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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make the second portion Mo and the electrode also Mo, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2011/0005686 to Tanaka et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0278682 to Lin et al and United States Patent Application No. 2018/0337081 to Ye is presented below.
The Examiner notes that the rejection presents the prior art of record from the previous office action, but has clarified and relied upon different aspects of that rejection to address the new claim limitations. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the teachings of Lin expressly teaches different materials, and that the materials can be changed, as suitable materials for a structure are obvious modifications and well known in the art and are clarified below. As such, the rejection below is made NON-FINAL as the scope of the claims and rejection below has been changed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2011/0005686 to Tanaka et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0278682 to Lin et al and United States Patent Application No. 2018/0337081 to Ye.
In regards to Claim 1, Tanaka teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 4, 14 comprising: a substrate support unit Fig. 4, 14 comprising: an electrode 66, a body 4 extending beneath the electrode, a heating unit 64, 59, a power rod 70/62 disposed within the body and connecting the heating unit to a power supply unit 134, a rod 78/62 contacting the electrode 66, wherein the rod 72 is disposed within the body, and a shield 62 surrounding the rod and separating the rod from the power rod (as shown in Fig. 4), wherein the rod comprises: a first portion 78A (connection node which is separate from the rest of 78 and structurally/materially different as shown in Fig. 15), wherein the first portion is connected directly to the electrode; and a second portion lower 78 having a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the first portion is disposed between the electrode and the second portion (as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the second portion comprises Mo [0088; 0072-0170].
Tanaka does not expressly teach that the first portion has a first coefficient of thermal expansion and welded directly to the electrode and the second portion has a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion.
Lin teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 5 comprising: an electrode (the combined structure of 162, 164, both of which are made of Mo and thus an integral structure embedded in 160 [0031] in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5); and a rod/RF rod 502, 504 contacting the electrode, wherein the rod comprises: a first portion 502 having a first coefficient of thermal expansion (as it is made out of Nickel [0036]); and a second portion 504 having a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion (as it is made out of Titanium, [0036, 0023-0044]), the first portion between the electrode and the second portion, the first portion being made of a different material as that of the first portion, as per the annotated copy of Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. As Lin teaches a rod that is analogous to the rod of Tanaka, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the rod and materials therein of Tanaka with that of Lin. The resulting apparatus would have a first portion being made out of Nickel and a second portion being made out of Titanium, or different materials.
Tanaka does not expressly teach the electrode is made out of Mo.
Lin teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 5 comprising: an electrode (the combined structure of 162, 164, both of which are made of Mo and thus an integral structure embedded in 160 [0031] in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a electrode analogous to that of Tanaka out of Mo, as taught by Lin, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill make the electrode out of Mo.
Tanaka in view of Lin, in the teachings of Lin, teaches that the first rod 502 is brazed to the electrode portion 164 [0036] but does not expressly teach welding nor do they teach that the second portion is made out of the same material as the electrode.
Ye teaches that an RF rod 970, 971 Fig. 1, 2 can be made out of titanium or molybdenum [0029; 0015-0041] and the rod is brazed or welded to the electrode of 920 [0030].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a second material analogous to that of Tanaka in view of Lin’s rod out of Mo, as taught by Ye, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would create a rod with a second portion that is made out of Mo, which is the same material as that of the electrode.
Furthermore, it is known to braze or weld a rod to an electrode, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have done so as an art analogous method joining a rod to an electrode. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as the resulting apparatus of Tanaka in view of Lin teaches a rod with two portions made of two different materials, Ye teaches that a suitable material for a rod is Mo, which is the material of the electrode (as per the teachings of Tanaka), the materials as expressly claimed would thus also fulfill the coefficients of thermal expansion.
In regards to Claim 5, Tanaka teaches a volume of the first portion is less than a volume of the second portion, as shown in the relative lengths and same widths in Fig. 4.
In regards to Claim 6, Tanaka teaches an insulating material 61 surrounding the electrode (made of aluminum nitride, [0080]), and but does not expressly teach a difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion of the electrode and a coefficient of thermal expansion of the insulating material is less than 10%.
Lin teaches the electrode 96 is made of Mo [0031], which as evidenced in the instant application (see [0054] of the instant application which cites aluminum nitride for the insulating material and the electrode being made of Mo [0031]), fulfills the limitations of the difference of the coefficient of thermal expansion in the claim.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make the electrode analogous to that of Tanaka out of Mo, as taught by Lin, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 5.
In regards to Claims 7 and 9, Tanaka in view of Lin teaches the first portion is made out of Ni, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 8, Tanaka does not expressly teach a metal coating member configured to prevent the flow of a high frequency current on a surface of the rod.
Lin teaches a metal- coating member (coating of Au, Ag, Al, or Cu that reduces heat generated in the rod due to increased skin depth [0036]), which is a functionality of preventing the flow of a high-frequency current on a surface of the rod, as the current goes through the rod more itself.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the rods of Tanaka to have added a metal coating member to the rods, as per the teachings of Lin. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to prevent the flow of a high-frequency current on a surface of the rod and thus reduce heat generated in the rod due to increased skin depth. Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a rod analogous to that of Tanaka out of molybdenum coated with Au, Ag, Al, or Cu, as taught by Lin, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. See MPEP 2143 Motivation The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 8.
In regards to Claim 11, Tanaka teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 4, 14 comprising: a substrate support unit Fig. 4, 14 comprising: a heating block comprising aluminum nitride (61, 59 [0080]), a power rod 70/62 disposed within the body and connecting the heating unit to a power supply unit 134, an electrode 66 inserted into the heating block, a rod 78/62 contacting the electrode 66, a shield 62 surrounding the rod and separating the rod from the power rod (as shown in Fig. 4), wherein the rod comprises: a first portion 78A, wherein the first portion is connected directly to the electrode; and a second portion lower 78 having a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the first portion is disposed between the electrode and the second portion (as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the second portion comprises Mo [0088; 0072-0170].
Tanaka does not expressly teach that the first portion has a first coefficient of thermal expansion and welded directly to the electrode and the second portion has a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion.
Lin teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 5 comprising: an electrode (the combined structure of 162, 164, both of which are made of Mo and thus an integral structure embedded in 160 [0031] in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5); and a rod/RF rod 502, 504 contacting the electrode, wherein the rod comprises: a first portion 502 having a first coefficient of thermal expansion (as it is made out of Nickel [0036]); and a second portion 504 having a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion (as it is made out of Titanium, [0036, 0023-0044]), the first portion between the electrode and the second portion, the first portion being made of a different material as that of the first portion, as per the annotated copy of Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. As Lin teaches a rod that is analogous to the rod of Tanaka, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the rod and materials therein of Tanaka with that of Lin. The resulting apparatus would have a first portion being made out of Nickel and a second portion being made out of Titanium, or different materials.
Tanaka does not expressly teach the electrode is made out of Mo.
Lin teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 5 comprising: an electrode (the combined structure of 162, 164, both of which are made of Mo and thus an integral structure embedded in 160 [0031] in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a electrode analogous to that of Tanaka out of Mo, as taught by Lin, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill make the electrode out of Mo.
Tanaka in view of Lin, in the teachings of Lin, teaches that the first rod 502 is brazed to the electrode portion 164 [0036] but does not expressly teach welding nor do they teach that the second portion is made out of the same material as the electrode.
Ye teaches that an RF rod 970, 971 Fig. 1, 2 can be made out of titanium or molybdenum [0029; 0015-0041] and the rod is brazed or welded to the electrode of 920 [0030].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a second material analogous to that of Tanaka in view of Lin’s rod out of Mo, as taught by Ye, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would create a rod with a second portion that is made out of Mo, which is the same material as that of the electrode.
Furthermore, it is known to braze or weld a rod to an electrode, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have done so as an art analogous method joining a rod to an electrode. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as the resulting apparatus of Tanaka in view of Lin teaches a rod with two portions made of two different materials, Ye teaches that a suitable material for a rod is Mo, which is the material of the electrode (as per the teachings of Tanaka), the materials as expressly claimed would thus also fulfill the coefficients of thermal expansion.
In regards to Claim 12, Tanaka teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 4, 14 comprising a gas supply unit 30a, 30b, comprising: a substrate support unit Fig. 4, 14 under the gas supply unit, a power supply unit 38 configured to supply power to a reaction space between the gas supply unit and the substrate support unit, and an exhaust path 46 configured to communicate with the reaction space, wherein the substrate support unit comprises
an electrode 66, a body 4 extending beneath the electrode, a heating unit 64, 59, a power rod 70/62 disposed within the body and connecting the heating unit to a power supply unit 134, a rod 78/62 contacting the electrode 66, wherein the rod 72 is disposed within the body, and a shield 62 surrounding the rod and separating the rod from the power rod (as shown in Fig. 4), wherein the rod comprises: a first portion 78A, wherein the first portion is connected directly to the electrode; and a second portion lower 78 having a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the first portion is disposed between the electrode and the second portion (as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the second portion comprises Mo [0088; 0072-0170].
Tanaka does not expressly teach that the first portion has a first coefficient of thermal expansion and welded directly to the electrode and the second portion has a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion.
Lin teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 5 comprising: an electrode (the combined structure of 162, 164, both of which are made of Mo and thus an integral structure embedded in 160 [0031] in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5); and a rod/RF rod 502, 504 contacting the electrode, wherein the rod comprises: a first portion 502 having a first coefficient of thermal expansion (as it is made out of Nickel [0036]); and a second portion 504 having a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion (as it is made out of Titanium, [0036, 0023-0044]), the first portion between the electrode and the second portion, the first portion being made of a different material as that of the first portion, as per the annotated copy of Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. As Lin teaches a rod that is analogous to the rod of Tanaka, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the rod and materials therein of Tanaka with that of Lin. The resulting apparatus would have a first portion being made out of Nickel and a second portion being made out of Titanium, or different materials.
Tanaka does not expressly teach the electrode is made out of Mo.
Lin teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 5 comprising: an electrode (the combined structure of 162, 164, both of which are made of Mo and thus an integral structure embedded in 160 [0031] in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a electrode analogous to that of Tanaka out of Mo, as taught by Lin, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill make the electrode out of Mo.
Tanaka in view of Lin, in the teachings of Lin, teaches that the first rod 502 is brazed to the electrode portion 164 [0036] but does not expressly teach welding nor do they teach that the second portion is made out of the same material as the electrode.
Ye teaches that an RF rod 970, 971 Fig. 1, 2 can be made out of titanium or molybdenum [0029; 0015-0041] and the rod is brazed or welded to the electrode of 920 [0030].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a second material analogous to that of Tanaka in view of Lin’s rod out of Mo, as taught by Ye, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would create a rod with a second portion that is made out of Mo, which is the same material as that of the electrode.
Furthermore, it is known to braze or weld a rod to an electrode, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have done so as an art analogous method joining a rod to an electrode. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim, as the resulting apparatus of Tanaka in view of Lin teaches a rod with two portions made of two different materials, Ye teaches that a suitable material for a rod is Mo, which is the material of the electrode (as per the teachings of Tanaka), the materials as expressly claimed would thus also fulfill the coefficients of thermal expansion.
In regards to Claim 13, Tanaka in view of Lin in the teachings of Lin teaches one end of the first portion 502 is welded to the second portion 504 [0037].
Lin does not expressly teach the first portion is welded to the electrode but teaches brazing of the first portion of the rod 166/202 to the electrode through 164 [0031].
Ye teaches that the transmission/power rods of 970/971 are welded or brazed to the electrode [0030].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Tanaka in view of Lin, by welding the joints of the first portion to 164 instead of brazing, as an art analogous mechanism of connecting the joints. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the brazing for the joints of Tanaka in view of Lin with the welding of Ye. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 14, Tanaka teaches the first portion is shorter than the second portion, as shown in Fig. 4.
In regards to Claim 16, Tanaka in view of Lin teach the second portion comprises the same material as that of the electrode, as per the rejection of Claim 12 above.
In regards to Claim 18, Tanaka teaches the power supply unit is connected to the gas supply unit and is configured to apply power to the gas supply unit [0109], and the rod connects the electrode to ground [0166].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2011/0005686 to Tanaka et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0278682 to Lin et al and United States Patent Application No. 2018/0337081 to Ye, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0373132 to Kalsekar et al. The Wikipedia entry for Kovar is cited as evidence for support.
The teachings of Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 ejection.
In regards to Claim 2, Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye in the teachings of Lin teaches the rod has the first portion and the second portion that is welded together [0037], but does not expressly teach the welding has an alloy comprises a material constituting the first portion, or that the first portion comprises nickel, and the alloy comprises iron, nickel, and cobalt, or that the alloy comprises 50 % to 60 % by weight of iron, 20 % to 30 % by weight of nickel, and 10 % to 20 % by weight of cobalt.
Kalsekar teaches that a brazing/welding material 402 Fig. 4A for RF rod and terminal can be Kovar [0035], a material as evidenced by the Wikipedia entry of Kovar is a material that has 29% Nickel, 17% Cobalt, and 59% Iron.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a brazing material analogous to that of Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye out of Kovar, as taught by Kalsekar, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 2.
Claims 3, 4, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2011/0005686 to Tanaka et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0278682 to Lin et al and United States Patent Application No. 2018/0337081 to Ye, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0080200 to Um et al.
The teachings of Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 ejection.
In regards to Claims 3, 4 and 20, Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye does not expressly teach the shield comprises aluminum or that the shield blocks a cross talk effect in which an RF current effects the power rod and the power supply unit.
Um teaches a shield 430 Fig. 1 for a power rod 420 that is formed of aluminum [0124] with an insulative spacer 440, the RF shield blocks the influence between other RF shields and cross talking of the RF currents in other rods [0062, 0063, 0114; 0038; 0129].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye, by making the shields out of aluminum with an insulative spacer, as per the teachings of Um. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of shielding the rods with an RF shield that blocks cross talking of the RF currents in other rods. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
In regards to Claim 15, Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye does not expressly teach a partition wall, wherein the substrate support unit if configured to contact a lower surface of the partition wall.
Um teaches an apparatus wherein the partition wall 110 and a substrate support unit 130 that contacts a lower surface of the partition wall, as shown in Fig. 1, thus forming a reaction space 160 that is formed by moving the substrate support unit up and down [0053].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye, to make the substrate support unit engage with a partition wall, as per the teachings of Um. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to form a reaction space. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 10, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2011/0005686 to Tanaka et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2017/0278682 to Lin et al and United States Patent Application No. 2018/0337081 to Ye, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2009/0277895 to Komatsu et al.
The teachings of Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 ejection.
In regards to Claim 10, Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye does not expressly teach a heat affected portion formed around a welding connection portion formed where the first portion is welded to the electrode, wherein the heat affected portion is formed during a welding process and has different properties than the welding connection portion.
Komatsu teaches a welding joint Fig. 11, wherein the welding portion 110 has a connecting portion 136 or heat affected portion formed around the welding connection portion 110 wherein the first portion is connected to the electrode, wherein the heat affected portion is formed during the welding process that has different properties than the welding connecting portion as it is a brazing material made of a different material [0093-0094, 0053-0104]. Komatsu teaches the brazing material prevents joint strength reduction caused by thermal diffusion of metal elements [0094].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the apparatus of Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye by adding the heat affected portion as per the teachings of Komatsu. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing joint strength reduction caused by thermal diffusion of metal elements. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 17, Lin teaches a surface of the second portion is coated with silver, gold, aluminum or copper [0036] to reduce heat generated due to increased skin depth, but does not teach the coating is made out of platinum.
Komatsu teaches a boundary layer, i.e., a protective coating for a rod component can be made out of platinum [0077].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a second portion coating material analogous to that of Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye out of rhodium, as taught by Komatsu, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 17.
In regards to Claim 19, Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye does not expressly teach that the power supply unit is connected to the electrode and is configured to apply power to the electrode, and the rod connects the electrode to the power supply unit.
Komatsu teaches a substrate processing apparatus Fig. 1, 5 comprising: an electrode 96; and a rod 110, 120, 116, 122, 102, 114 contacting the electrode 96, wherein the rod comprises: a first portion 110 having a first coefficient of thermal expansion (made of a high melting point metal NiAl, which has a high melting point [0064], which contains nickel, as per dependent claim 3 below); and a second portion 116, 122, 102 having a second coefficient of thermal expansion that is less than the first coefficient of thermal expansion (as it is made with a metal with low thermal expansion coefficient [0066, 0053-0079]).
Komatsu teaches the power supply unit 168 is connected to the electrode 94 and is configured to apply power to the electrode, and the rod 98 connects the electrode to the power supply unit, as shown in Fig. 2, to produce plasma.
As it is known to make the power supply unit is connected to the electrode and is configured to apply power to the electrode, and the rod connects the electrode to the power supply unit, as taught by Komatsu, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Tanaka in view of Lin and Ye as taught by Komatsu to make the power supply unit is connected to the electrode and is configured to apply power to the electrode, and the rod connects the electrode to the power supply unit. One would be motivated to do so in order to produce plasma. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-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, 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716