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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 10/11/2024 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
“the plurality of flow limiters have gradually reduced inner diameters in a downstream direction” (Claim 12);
“the plurality of arcuate slit holes of the first coolant conduit are staggered from the plurality of arcuate slit holes of the second coolant conduit” (Claim 19);
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minami (US2002/0121242A1).
Re Claim 1. Minami teaches a coolant conduit (3) for a cooling apparatus which includes a chamber (17) having an accommodation space (interior of 17), a coolant inlet (52, 8) disposed to be in fluid communication with the accommodation space, and a wafer boat (9) disposed in the accommodation space, the coolant conduit comprising (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105):
at least one tubular wall (wall of 3) disposed outwardly and radially from the wafer boat in the chamber, the at least one tubular wall including an inner wall surface (interior surface of 3) and an outer wall surface (outer surface of 3) opposite to each other in radial directions, the inner wall surface surrounding a tubular axis and defining a passage (interior of 3) extending upwardly to terminate at an upper end surface (top of 3) formed with an opening that is adapted to be in fluid communication with the coolant inlet (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105; The top surface of 3 is in fluid communication with the coolant inlet 52, 8); and
at least one arcuate slit hole (2) formed in the outer wall surface to confront the wafer boat and extending from the outer wall surface into the inner wall surface along a first radial line to be in fluid communication with the accommodation space, the at least one arcuate slit hole having a height and a width, a ratio of the width to the height being greater than 1 (Figures 15-17; Paragraphs 102-105; Figure 17 illustrates the arcuate slot is wider than the height, thereby satisfying the ratio being greater than 1).
Re Claim 13. Minami teaches a cooling apparatus (apparatus in Figure 15), comprising (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105):
a chamber (17) having an accommodation space (interior of 17) (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105);
a coolant inlet (52, 8) disposed to be in fluid communication with the accommodation space (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105);
a wafer boat (9) disposed in the accommodation space (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105); and
a coolant conduit (3) disposed in the chamber and including (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105):
at least one tubular wall (wall of 3) disposed outwardly and radially from the wafer boat, and including an inner wall surface (interior surface of 3) and an outer wall surface (outer surface of 3) opposite to each other in radial directions, the inner wall surface surrounding a tubular axis and defining a passage (interior of 3) extending upwardly to terminate at an upper end surface (top of 3) formed with an opening that is adapted to be in fluid communication with the coolant inlet (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105; The top surface of 3 is in fluid communication with the coolant inlet 52, 8); and
at least one arcuate slit hole (2) formed in the outer wall surface to confront the wafer boat and extending from the outer wall surface into the inner wall surface along a first radial line to be in fluid communication with the accommodation space, the at least one arcuate slit hole having a height and a width, a ratio of the width to the height being greater than 1 (Figures 15-17; Paragraphs 102-105; Figure 17 illustrates the arcuate slot is wider than the height, thereby satisfying the ratio being greater than 1).
Re Claim 2. Minami teaches the at least one arcuate slit hole extends along the tubular axis to terminate at an upper surface and a lower surface that define the height, and extends about the tubular axis to terminate at a first side surface and a second side surface, the first side surface forming a first joining line with the inner wall surface, the second side surface forming a second joining line with the inner wall surface, the first joining line and the second joining line forming a chord line that is perpendicular to the first radial line and that defines the width (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105).
Re Claim 3 & 14. Minami teaches the ratio of the width to the height is less than 11.5 (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105).
Re Claim 4. Minami teaches the first side surface and the second side surface are in a same plane (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105).
Re Claim 5. Minami teaches the first joining line and the tubular axis define a second radial line, the first radial line and the second radial line forming an included angle that is greater than 10.5° and less than 90.5° (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105).
Re Claim 15. Minami teaches the at least one arcuate slit hole extends along the tubular axis to terminate at an upper surface and a lower surface that define the height, and extends about the tubular axis to terminate at a first side surface and a second side surface, the first side surface forming a first joining line with the inner wall surface, the second side surface forming a second joining line with the inner wall surface, the first joining line and the second joining line forming a chord line that is perpendicular to the first radial line and that defines the width; and the first joining line and the tubular axis define a second radial line, the first radial line and the second radial line forming an included angle that is greater than 10.5° and less than 90.5° (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105).
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.
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 6-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami (US2002/0121242A1) in view of Booth (US2864588).
Re Claim 6 & 16. Minami teaches the at least one tubular wall has an inner diameter (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105) but fails to specifically teach the coolant conduit further comprises at least one flow limiter which is connected to the at least one tubular wall in the direction of the tubular axis, and which has an inner diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the at least one tubular wall.
However, Booth teaches the coolant conduit (16) further comprises at least one flow limiter (26) which is connected to the at least one tubular wall in the direction of the tubular axis, and which has an inner diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the at least one tubular wall (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 10-31).
Therefore, in view of Booth's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add flow limiters to the coolant conduit of Minami in order to provide better heat exchange and increased pressures along the coolant conduit (Booth Column 3 lines 10-31).
Re Claim 7. Minami as modified by Booth teach a ratio of the inner diameter of the at least one flow limiter to the inner diameter of the at least one tubular wall is greater than 0.5 and less than 1 (Minami Figures 15-18, Paragraphs 102-105; Booth Figures 1-2, Column 3 lines 10-31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the optimal diameter ratios, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 8. Minami teaches the at least one tubular wall (3) includes a plurality of tubular walls displaced from one another in the direction of the tubular axis, each of the plurality of tubular walls having an inner diameter (3 can be arbitrarily delineated into a plurality of interconnected stacked tubular walls) (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105). Minami fails to specifically teach the coolant conduit further comprises a plurality of flow limiters alternated with and connected to the plurality of tubular walls in the direction of the tubular axis, each of the plurality of flow limiters having an inner diameter smaller than the inner diameter of each of the plurality of tubular walls.
However, Booth teaches the coolant conduit (16) further comprises a plurality of flow limiters (26) alternated with and connected to the plurality of tubular walls in the direction of the tubular axis, each of the plurality of flow limiters having an inner diameter smaller than the inner diameter of each of the plurality of tubular walls (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 10-31).
Therefore, in view of Booth's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add flow limiters to the coolant conduit of Minami in order to provide better heat exchange and increased pressures along the coolant conduit (Booth Column 3 lines 10-31).
Re Claim 9. Minami as modified by Booth teach each of the plurality of tubular walls includes the at least one arcuate slit hole (Minami Figures 15-18, Paragraphs 102-105; Booth Figures 1-2, Column 3 lines 10-31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the optimal arcuate slit hole per tubular wall, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 10. Minami as modified by Booth teach the number of at least one arcuate slit hole in each of the plurality of tubular walls ranges from 1 to 3 (Minami Figures 15-18, Paragraphs 102-105; Booth Figures 1-2, Column 3 lines 10-31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the optimal arcuate slit hole per tubular wall, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add more arcuate slit holes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B).
Re Claim 11. Minami as modified by Booth teach a total number of the at least one arcuate slit hole of the coolant conduit ranges from 20 to 50 (Minami Figures 15-18, Paragraphs 102-105; Booth Figures 1-2, Column 3 lines 10-31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the optimal arcuate slit hole per coolant conduit, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add more arcuate slit holes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B).
Re Claim 12. Minami as modified by Booth teach the plurality of flow limiters have inner diameters in a downstream direction (Minami Figures 15-18, Paragraphs 102-105; Booth Figures 1-2, Column 3 lines 10-31), but fails to specifically teach the flow limiters inner diameters are gradually reduced. The examiner takes Official Notice of the well-known and understood design of reducing flow diameters to equalize pressures in flow conduits. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the plurality of flow limiters have gradually reduced inner diameters in a downstream direction, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami (US2002/0121242A1) in view of Shimada (US5383984).
Re Claim 17. Minami teaches a cooling apparatus (apparatus in Figure 15), comprising (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105):
a chamber (17) having an accommodation space (interior of 17) extending in a direction of a central axis (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105);
a coolant inlet (52, 8) disposed to be in fluid communication with the accommodation space (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105);
a wafer boat (9) disposed in the accommodation space to mount a plurality of wafers (10) displaced from one another by a plurality of interval spaces along the central axis (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105); and
a coolant conduit (3, 5) disposed in the chamber and angularly spaced, each of the coolant conduits including (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105):
at least one tubular wall (wall of 3) disposed outwardly and radially from the wafer boat, and including an inner wall surface (interior surface of 3) and an outer wall surface (outer surface of 3) opposite to each other in radial directions, the inner wall surface surrounding a tubular axis and defining a passage (interior of 3) extending upwardly to terminate at an upper end surface (top of 3) formed with an opening that is adapted to be in fluid communication with the coolant inlet (Figures 15-18; Paragraphs 102-105; The top surface of 3 is in fluid communication with the coolant inlet 52, 8); and
at least one arcuate slit hole (2) formed in the outer wall surface to confront the wafer boat and extending from the outer wall surface into the inner wall surface along a first radial line to be in fluid communication with the accommodation space, the at least one arcuate slit hole extending along the tubular axis to terminate at an upper surface and a lower surface that define a height of the at least one arcuate slit hole, and extending about the tubular axis to terminate at a first side surface and a second side surface, the first side surface forming a first joining line with the inner wall surface, the second side surface forming a second joining line with the inner wall surface, the first joining line and the second joining line forming a chord line that is perpendicular to the first radial line and that defines a width of the at least one arcuate slit hole, a ratio of the width to the height being greater than 1 (Figures 15-17; Paragraphs 102-105; Figure 17 illustrates the arcuate slot is wider than the height, thereby satisfying the ratio being greater than 1).
Minami teaches a coolant conduit (3) but fails to teach a plurality of coolant conduits disposed in the chamber and angularly spaced apart from one another.
However, Shimada teaches having two opposed coolant conduits (30) disposed in the chamber and angularly spaced apart from one another (Figures 1, 4, 5, 7; Column 4 lines 66 to Column 5 line 17).
Therefore, in view of Shimada's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a second coolant conduit to Minami in order to provide greater coverage of cooling gas to the wafers, thereby increasing the speed of cooling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a plurality of coolant conduits, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B).
Re Claim 18. Minami as modified by Shimada teach the plurality of coolant conduits include a first coolant conduit and a second coolant conduit which are disposed to be diametrically opposite to each other (Minami Figures 15-18, Paragraphs 102-105; Shimada Figures 1, 4, 5, 7; Column 4 lines 66 to Column 5 line 17).
Re Claim 19. Minami as modified by Shimada teach the at least one arcuate slit hole of the first coolant conduit includes a plurality of arcuate slit holes displaced from one another in a direction of a conduit axis of the first coolant conduit; the at least one arcuate slit hole of the second coolant conduit includes a plurality of arcuate slit holes displaced from one another in a direction of a conduit axis of the second coolant conduit; and the plurality of arcuate slit holes of the first coolant conduit are spaced from the plurality of arcuate slit holes of the second coolant conduit (Minami Figures 15-18, Paragraphs 102-105; Shimada Figures 1, 4, 5, 7; Column 4 lines 66 to Column 5 line 17). Minami as modified by Shimada fail to specifically teach the slit holes are staggered. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to stagger the arcuate slit holes, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Re Claim 20. Minami as modified by Shimada teach each of the plurality of arcuate slit holes of the first coolant conduit registers with a corresponding one of the plurality of interval spaces; and each of the plurality of arcuate slit holes of the second coolant conduit registers with a corresponding one of the plurality of interval spaces (Minami Figures 15-18, Paragraphs 102-105; Shimada Figures 1, 4, 5, 7; Column 4 lines 66 to Column 5 line 17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights