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 .
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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "The showerhead assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 and its dependent claim 18 recite the limitation "The showerhead assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "The showerhead assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "The showerhead assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa, US 2010/0184298 A1, in view of Wu et al, US 2008/0202688 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 15, Dhindsa teaches a processing chamber, comprising: a chamber body having an internal volume (not shown, but inherent in apparatus, Paragraph 0004); a substrate support 18 disposed in the internal volume (Paragraph 0004); a lid 10 disposed on the chamber body and enclosing the internal volume; a heat transfer plate having a first side coupled to a second side by a sidewall, the heat transfer plate having cooling channels formed adjacent the first side of the heat transfer plate and a heater disposed in a heater receiving channel formed in the second side of the heat transfer plate (Figure 1A); a showerhead plate 12 having a first side and a second side opposite the first side; a gas distribution plate 24 having a first side facing the second side of the showerhead plate, the gas distribution plate having a plurality of holes 32 formed therethrough, first ends of the plurality of holes being open to the showerhead plate 12; and a plurality of discreet adhesive segments 48 (Figure 3) each bonding the first side of the gas distribution plate 24 to the second side of the showerhead plate 12, at least some gaps defined between the plurality of discreet adhesive segments being open to second ends of the plurality of holes formed through the gas distribution plate (Figures 2 and 3), wherein the plurality of discreet adhesive segments comprise silicone and one or more of carbon, graphite, and aluminum, (Paragraph 0035) and wherein the plurality of discreet adhesive segments has a thermal conductivity of about 0.5 W/mK (Paragraph 0059).
Dhindsa differs from the present invention in that Dhindsa does not teach that a resistivity of about 1 Ω-cm to about 3 Ω-cm.
Wu et al teaches a desired resistivity of less than 10 Ω-cm which includes the range of about 1 Ω-cm to about 3 Ω-cm.
The motivation for making the resistivity of Dhindsa in the range of about 1 Ω-cm to about 3 Ω-cm as taught by Wu et al is to provide the desired electrical conductivity to the gas diffusion plate.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the resistivity of Dhindsa in the range of about 1 Ω-cm to about 3 Ω-cm as taught by Wu et al.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 16 Dhindsa teaches a plurality of discreet adhesive segments include an outer bounding segment 50 that circumscribes each of the plurality of holes formed through the gas distribution plate (Figure 1B).
Regarding claims 3, 6, 7, 19, and 20, the Shore A hardness, and thickness are physical parameters of the adhesive and it would be obvious to optimize the physical parameters of the adhesive of Dhindsa so that the Shore A hardness and size have the desired hardness and size.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 17, Dhindsa teaches one or more spacers 66 disposed between second side of the showerhead plate and the first side of the gas distribution plate, a height of the one or more spacers setting a thickness of the plurality of discreet adhesive segments.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, it would be obvious to make the spaces of Dhindsa out of a polyimide film. It has been held that: the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 Dhindsa teaches the plurality of discreet adhesive segments are disposed in a plurality of concentric circles, and wherein a gap is disposed between adjacent adhesive segments of the plurality of adhesive segments (Figure 2) and wherein each concentric circle is offset from adjacent concentric circles such that the gaps disposed between adjacent adhesive segments of the plurality of adhesive segments of each adjacent concentric circle are unaligned. (Figure 2)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g)) The following references could be used in place of Dhindsa: WO 2012067883 A2; US 20250276335 A1; and US 20070256785 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights