deflector plate would have been obvious to tune flow characteristics of gas to achieve flow uniformity as suggested by Park.
Regarding wherein a length to width ratio of the gas deflector is about 0.1:1 to about
10:1 (Claim 9):
Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improved gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
Regarding each fastener of the plurality of the outward fasteners comprises a head and a cover disposed beneath each head of each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners:
Saski et al. teach each fastener of the plurality of the outward fasteners comprises a head and a cover disposed beneath each head of each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners. (Paragraphs 0058-0062; Figs. 4-6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a spacer is disposed between the backing plate and the gas deflector.
Regarding claim 10, Tso et al. teach wherein a spacer is disposed between the backing plate and the gas deflector. (Paragraphs 0039-0057 especially Paragraph 0052 - blocker plate deflects gas. Screws attached to backing plate via threaded holes - Figs. 2, 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of outward fasteners comprises about 2 to about 20 outward fasteners.
Regarding claim 12, Tso et al. teach wherein the plurality of outward fasteners comprises about 2 to about 20 outward fasteners. (Figs. 2, 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of outward fasteners is about 8 outward fasteners.
Regarding claim 13, Tso et al. teach "about" 8 outward fasteners. (See Figs. 2, 3) DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the length to width ratio is about 1.3:1 to about 1.5:1.
Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improv ed gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the length to width ratio is 1.3:1.
Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improved gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the length to width ratio is 1.5:1. Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improved gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 22:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cover further comprises a surface and a central opening configured to receive a fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners and the center opening is recessed with respect to the surface of the cover.
Regarding claim 22, Sasaki et al. teach wherein the cover further comprises a surface and a central opening configured to receive a fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners and the center opening is recessed with respect to the surface of the cover. (Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image1.png
237
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The motivation for utilizing the feature of Park is that it allows for uniformly distributing gas. (See Machine Translation)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sasaki et al. is that it allows for reducing particles for contamination. (Paragraph 0066)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Tso et al. with Park and Sasaki et al. because it allows for uniformly distributing gas and reducing particles for contamination.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tso et al. in view of Park and Sasaki et al. as applied to claims 9, 10, 12-16, 22 above, and further in view of
Clear Plastique Metal SA (FR 2386722 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 23:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cover further comprises a main body comprising tabs on opposing sides.
Regarding claim 23, Clear Plastique Metal SA teaches a fastening cover which has a main body and which provide tabs on opposing side for fastening to the fastener for covering. (See Machine Translation)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Clear Plastique Metal SA is that it allows for attaching the cover. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Clear Plastique Metal SA because it allows for covering a fastener.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tso et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0004681 A1) in view of Park (KR20060117613A) and Sasaki et al. (JP 2022-079944 A).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Tso et al. teach a gas diffuser support structure for a vacuum chamber (Figs. 1-4), the gas diffuser support structure comprising: a backing plate made of an aluminum material and having a central bore formed therein (Paragraph 0026) a gas deflector coupled to the backing plate by a plurality of outward fasteners coupled to a plurality of outward threaded holes formed in the backing plate, (Paragraphs 0039-0057 especially Paragraph 0052 - blocker plate deflects gas. Screws attached to backing plate via threaded holes - Figs. 2, 3); a cover coupled to the gas deflector (Paragraph 0024).
The difference not between Tso et al. and claim 1 is that the gas deflector having a length and a width unequal to the length is not discussed (Claim 17) and wherein a length to width ratio of the gas deflector is about 0.1:1 to about 10:1 is not discussed (Claim 17) and each fastener of the plurality of the outward fasteners comprises a head and a cover disposed beneath each head of each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners is not discussed. (Claim 17)
Regarding the gas deflector having a length and a width unequal to the length (Claim
17):
Park teaches that a baffle can be circle or oval in shape or polygonal in shape. (See Machine Translation)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the circular deflector plate of Tso et al. with an oval deflector plate of Park because modifying the shape of
the deflector plate would have been obvious to tune flow characteristics of gas to achieve flow uniformity as suggested by Park.
Regarding wherein a length to width ratio of the gas deflector is about 0.1:1 to about
10:1 (Claim 17):
Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improved gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
Regarding each fastener of the plurality of the outward fasteners comprises a head and a cover disposed beneath each head of each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners:
Saski et al. teach each fastener of the plurality of the outward fasteners comprises a head and a cover disposed beneath each head of each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners. (Paragraphs 0058-0062; Figs. 4-6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed wherein the length to width ratio is about 1.3:1 to about 1.5:1.
Although Park does not teach the explicit dimensions of the oval the shape of the oval would be covered by Park. Furthermore the exact degree of elongation is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to adjust the oval geometry to fall within Applicant's claimed range because it is desired to achieve gas flow uniformity. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (i.e. oval shape) in the prior art, and the variable (i.e. oval shape) involved is recognized as affecting the result (i.e. improved gas flow), optimization of that variable (i.e. oval shape) for best results (i.e. gas flow uniformity) is obvious. See In Re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a spacer is disposed between the backing plate and the gas deflector.
Regarding claim 19, Tso et al. teach wherein a space is disposed between the backing plate and the gas deflector. (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0039)
The motivation for utilizing the feature of Park is that it allows for uniformly distributing gas. (See Machine Translation)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sasaki et al. is that it allows for reducing particles for contamination. (Paragraph 0066)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Tso et al. with Park and Sasaki et al. because it allows for uniformly distributing gas and reducing particles for contamination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach a central fastener coupled to a center threaded hole formed in the backing plate, it is argued that Lau et al. teach the newly amended claim limitation of the central fastener coupled to a center threaded hole formed in the backing plate. (See Lau et al. discussed above)
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach each fastener of the plurality of the outward fasteners comprising a head and a cover disposed beneath each head of each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners, it is argued that Sasaki et al. teach the newly amended claim limitation of each fastener of the plurality of the outward fasteners comprising a head and a cover disposed beneath each head of each outward fastener of the plurality of outward fasteners. (See Sasaki et al. discussed above)
Conclusion
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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
September 29, 2026
