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 .
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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
heating mechanism
gas supply mechanism
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kadotani (WO9941778A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kadotani discloses a cooling device (see Fig. 7 & 11) that cools a cooling target (ribs 21) using a gas (Kadotani is capable of being used with a gas), comprising: a housing (vessel 63) configured to accommodate the cooling target and having a sidewall (see sidewall of 63) surrounding the cooling target; a plurality of supply holes (jet ports 67) arranged at an interval in the sidewall of the housing and serving as a flow path to introduce the gas from an external space of the housing to an interior of the housing; and a discharge path (outlet 19) opened to the housing and configured to discharge the gas in the interior of the housing, wherein, to form a swirling flow rotating along the sidewall in the interior of the housing, each of the plurality of supply holes is formed toward a direction in which the gas is released along the swirling flow (swirling flow – Page 6), when the housing is viewed in a plan view.
Regarding claim 2, Kadotani discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Kadotani further discloses wherein each of the plurality of supply holes (67) is formed toward a direction in which the gas is released along an inner surface of the sidewall.
Regarding claim 3, Kadotani discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Kadotani further discloses the housing includes a ceiling wall (wall of 63 w/ outlet 19), which is arranged to face the cooling target, is configured to block an opening of the sidewall, and includes an opening of the discharge path, and wherein the gas introduced from the plurality of supply holes forms the swirling flow (Page 6) that flows toward the opening of the discharge path while swirling (it is noted an inverted orientation of Kadotani discloses the limitations at issue).
Regarding claim 5, Kadotani discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Kadotani further discloses wherein an opening (opening of 19) of the discharge path is located at a center portion of a region enclosed by the sidewall when the housing is viewed in the plan view, and wherein, in the plan view, the plurality of supply holes (67) is arranged at an equal angular interval around the opening.
Regarding claim 6, Kadotani teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Kadotani further discloses the sidewall of the housing is formed by arranging a plurality of plate-shaped wall members (see portions of sidewall between each port 67) in a direction surrounding the cooling target, and wherein at least one of the plurality of supply holes is formed at a position where end portions of two of the adjacent wall members adjoin.
Regarding claim 9, Kadotani discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Kadotani further discloses wherein the plurality of supply holes (67) is formed along an inner surface of the sidewall.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadotani (WO9941778A1) in view of Asfaw (US20190104368).
Regarding claim 4, Kadotani discloses the limitations of claim 3, and Kadotani further teaches wherein the housing includes a bottom wall (wall of 63 opposite 19) on which the cooling target is disposed, and does not teach wherein the cooling target includes an annular protruding wall portion protruding from the bottom wall toward the ceiling wall and extending in an annular shape along the sidewall when viewed in the plan view.
Asfaw teaches wherein the cooling target (see heat sink of Fig. 4) includes an annular protruding wall portion (112) protruding from the bottom wall toward the ceiling wall and extending in an annular shape along the sidewall when viewed in the plan view.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadotani to include the annular wall portion of Afaw, in order to provide increased surface area (¶[0005]).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadotani (WO9941778A1) in view of Vatistas (US20120186794A1).
Regarding claim 7-8, Kadotani teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Kadotani further does not teach at least one of the plurality of supply holes is configured as the flow path and extends between the external space and the interior of the housing the extended supply hole is formed by an inner surface of a wall member forming the sidewall and a flow path wall member arranged to face the inner surface.
Vatistas teaches at least one of the plurality of supply holes (openings between 15) is configured as the flow path and extends between the external space and the interior of the housing the extended supply hole is formed by an inner surface of a wall member (15) forming the sidewall and a flow path wall member arranged to face the inner surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadotani to include wherein the supply hole configuration of Vatistas, in order to reduce flow resistance in creating the swirling flow (¶[0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Kadotani teaches (see Fig. 7 & 11) a method of cooling a cooling target (21) using a working fluid, wherein a housing (vessel 63) accommodating the cooling target includes a discharge path opened to the housing, a sidewall surrounding the cooling target, and a plurality of supply holes (67) arranged at an interval in the sidewall, wherein, to form a swirling flow rotating along the sidewall in an interior of the housing, each of the plurality of supply holes is formed toward a direction in which the working fluid is released along the swirling flow when the housing is viewed in a plan view, and wherein the method comprises: introducing the working fluid from an external space of the housing to release the working fluid to the interior of the housing through the plurality of supply holes to form the swirling flow (Page 6); cooling the cooling target by the swirling flow; and discharging the working fluid from the discharge path (via 19).
Kadotani is silent to wherein the working fluid is a gas.
Vatistas teaches wherein a method of cooling, wherein the working fluid may be gas or liquid (¶[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kadotani to include wherein the working fluid of gas, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In the instant case, it is well known in the art (as taught by Vatistas) to use gas as a working fluid for such a heat exchanger.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuka (US20070022954A1) in view of Kadotani (WO9941778A1).
Regarding claim 10, Izuka teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Fig. 1 & 35) comprising: a processing container (housing 1 w/ process chamber 2) configured to accommodate a substrate (wafer W); a shower head (shower head 40) installed on an upper surface of the processing container to supply a process gas for processing the substrate toward an interior of the processing container, the shower head including a heating mechanism (heaters 91) configured to heat a constituent member (see elements of shower head 40) of the shower head; and a gas supply mechanism (gas pipe 51) configured to supply the process gas to the shower head, wherein a cooling target (fins 191) that increases in temperature through heating of the constituent member of the shower head by the heating mechanism is disposed on an upper surface of the shower head, and wherein the cooling device (cover 192) is installed to cover the cooling target of the shower head with the housing.
Izuka does not teach the cooling device of claim 1.
Kadotani teaches the cooling device of claim 1 (see rejection above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Izuka to include the cooling device of claim 1, in order to provide turbulent flow to improve the heat exchange rate (Page 3).
Regarding claim 11, Izuka teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Izuka further teaches
the process gas is a film formation gas to form a film on the substrate (¶[0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights