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 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 1-13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbaas et al (US PG Pub # 2019/0040529) in view of Gouko et al (US # 11,193,900). The Verbaas reference discloses a channel structure (para. # 0031) comprising:
a base (102, 302) comprising a first surface and constituted of ceramic (para. # 0035 & 0070);
a channel (106) located inside the base and comprising a plurality of branch paths (para. # 0032);
a plurality of openings (104, 526) located in the first surface and respectively connected to the plurality of branch paths (para. # 0061);
wherein the base comprises a plurality of thermocouples (para. # 0060).
However, the Verbaas reference does not show the specific thermocouple structure claimed, namely, the thermocouple comprised of
a first metal wiring at least partially located inside the base, the first metal wiring being constituted of a first metal; and
a second metal wiring at least partially located inside the base, the second metal wiring being constituted of a second metal that is different from the first metal.
This kind of thermocouple comprised of two different metals joined together was known as taught by the Gouko reference (Col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 10; Col. 6, line 35 to col. 7, line 9).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use the thermocouple structure disclosed in Gouko as the thermocouple temperature sensor in the base of the showerhead assembly of Verbaas, motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended use.
With respect to claims 2-6, the exact positioning of the thermocouples would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error.
With respect to claims 7-12, the Gouko shows the thermocouples arranged as wiring around vias (holes) through the substrate.
With respect to claims 13, the exact positioning of the thermocouples would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error.
With respect to claim 16, the showerhead assembly was intended to be used semiconductor manufacturing device.
With respect to claim 17, the exact positioning of the thermocouples would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbaas et al (US PG Pub # 2019/0040529) in view of Gouko et al (US # 11,193,900), as applied to claims 1-13, 16 & 17, above, and further in view of Kasai et al (US # 7,661,386). The Kasai reference discloses that it was known to equip the showerhead assembly of a semiconductor manufacturing device with an electrode for generating plasma (Col. , ll. 63-66), and to provide some type of insulation or distance between the plasma generating electrode and other electrical devices embedded therein from receiving RF “noises” from the plasma generating electrode. It would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to modify the showerhead assembly of Verbaas to include an RF electrode to generate plasma, as this was part of the semiconductor manufacturing process, and to locate the plasma generating electrode as an optimum distance from the thermocouple sensors to prevent RF noise from the plasma electrode from interfering with the accurate operation of the temperature sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights