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.
Claims 5, 9 and 10 “plasma generating system” has not been interpreted under the statute because the features of the plasma generating system necessary to perform the claimed function are also recited in the claim (i.e. chamber, laser, electrode/coil).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim 10, line 14 appears to be missing the word “properly” between the words “is” and “ignited”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “is properly ignited” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and or correction is requested.
In all instances, clarification and/or correction is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09115694A to Koshimizu in view of USP Pub. No. 2009/0010837 to Yabe et al. and JP Patent Pub. No. S60235346 (‘346).
Regarding claim 5: Koshimizu teaches a method of igniting plasma substantially as claimed and comprising: supplying a process gas (via Fig. 7, 150) into a chamber (Fig. 7, 102) in a plasma generating system (including chamber, electrode/coil, and laser); irradiating the process gas supplied into the chamber with light/radiation emitted from a radiation generating means (242) and applying a high frequency power to a coil (112) for generating plasma provided in (as part of) the plasma generating system, the plasma being ignited at a time after both the process gas irradiation is started and the high frequency power application to the coil is started (in Koshimizu, ignition requires irradiation and application of high frequency power (e.g., “irradiation”, “collision”, “activation”, “excitation”); and stopping emission of light from the radiation generation means after the plasma is ignited (the emission will invariably be stopped at some point, also Koshimizu teaches that ignition is stopped or reduced after ignition, see translation), wherein the plasma generating system includes a cylindrical coil as the coil (see translation), and ignition of plasma means beginning of plasma generation (i.e. “plasma generation” as a result of the ignition method).
However, Koshimizu fails to disclose radiation generating means for ignition is provided by a semiconductor laser.
First, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled 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); and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Yabe et al. teach use of a semiconductor laser for providing igniting laser light in order to take advantage of the semiconductor laser’s decreased number of energy conversion processes and high-energy efficiency, which are viewed as improvements on other light generating sources (see, e.g., paras. 14 and 70-71).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the radiation generating means of Koshimizu as a semiconductor laser in order to take of the laser’s decreased number of energy conversion processes and high-energy efficiency, which are viewed as improvements on other laser light generating sources as taught by Yabe et al.
Koshimizu also fails to disclose the laser light is irradiated obliquely from above the cylindrical coil toward below the cylindrical coil.
JP ‘346 teaches a method of igniting plasma wherein irradiating light (Fig. 5, B1 and B3) is provided in a configuration such that it is irradiated obliquely from above (i.e. upstream with respect to process gas flow) an electrode (5 and 6) toward below (i.e. downstream) the electrode for the purpose of sharply improving ionization efficiency and ion selectivity (see, e.g., abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Koshimizu the laser light is irradiated obliquely from above the cylindrical coil toward below the cylindrical coil in order to sharply improve ionization efficiency and ion selectivity as taught by ‘346.
Claim(s) 9, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09115694A to Koshimizu in view of USP Pub. No. 2009/0010837 to Yabe et al.
Regarding claim 9: Koshimizu teaches a method of igniting plasma substantially as claimed and comprising: supplying a process gas (via Fig. 7, 150) into a chamber (Fig. 7, 102) in a plasma generating system (including chamber, electrode/coil, and laser); irradiating the process gas supplied into the chamber with light/radiation emitted from a radiation generating means (242) and applying a high frequency power to a coil (112) or an electrode for generating plasma provided in (as part of) the plasma generating system, the plasma being ignited at a time after both the process gas irradiation is started and high frequency power application to the coil or the electrode is started; and stopping emission of light from the radiation generation means when a predetermined period of time has been reached or exceeded, the period of time being from the start of emission of light or from the start of application of the high frequency power to the coil or the electrode until ignition of plasma occurs, and ignition of plasma means beginning of plasma generation (i.e. “plasma generation” as a result of the ignition method).
In particular, Koshimizu teach that after ignition an igniting step may be stopped (or continued) with respect to a high frequency plasma processing method at a timing when a predetermined period of time has been reached or exceeded, the period of time being from the start of the emission of the laser light in order to provide a method wherein plasma is easily excited and maintained in a low-pressure atmosphere (see, e.g., abstract). Additionally, Koshimizu teach the stopping step of stopping emission of the ignition energy after a determination (i.e., disclosed “confirmation”) that ignition of plasma is properly made (see translation). Note: the claim does not require a specific type of measuring the predetermined period, such that the predetermined period can be said to be reached at the disclosed confirmation.
However, Koshimizu fails to disclose radiation generating means for ignition is provided by a semiconductor laser.
First, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled 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); and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Yabe et al. teach use of a semiconductor laser for providing igniting laser light in order to take advantage of the semiconductor laser’s decreased number of energy conversion processes and high-energy efficiency, which are viewed as improvements on other light generating sources (see, e.g., paras. 14 and 70-71).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the radiation generating means of Koshimizu as a semiconductor laser in order to take of the laser’s decreased number of energy conversion processes and high-energy efficiency, which are viewed as improvements on other laser light generating sources as taught by Yabe et al.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Koshimizu, Koshimizu discloses that during igniting the laser light is irradiated near the coil. Yabe et al. disclose the radiation generating means is a semiconductor laser. See above, as well as relied upon prior figures and translations.
With respect to claim 13, in modified Koshimizu, Koshimizu discloses the method of igniting includes the plasma generating system having a coil, which is a cylindrical coil. Nevertheless, it is noted that the courts have ruled that selections of shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, during igniting, the laser light is irradiated at a location upstream of the coil, wherein the provision of the radiation generating means at a more radially outward position than the coil in the direction of irradiation is considered to address the claim limitation of providing the light upstream of the coil.
With respect to claim 15, in modified Koshimizu, Koshimizu et al. teach using CF4 as a processing gas. See translation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09115694A to Koshimizu in view of USP Pub. NO. 2016/0217982 to Kegel et al. and USP Pub. No. 2009/0010837 to Yabe et al.
Regarding claim 10: Koshimizu teaches a method of igniting plasma substantially as claimed and comprising: supplying a process gas (via Fig. 7, 150) into a chamber (Fig. 7, 102) in a plasma generating system (including chamber, electrode/coil, and laser); irradiating the process gas supplied into the chamber with light/radiation emitted from a radiation generating means (242) and applying a high frequency power to a coil (112) or an electrode for generating plasma provided in (as part of) the plasma generating system, the plasma being ignited at a time after both the process gas irradiation is started and high frequency power application to the coil or the electrode is started; and stopping emission of light from the radiation generation means after a determination that the plasma is properly ignited, wherein, in the stopping of the emission of laser light, In particular, Koshimizu teaches that after ignition an igniting step may be stopped (or continued) with respect to a high frequency plasma processing method at a timing when a predetermined period of time has been reached or exceeded, the period of time being from the start of the emission of the laser light in order to provide a method wherein plasma is easily excited and maintained in a low-pressure atmosphere (see, e.g., abstract), and ignition of plasma means beginning of plasma generation (i.e. plasma generation as a result of the claimed ignition method). Additionally, Koshimizu teach the stopping step of stopping emission of the ignition energy after a determination (i.e., disclosed “confirmation”) that ignition of plasma is properly made (see translation).
Koshimizu teach ignition conditions may be stopped (or continued) with respect to a high frequency plasma processing method at a timing when a predetermined period of time has been reached or exceeded, the period of time being from the start of the emission of the laser light in order to provide a method wherein plasma is easily excited and maintained in a low-pressure atmosphere (see, e.g., abstract). Additionally, Koshimizu teach the stopping step of stopping emission of the ignition energy after a determination (i.e., disclosed “confirmation”) that ignition of plasma is properly made (see translation).
Koshimizu fails to explicitly teach that the determination that the plasma is properly ignited is made when an amplitude of a reflected wave signal of the high frequency power falls to a predetermined value or less, or the determination that the ignition is properly ignited is made when an intensity of light generated in the chamber is detected and the detected intensity reaches a predetermined value or more.
Kegel et al. disclose using parameters such as amplitude of a reflective wave signal of the high frequency power to determine proper ignition for the purpose of providing simple and reliable detection of plasma (see, e.g., abstract, paras. 11-15, 42-46). Kegel et al. also teach that is it known to use optical sensors for the same purpose (see, e.g., para. 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was made to have determined that plasma properly ignited when an amplitude of a reflected wave signal of the high frequency power falls to a predetermined value or less, or the determination that the ignition is properly ignited is made when an intensity of light generated in the chamber is detected and the detected intensity reaches a predetermined value or more in modified Koshimizu in order to provide a simple and reliable detection of plasma as taught by Kegel et al.
Koshimizu fails to disclose radiation generating means for ignition is provided by a semiconductor laser.
First, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled 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); and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Yabe et al. teach use of a semiconductor laser for providing igniting laser light in order to take advantage of the semiconductor laser’s decreased number of energy conversion processes and high-energy efficiency, which are viewed as improvements on other light generating sources (see, e.g., paras. 14 and 70-71).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the radiation generating means of Koshimizu as a semiconductor laser in order to take of the laser’s decreased number of energy conversion processes and high-energy efficiency, which are viewed as improvements on other laser light generating sources as taught by Yabe et al.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Koshimizu as applied to claims 9, 12-13 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,696,428 to Pasch et al.
With respect to claim 11, modified Koshimizu discloses the method substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Koshimizu fails to disclose during ignition, a high frequency power is started to be applied to the coil after the irradiation of laser light is started.
Pasch teaches in an igniting step, a high frequency power is started to be applied to a coil (26) after the irradiation of laser light is started from an ignition source (48) in order to perform ignition in a system having a pressure where ignition by the coil alone is insufficient (see, e.g., abstract and column 7, rows 22-39).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have, during igniting, started a high frequency power to be applied the coil after the irradiation of laser light is started from an ignition source in order to perform ignition in a system having a pressure where ignition by the coil alone is insufficient as taught by Pasch.
With respect to claim 14, modified Koshimizu fails to disclose the laser light has a wavelength in the visible light range.
Pasch teach selecting a radiation source for generating optical radiation in a portion of the spectrum (e.g., including visible, ultraviolet, infrared) responsible for inducing desired characteristics in a reaction species created by the radiation source (see, e.g., column 9, rows 27-38).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the laser in modified ‘029 for generating optical radiation in a portion of the spectrum (e.g., including visible, ultraviolet, infrared) responsible for inducing desired characteristics in a reaction species created by the radiation source as taught by Pasch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and accompanying arguments filed 17 March 2026 and 1 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot based on claim amendments and resulting modified rejections presented above. Also, see relevant comments below.
Examiner has modified the rejections based on Applicant’s amendments (and arguments) in an effort to expedite examination. In particular Applicant has amended the claims to clarify “ignition of plasma” and “plasma generation” with respect to Applicant’s claimed invention. The above rejections are meant to more clearly address Applicant’s claimed invention. However, Examiner does note that “plasma ignition” as claimed, inherently refers to ignition by laser light for the claimed ignition method, and not any other means for forming plasma, meaning disclosure of alternative plasma generation (or a process gas that is supplied that is a plasma gas) is not necessarily precluded from Applciant’s claimed indication. If Applicant means to limit the identity of the process gas this should be claimed.
Examiner points this out because prior art now relied upon has been previously applied. Similarly, ‘029 is still considered applicable prior art and the fact that the process gas is actually a plasma/activated gas does not necessarily preclude its relevance or applicability as prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 5,449,432 discloses ignition may be terminated prior to the end of plasma processing wherein an additional plasma source is used to continue processing after ignition has been terminated. US Patent Pub. No. 2014/0273416 disclose use of a semiconductor laser for gas ignition wherein the laser may be provided at an angle with respect to a vertical axis corresponding to the center of the laser source and an article being processed. KR 20160049220 disclose a plasma apparatus with a plasma source ignited by light. USP Pub. 2007/0181063 discloses a plasma ignition method including monitoring for proper ignition.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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 on (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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights