DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 7,476,291).
Regarding clam 1, Wang discloses a gas distribution element, arranged on an inner side of a side wall at a gas inlet end of a heat treatment device; wherein a process gas pressure of the heat pressure device is a low pressure of 1 to 20 Torr, and the gas distribution element comprises:
a first region, defined by a first distance radially extending outward from a geometric center (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1);
a second region, defined by a second distance radially extending from an outermost edge toward the geometric center; and
at least one third region, located between the first region and the second region (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), but fails to disclose wherein a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the second region is smaller than a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the first region;
a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the at least one third region is different from the distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the first region and the distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the second region; and an inner diameter of a hole in the at least one third region is greater than an inner diameter of a hole in the first region and greater than an inner diameter of a hole in the second region.
Wang discloses that size and location of holes may be determined to enhance the uniformity of gas flow (Column 1, lines 42-44). The size and location of the holes is put forth as a result effective variable, as changing the size and location of the holes changes the uniformity of the gas flow. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Wang device to have sizes and locations as claimed, as it involves only adjusting the size and location of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang by making a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the second region is smaller than a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the first region, a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the at least one third region is different from the distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the first region and the distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the second region, and an inner diameter of a hole in the at least one third region is greater than an inner diameter of a hole in the first region and greater than an inner diameter of a hole in the second region as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the gas distribution element of claim 1, wherein the gas distribution element comprises a first region (Region 1) defined by a first distance radially extending outward from a geometric center (Figure 2, the distance from the innermost edge of the openings in region 1 to the outermost edge of the openings in region 1), and a second region (Region 4) defined by a second distance radially extending from an outermost edge toward the geometric center (Figure 2, the distance from the outermost edge of the openings in region 4 to the innermost edge of the openings in region 4); and the first region and the second region respectively have holes with different distribution densities (The density of Region 4 is larger than that of Region 1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the gas distribution element of claim 1, wherein a ratio of the hole distribution densities of the first region (Region 1) and the second region (Region 2) is 1:(2-4) (The inner region has 8 holes and the second region has 24 holes, which is equivalent to a 1:3 ratio).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the gas distribution element of claim 1, wherein a ratio of the hole distribution densities of the first region (Region 1) and the third region (Region 3) is 1:(2-8) (Region 1 has 8 holes and Region 3 has 16 holes, which is equivalent to a 1:2 ratio).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the gas distribution of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an inner diameter of a hole in at least one of the first region, the second region, or the at least one third region ranges from 1mm to 10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang to have an inner diameter of a hole in at least one of the first region, the second region, or the at least one third region ranges from 1mm to 10 mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Wang would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and since the sizing of the holes is configured to be optimized, the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (Paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the gas distribution element of claim 1, wherein the inner diameter of the hole in the first region is not equal to the inner diameter of the hole in the second region (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses the gas distribution element of claim 6, wherein the inner diameter of the hole in the first region is not equal to the inner diameter of the hole in the second region (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Claim(s) 9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 7,476,291) in view of Wang II (US 2006/0219361).
Regarding clam 9, Wang discloses a heat treatment device, comprising:
A gas distribution element (112) , arranged on an inner side of a side wall (102) at a gas inlet end of a heat treatment device (Figure 1, the element is arranged about the inlet 110 of the device);, and the gas distribution element comprises:
a first region, defined by a first distance radially extending outward from a geometric center (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1);
a second region, defined by a second distance radially extending from an outermost edge toward the geometric center; and
at least one third region, located between the first region and the second region (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), but fails to disclose wherein a process gas pressure of the heat pressure device is a low pressure of 1 to 20 Torr, or wherein a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the second region is smaller than a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the first region;
a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the at least one third region is different from the distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the first region and the distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the second region; and an inner diameter of a hole in the at least one third region is greater than an inner diameter of a hole in the first region and greater than an inner diameter of a hole in the second region.
Wang II discloses a device wherein a process gas pressure of the heat pressure device is a low pressure of 1 to 20 Torr (Paragraphs 7 and 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with the disclosures of Wang II, providing a process gas pressure of the heat pressure device to be a low pressure of 1 to 20 Torr (Wang II, Paragraphs 7 and 38), in order to provide for an effective strip rate, as disclosed by Wang II (Paragraphs 8-9).
Wang discloses that the pressure and sizing of holes may be determined to enhance the uniformity of gas flow (Column 1, lines 42-44 and Column 6, lines 43-59). The pressure, size and location of the holes is put forth as a result effective variable, as changing the pressure, size and location of the holes changes the uniformity of the gas flow. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Wang device to have sizes and locations as claimed, as it involves only adjusting the size and location of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang wherein by making a process gas pressure of the heat pressure device a low pressure of 1 to 20 Torr and a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the second region is smaller than a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the first region, a distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the at least one third region is different from the distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the first region and the distance between circle centers of adjacent holes in the second region, and an inner diameter of a hole in the at least one third region is greater than an inner diameter of a hole in the first region and greater than an inner diameter of a hole in the second region as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Wang II discloses the heat treatment device of claim 9, wherein a ratio of the hole distribution densities of the first region (Region 1) and the second region (Region 4) is 1:(2-4) (The inner region has 8 holes and the second region has 24 holes, which is equivalent to a 1:3 ratio).
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Wang II discloses the heat treatment device of claim 9, wherein a ratio of the hole distribution densities of the first region (Region 1) and the at least one third region (Region 3) is 1:(2-8) (Region 1 has 8 holes and Region 3 has 16 holes, which is equivalent to a 1:2 ratio).
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Wang II discloses the heat treatment device of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein an inner diameter of a hole in at least one of the first region, the second region, or the at least one third region ranges from 1mm to 10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang to have an inner diameter of a hole in at least one of the first region, the second region, or the at least one third region ranges from 1mm to 10 mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Wang would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and since the sizing of the holes is configured to be optimized, the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (Paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Wang II discloses the heat treatment device of claim 9, wherein a ratio of the hole distribution densities of the first region (Region 1) and the second region (Region 2) is 1:(2-4) (The inner region has 8 holes and the second region has 24 holes, which is equivalent to a 1:3 ratio).
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Wang II discloses the heat treatment device of claim 15, wherein the inner diameter of the hole in the first region is not equal to the inner diameter of the hole in the second region (Figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s position that Wang fails to disclose “a process gas pressure of the heat treatment device is a low pressure of 1 to 20 Torr,” Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
As to Applicant’s position that Wang fails to disclose a low pressure chamber, Wang II discloses that the system operates with a low back pressure chamber around 10 Torr, and that the back pressure may be modified down to 4 Torr.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights