DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 6/12/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are pending, with claims 1, 6, 8, and 15 independent.
Claims 3-4, 7, and 10-14 are withdrawn.
Claims 1,6, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miya (US Pub. 2012/0186745).
Regarding claim 1, Miya teaches a cooling device (Figs. 2A-B, entirety) comprising: a first partition; a second partition surrounding the first partition; a third partition surrounding the second partition; and a separator separating a space between the second partition and the third partition into a first area and a second area (portions of #20 on either side of the right-most portion of the separator), and separating a space between the second partition and the first partition into a third area and a fourth area (portions of #20 on either side of the left-most portion of the separator), wherein the separator is configured to connect the first area and the third area with each other and/or the second area and the fourth area with each other (see annotated Fig. 2A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation: “wherein the separator is configured to change a flow direction of a coolant such that a flow direction of the coolant flowing clockwise in the first area is changed to a counterclockwise direction in the third area and/or a flow direction of the coolant flowing counterclockwise in the second area is changed to a clockwise direction in the fourth area”, the Miya apparatus is regarded as capable of allowing this function to occur since the first, second, third, fourth areas of Miya comprise different directional zones that would change the direction of flow of any coolant flowing therein.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would understand that fluid flow in channels like Miya would not move entirely in the same direction parallel to the channel walls. Instead, small areas of turbulent flow may exist where fluid is slowed by the passage walls or in the “switchback” areas of the passage geometry. As such, Miya would additionally be capable of allowing the function above to occur at the separator by virtue of this principle as well.
Regarding claim 5, Miya teaches one or more grooves arranged between the first partition and the second partition or between the second partition and the third partition ([0038] and Fig. 2A, passages #20 provided in a variety of positions).
Regarding claim 6, Miya teaches a cooling device (Figs. 2A-B, entirety) comprising: a fluid channel through which a coolant circulates ([0038] and Fig. 2A, passages #20), the coolant being introduced through at least one inlet ([0048] and Fig. 2A, inlet #30); a partition separating the fluid channel into a first area and a second area (see below, 2nd par.); and a separator penetrating through the partition and extending across the first area and the second area (see annotated Fig. 2A below), wherein the at least one inlet introduces the coolant into the first area, wherein two flows of the coolant flowing in different directions are formed in the first area (see flow arrows in Fig. 2A), and wherein the two flows of the coolant flowing in different directions in the first area are introduced into the second area via the separator without colliding or mixing with each other (see flow arrows in Fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation: “wherein a flow direction of the coolant flowing in a clockwise direction in the first area is changed by the separator to a counterclockwise direction in the second area and a flow direction of the coolant flowing in a counterclockwise direction in the first area is changed by the separator to a clockwise direction in the second area”, the Miya apparatus is regarded as capable of allowing this function to occur since the first and second areas of Miya comprise different directional zones that would change the direction of flow of any coolant flowing therein.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would understand that fluid flow in channels like Miya would not move entirely in the same direction parallel to the channel walls. Instead, small areas of turbulent flow may exist where fluid is slowed by the passage walls or in the “switchback” areas of the passage geometry. As such, Miya would additionally be capable of allowing the function above to occur at the separator by virtue of this principle as well.
Regarding claim 8, Miya teaches a cooling device (Figs. 2A-B, entirety) comprising: a first partition; a second partition surrounding the first partition; a third partition surrounding the second partition; and a separator separating a space between the second partition and the third partition (see annotated Fig. 2A below) into a first area and a second area (portions of #20 on either side of the right-most portion of the separator), and separating a space between the second partition and the first partition into a third area and a fourth area (portions of #20 on either side of the left-most portion of the separator), wherein the separator is configured to connect the first area and the third area with each other (see annotated Fig. 2A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation: “wherein, when a flow direction of a coolant in the first area is a clockwise direction, the separator is configured to change the flow direction of the coolant to a counterclockwise direction in the third area”, the Miya apparatus is regarded as capable of allowing this function to occur since the first and third areas of Miya comprise different directional zones that would change the direction of flow of any coolant flowing therein.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would understand that fluid flow in channels like Miya would not move entirely in the same direction parallel to the channel walls. Instead, small areas of turbulent flow may exist where fluid is slowed by the passage walls or in the “switchback” areas of the passage geometry. As such, Miya would additionally be capable of allowing the function above to occur at the separator by virtue of this principle as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miya (US Pub. 2012/0186745), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, and 8 above, further in view of Tandou (US Pub. 2008/0178608).
The limitations of claims 1, 5-6, and 8 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Miya teaches wherein the separator comprises a body (see annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1, comprises a solid structure), the first area and the third area are connected to each other by the separator (see Fig. 2A), the second area and the fourth area are connected to each other by the separator (see Fig. 2A), and the first channel and the second channel do not meet each other (see Fig. 2A).
Miya does not teach wherein the separator comprises a first channel or a second channel.
However, Tandou teaches wherein a separator wall comprises a plurality of channel features (Tandou – [0067] and Fig. 8, structures 2-1, 2-2, 2-3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the separator walls of Miya with a plurality of channel features similar to Tandou in order to improve the agitation/convection of refrigerant in the coolant channels, enhancing heat transfer (Tandou – [0067]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen (US Pub. 2004/0118519) in view of Miya (US Pub. 2012/0186745).
Regarding claim 15, Sen teaches a substrate processing apparatus ([0016] and Fig. 1, apparatus #100) comprising: a chamber having an inner space surrounded by a top lid and an outer wall ([0016] and Fig. 1, gas distribution assembly #110 and external walls #106); at least one reactor located in the top lid and comprising a gas supply device ([0016]); at least one substrate support located on a wall of the chamber and facing the reactor ([0016] and Fig. 1, pedestal #114 facing #110); a reaction space formed between the reactor and the substrate support ([0016] and Fig. 1, either of #102 or #104).
Sen does not teach the cooling device as set forth in claim 1.
However, Miya teaches the cooling device as set forth in claim 1 (see the body of the rejection for claim 1 as set forth herein, the annotated Fig. 2A reproduced below for convenience).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Sen apparatus to comprise the cooling device of claim 1 in order to ensure in-plane temperature distribution on a sample surface (Miya – [0013]-[0015], [0020]).
Regarding the limitation: “wherein the separator is configured to change a flow direction of a coolant such that a flow direction of the coolant flowing clockwise in the first area is changed to a counterclockwise direction in the third area and/or a flow direction of the coolant flowing counterclockwise in the second area is changed to a clockwise direction in the fourth area”, the Miya apparatus is regarded as capable of allowing this function to occur since the first, second, third, fourth areas of Miya comprise different directional zones that would change the direction of flow of any coolant flowing therein.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would understand that fluid flow in channels like Miya would not move entirely in the same direction parallel to the channel walls. Instead, small areas of turbulent flow may exist where fluid is slowed by the passage walls or in the “switchback” areas of the passage geometry. As such, Miya would additionally be capable of allowing the function above to occur at the separator by virtue of this principle as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s replacement Drawings (Figs. 12A-B) are sufficient and are accepted, thus the Drawing objection is withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claim 15 to eliminate indefinite claim language, thus the §112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejections have been carefully considered but are not persuasive for at least the reasons detailed below. All §102(a)(1) and §103 rejections are maintained on substantially the same grounds.
Regarding the limitations:
“wherein the separator is configured to change a flow direction of a coolant such that a flow direction of the coolant flowing clockwise in the first area is changed to a counterclockwise direction in the third area and/or a flow direction of the coolant flowing counterclockwise in the second area is changed to a clockwise direction in the fourth area” as added to claims 1 and 15,
“wherein a flow direction of the coolant flowing in a clockwise direction in the first area is changed by the separator to a counterclockwise direction in the second area and a flow direction of the coolant flowing in a counterclockwise direction in the first area is changed by the separator to a clockwise direction in the second area” as added to claim 6, and
“wherein, when a flow direction of a coolant in the first area is a clockwise direction, the separator is configured to change the flow direction of the coolant to a counterclockwise direction in the third area” as added to claim 8,
the limitations a., b., and c. amount to mere intended uses of the apparatus.
The courts have held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
As an initial matter, the Examiner respectfully submits that the high structural similarity between the Miya apparatus and the disclosed invention provides strong evidence that the Miya apparatus would be capable of operating in the claimed manner. Applicant has not particularly disputed any structural aspect of the Miya apparatus- only the functional limitations as amended.
To address the added limitations, the Examiner has supplied a statement of capability for each of the amended claims herein.
The Examiner notes that Applicant merely asserts that the Miya apparatus does not disclose the added limitations “expressly or inherently” (Remarks, pg. 8), but does not provide any reasoned analysis or explanation supporting these assertions. The Examiner respectfully submits that in the absence of any factual or evidence-based rebuttal of the capability or structure of the Miya apparatus, this assertion is insufficient in overcoming the prior art rejection.
As an additional reference not relied upon for any rejection but pertinent to the issue at hand, the Examiner submits Chen (US 5,906,683) as evidence of a similar “switchback” coolant structure described as reversing flow directionality between clockwise and counter-clockwise directions (col. 6, lines 39-54, referencing Fig. 4).
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 at (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 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights