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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species 1-A, claims 1-8, 10, 15 and 16 in the reply filed on August 12, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that a search of Group I and Species 1-A that reveals references-if any exist-would apply to Species 1-B and Group II. This is not found persuasive because at the completion of the search art was found that reads on claims 1-8, 10, 15 and 16 while not reading on the claims 9, 11-14 and 17-20.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jun-Jin et al, JP 2017055104A.
Jun-Jin et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a processing chamber 100, comprising: a chamber body 111 at least partially defining an internal volume (Figures 1 and 2); a substrate support 171 disposed in the internal volume (Figures 1 and 2); an isolation plate 175 disposed in the internal volume and at least partially isolating a lower portion of the processing volume from an upper portion (Figure 4a), the isolation plate comprising: one or more perforations 175a formed in the isolation plate 175 to flow gas between the upper portion and the lower portion (Figure 4a), the one or more perforations angled with respect to a thickness direction of the isolation plate 175 (Figure 4a, perforations are angled to be perpendicular to the thickness direction of the isolation plate 175).
Regarding claim 2, the one or more perforations 175a tilt towards a gas flow direction in the lower portion (Figure 4c).
Regarding claim 3, the one or more perforations are circular in shape (Figures 4a, 5a, and 5b).
Regarding claim 4, the one or more perforations are in the shape of a slot (Figures 6a and 6b).
Regarding claim 5, the one or more perforations 175a include a plurality of perforations that are evenly distributed along the isolation plate. (Figures 3-6)
Regarding claim 6, the one or more perforations include a plurality of perforations having an increasing size along a radial direction of the isolation plate. (Figures 5-6)
Regarding claim 7, the one or more perforations 175a include a plurality of perforations having a larger size to concentrate the gas at one or more regions of the isolation plate. (Figures 5-6)
Regarding claim 8, the one or more perforations 175a include a plurality of perforations 175a having a clustered distribution to concentrate the gas at one or more regions of the isolation plate. (In Figures 5a and 5b the perforations 175a are clustered at a fixed radius to concentrate the gas at one or more radial regions of the isolation plate).
Regarding claim 10, the one or more perforations 175a are angled to guide a first gas flow in the upper portion to intersect a second gas flow in the lower portion. (Figure 4a)
Regarding claim 15, the one or more perforations 175a form a cylinder in the isolation plate. (Figure 4a)
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shero et al, US20030072975 A1.
Shero et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a processing chamber 130, comprising: a chamber body 132 at least partially defining an internal volume (Figure 2A); a substrate support 136 disposed in the internal volume (Figure 2A); an isolation plate 146 disposed in the internal volume and at least partially isolating a lower portion of the processing volume from an upper portion (Figure 2A), the isolation plate comprising: one or more perforations 152 formed in the isolation plate 146 to flow gas between the upper portion and the lower portion (Figure 2A), the one or more perforations angled with respect to a thickness direction of the isolation plate (Figure 2A, perforations are angled to be perpendicular to the thickness direction of the isolation plate).
Regarding claim 2, the one or more perforations tilt towards a gas flow direction in the lower portion (Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 3, the one or more perforations are circular in shape (Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 5, the one or more perforations include a plurality of perforations that are evenly distributed along the isolation plate. (Figure 2A)
Regarding claim 10, the one or more perforations are angled to guide a first gas flow in the upper portion to intersect a second gas flow in the lower portion. (Figure 2A)
Regarding claim 15, the one or more perforations form a cylinder in the isolation plate. (Figure 2A)
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun-Jin et al, JP 2017055104A.
Jun-Jin et al was discussed above.
Jun-Jin et al differs from the present invention in that Jun-Jin et al does not teach that the one or more perforations form a frustum in the isolation plate.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known how to determine the optimum or workable shape of the perforations by routine experimentation. Having determined such optimum or workable shape, such person would have been motivated to modify Jun-Jin et al to include the one or more perforations form a frustum in the isolation plate.
Applicant is reminded that when a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In addition, where the general conditions of such a particular parameter in 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) as well as MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). In the present case, it is well known in the art that the shape of a perforation determines the pressure drop and controls how the gases flow through the perforation and into the lower section. To that end, the shape of the perforation is a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Jun-Jin et al so that the one or more perforations form a frustum in the isolation plate. To that end, claim 16 is obvious in view of Jun-Jin et al.
The Examiner also notes that:
It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit 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. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
It has been held that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 10, 15 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/140,207 (‘207) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘207 teaches all the limitations of the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 § 102 or 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))
US 10312076 B2, KR 101760316 B1, US 20030072975 A1, and US 6960537 B2 could be used to reject the claims under 102 or 103; and
JP 5257424 B2 teaches angled perforations.
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
