DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are pending.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 13-14, and 16 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 17-18 have been added
Continued Examination
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has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to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 04/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 8, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a ring resonator configured to resonate microwaves propagated through a circular waveguide having a circular cross section such that a mode of the propagated microwaves is a mode having microwaves of m wavelengths in an azimuth direction where m is an integer greater than or equal to 2.” This limitation is indefinite due to reference to an object that is variable. Specifically, reference to a propagated microwave is indefinite because microwaves of different wavelengths can be supplied. This limitation is indefinite by reference to an object that is variable because a structure (structure/dimensions of the ring resonator) is claimed as a function of a variable (wavelengths of the propagated microwaves); the physical dimensions of the resonator is being claimed such that they are configured to propagate microwaves of unknown wavelengths. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). ). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, this limitation will be read as “a ring resonator configured to resonate microwaves propagated through a circular waveguide having a circular cross section
Regarding Claims 2-4, 8, 11-12, and 17:
Claims 2-4, 8, 11-12, and 17 are rejected at least based on their dependencies on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a ring resonator configured to resonate microwaves propagated through a circular waveguide having a circular cross section such that a mode of the propagated microwaves is a mode having microwaves of m wavelengths in an azimuth direction where m is an integer greater than or equal to 2,” This limitation is indefinite due to reference to an object that is variable. Specifically, reference to a propagated microwave is indefinite because microwaves of different wavelengths can be supplied. This limitation is indefinite by reference to an object that is variable because a structure (structure/dimensions of the ring resonator) is claimed as a function of a variable (wavelengths of the propagated microwaves); the physical dimensions of the resonator is being claimed such that they are configured to propagate microwaves of unknown wavelengths. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). ). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, this limitation will be read as “a ring resonator configured to resonate microwaves propagated through a circular waveguide having a circular cross section
Regarding Claim 18:
Claims 18 is rejected at least based on its dependency on claim 15.
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.
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(s) 1-4, 8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP 2012049353) in view of Ishii et al. (US 20050082003), and Obama et al. (US 20120186747).
Regarding Claim 1:
Tamura teaches a plasma processing apparatus (apparatus of Fig. 10), comprising: a processing chamber (chamber 114) where a sample (substrate 109) is to be plasma-processed; a radio frequency power supply (power source 117) configured to supply a radio frequency power of microwaves for generating plasma (microwaves are generated for plasma) [Fig. 10 & 0039, 0041, 0043-0044]; a ring resonator (ring-shaped cavity resonator 209) configured to resonate microwaves propagated through a circular waveguide (circular waveguide 203) having a circular cross section (waveguide 203 is circular) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0051, 0079]; and a dielectric window (dielectric window 107) that is disposed above the processing chamber and allows the propagated microwaves to pass into the processing chamber (microwaves are transmitted through dielectric window 107) [Fig. 10 & 0017], wherein the circular waveguide is configured to propagate the microwaves to the ring resonator through a parallel flat plate line portion (cavity where tapered member 208 is disposed), and the parallel flat plate line portion has a circular upper surface and a circular lower surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the cavity where tapered member 208 is disposed has circular upper and lower surfaces) and includes a phase adjuster (dielectric plate 211) configured to set a phase of the microwaves propagating to the ring resonator to a predetermined phase (dielectric plates 211 control phases) wherein the phase adjuster comprises a plurality of phase adjuster portions (the individual dielectric plates 211 disposed within waveguides 204-207, respectively) arranged in a circumferential direction in the flat plate line portion, wherein the phase adjuster comprises a plurality of phase adjuster portions (the individual dielectric plates 211 disposed within waveguides 204-207, respectively) arranged in a circumferential direction in the flat plate line portion, and wherein each said phase adjuster portion has a width in the circumferential direction that is equal to a width of each of a plurality of connection portions (spaces between waveguides 204-207) disposed between each adjacent pair of said phase adjuster portions (portions are imaginary subdivisions of a whole. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art can set respective portions of the spaces between waveguides 204-207 to be equal in width to the dielectric plates 211) [Fig. 4-5, 10 & 0068, 0073-0074, 0086].
Tamura does not specifically disclose a first cavity portion comprising an inner cavity; and a second cavity portion comprising a lower cavity formed between the first cavity portion and the dielectric window and disposed on a lower portion of the slot antenna, wherein the slot antenna is arranged at a side surface of the first cavity portion and the opening is formed by a space sandwiched between an outer peripheral surface of an inner edge of the inner cavity and an inner peripheral surface of an outer edge of the inner cavity, the first cavity portion and the second cavity portion are constructed to adjust the propagated microwaves radiated by the slot antenna.
Ishii discloses a first cavity portion comprising an inner cavity (the first cavity portion and the inner cavity are disclosed in the annotated drawings below; it is noted that the conductor plate 31a can have shapes other than cones); and a second cavity portion comprising a lower cavity formed between the first cavity portion and the dielectric window and disposed on a lower portion of the slot antenna (the second cavity portion and the lower cavity are disclosed in the annotated drawings below; as evidenced by Fig. 12 and the annotated drawings below, there is a lower cavity between the first cavity portion and the dielectric plate 14), wherein the slot antenna is arranged at a side surface of the first cavity portion and the opening is formed by a space sandwiched between an outer peripheral surface of an inner edge of the inner cavity and an inner peripheral surface of an outer edge of the inner cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 12 and the annotated drawings below, the slots 36 are disposed on a side surface of the first cavity portion) [Fig. 12 & 0099-0100], the first cavity portion and the second cavity portion are constructed to adjust the propagated microwaves radiated by the slot antenna (the shape of the conductor plate 31a adjusts the direction of the EM waves) [Fig. 12 & 0099].
PNG
media_image1.png
882
1545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Tamura to have first and second cavity portions, as in Ishii, to improve plasma distribution uniformity [Ishii '003 - 0098-0100].
Additionally/alternatively, Obama discloses that distances between components in a waveguide are result effective variables. Specifically, Obama discloses that distances can be adjusted to affect field density and plasma distribution [Obama - 0095]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify portions of the slot antenna of Tamura to have cavities and gaps relative to other components to achieve a desired field density and plasma distribution. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitation “the first cavity portion and the second cavity portion are constructed to adjust the propagated microwaves radiated by the slot antenna,” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 2:
Tamura teaches wherein the number of the parallel flat plate line portion is one (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the cavity where tapered member 208 is disposed is singular), and the phase adjuster is formed of a dielectric material (dielectric plates 211 are formed of alumina) [Fig. 4-5, 10 & 0068, 0073, 0075, 0086].
Regarding Claim 3:
Tamura teaches wherein each said connection portion is disposed between the parallel flat plate line portion and the ring resonator (as evidenced by Figs. 4 and 6, the spaces between waveguides 204-207 are disposed between resonator 209 and member 208) [Fig. 4-6, 10 & 0068, 0073, 0086].
Regarding Claim 4:
Tamura teaches wherein the number of the plurality of phase adjuster portions is four (as evidenced by Fig. 6, there are four dielectric plates 211) [Fig. 4-6, 10 & 0068, 0073, 0086].
Regarding Claim 8:
Tamura teaches wherein the opening portion is a plurality of opening portions disposed radially (radial slots 106 are described as being radially disposed) [Fig. 10 & 0042].
Regarding Claim 11:
Tamura teaches wherein the predetermined phase is a phase that reduces mismatch of an electromagnetic field distribution of the microwaves on a connection surface between the ring resonator and the parallel flat plate line portion (phase shifters can control the phase being output from the rectangular wave guides) [0072, 0074, 0080].
It is also noted that, although cited by the prior art, the limitations “wherein the predetermined phase is a phase that reduces mismatch of an electromagnetic field distribution of the microwaves on a connection surface between the ring resonator and the parallel flat plate line portion” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 12:
Tamura teaches a magnetic field forming mechanism configured to form a magnetic field inside the processing chamber (a static magnetic field generating means 112 is provided around the processing chamber 114, and a static magnetic field can be applied to the processing chamber 114) [Fig. 10 & 0012].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP 2012049353) in view of Ishii et al. (US 20050082003), and Obama et al. (US 20120186747), as applied to claims 1-4, 8, and 11-12 above, and further in view of Ishii (US 20010011525) and Ikeda et al. (US 20110018651), with Watanabe et al. (US 5276386) as an evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1-4, 8, and 11-12 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 17:
Modified Tamura discloses wherein each said phase adjuster portion has a width in the circumferential direction that is equal to a width of each of a plurality of connection portions (spaces between waveguides 204-207) disposed between each adjacent pair of said phase adjuster portions (portions are imaginary subdivisions of a whole. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art can set respective portions of the spaces between waveguides 204-207 to be equal in width to the dielectric plates 211) [Tamura - Fig. 4-5, 10 & 0068, 0073-0074, 0086].
Alternatively/additionally, Ishii '525 does disclose that the dimensions of a wave guide is a result effective variable (the intensity of microwaves can be adjusted by adjusting the dimensions of waveguide) [Ishii '525 - 0014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the waveguides of Modified Tamura to achieve a desired microwave intensity [Ishii '525 - 0014]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is also noted that adjusting the dimensions of the waveguides of Tamura would also adjust the dimensions of the spaces between them.
Furthermore, Ikeda also discloses that dielectric thickness is a result effective variable. Specifically, the thickness of a dielectric in a waveguide can be adjusted to achieve desired microwave phases [Ikeda - 0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find optimum dimensions for phase adjusters, as in Ikeda, to obtain a desired microwave behavior [Ikeda - 0062]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Watanabe et al. (US 5276386) also discloses that the dimensions of dielectrics in a waveguide can be changed to modify phase velocity; Watanabe discloses dielectric dimension as a result effective variable [Watanabe - Col. 5 lines 40-42].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP 2012049353) in view Tamura et al. (JP 2012049353) in view of Ishii et al. (US 20050082003), and Obama et al. (US 20120186747).
Regarding Claim 15:
Tamura teaches A plasma processing apparatus (apparatus of Fig. 10), comprising: a processing chamber (chamber 114) where a sample (substrate 109) is to be plasma-processed; a radio frequency power supply (power source 117) configured to supply a radio frequency power of microwaves for generating plasma (microwaves are generated for plasma) [Fig. 10 & 0039, 0041, 0043-0044]; a ring resonator (ring-shaped cavity resonator 209) configured to resonate microwaves propagated through a circular waveguide (circular waveguide 203) having a circular cross section (waveguide 203 is circular) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0051, 0079]; and a dielectric window (dielectric window 107) that is disposed above the processing chamber and allows the propagated microwaves to pass into the processing chamber (microwaves are transmitted through dielectric window 107) [Fig. 10 & 0017], wherein the circular waveguide is configured to propagate the microwaves to the ring resonator (cavity where tapered member 208 is disposed), and further comprising: a parallel flat plate line portion (cavity where tapered member 208 is disposed) configured to propagate the microwaves propagated from the circular waveguide to the ring resonator (tapered member 208 branches microwaves to rectangular waveguides 204-207; waveguides 204-207 are connected to ring-shaped cavity resonator 209), wherein an upper surface and a lower surface of the parallel flat plate line portion are circular (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the cavity where tapered member 208 is disposed has circular upper and lower surfaces) wherein the parallel flat plate line portion comprises a plurality of phase adjuster portions (the individual dielectric plates 211 disposed within waveguides 204-207, respectively) arranged in a circumferential direction in the flat plate line portion, wherein the phase adjuster comprises a plurality of phase adjuster portions (the individual dielectric plates 211 disposed within waveguides 204-207, respectively) arranged in a circumferential direction in the flat plate line portion, and wherein each said phase adjuster portion has a width in the circumferential direction that is equal to a width of each of a plurality of connection portions (spaces between waveguides 204-207) disposed between each adjacent pair of said phase adjuster portions (portions are imaginary subdivisions of a whole. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art can set respective portions of the spaces between waveguides 204-207 to be equal in width to the dielectric plates 211) [Fig. 4-5, 10 & 0068, 0073-0074, 0086].
Tamura does not specifically disclose a first cavity portion comprising an inner cavity; and a second cavity portion comprising a lower cavity formed between the first cavity portion and the dielectric window and disposed on a lower portion of the slot antenna, the slot antenna is arranged at a side surface of the first cavity portion and the opening is formed by a space sandwiched between an outer peripheral surface of an inner edge of the inner cavity and an inner peripheral surface of an outer edge of the inner cavity, and the first cavity portion and the second cavity portion are constructed to adjust the propagated microwaves radiated by the slot antenna.
Ishii discloses a first cavity portion comprising an inner cavity (the first cavity portion and the inner cavity are disclosed in the annotated drawings below; it is noted that the conductor plate 31a can have shapes other than cones); and a second cavity portion comprising a lower cavity formed between the first cavity portion and the dielectric window and disposed on a lower portion of the slot antenna (the second cavity portion and the lower cavity are disclosed in the annotated drawings below; as evidenced by Fig. 12 and the annotated drawings below, there is a lower cavity between the first cavity portion and the dielectric plate 14), the slot antenna is arranged at a side surface of the first cavity portion and the opening is formed by a space sandwiched between an outer peripheral surface of an inner edge of the inner cavity and an inner peripheral surface of an outer edge of the inner cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 12 and the annotated drawings below, the slots 36 are disposed on a side surface of the first cavity portion) [Fig. 12 & 0099-0100], the first cavity portion and the second cavity portion are constructed to adjust the propagated microwaves radiated by the slot antenna (the shape of the conductor plate 31a adjusts the direction of the EM waves) [Fig. 12 & 0099].
PNG
media_image1.png
882
1545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Tamura to have first and second cavity portions, as in Ishii, to improve plasma distribution uniformity [Ishii '003 - 0098-0100].
Additionally/alternatively, Obama discloses that distances between components in a waveguide are result effective variables. Specifically, Obama discloses that distances can be adjusted to affect field density and plasma distribution [Obama - 0095]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify portions of the slot antenna of Tamura to have cavities and gaps relative to other components to achieve a desired field density and plasma distribution. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitation “the first cavity portion and the second cavity portion are constructed to adjust the propagated microwaves radiated by the slot antenna,” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP 2012049353) in view of Ishii et al. (US 20050082003), and Obama et al. (US 20120186747), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ishii (US 20010011525) and Ikeda et al. (US 20110018651), with Watanabe et al. (US 5276386) as an evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claim 15 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Tamura discloses wherein each said phase adjuster portion has a width in the circumferential direction that is equal to a width of each of a plurality of connection portions (spaces between waveguides 204-207) disposed between each adjacent pair of said phase adjusters (portions are imaginary subdivisions of a whole. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art can set respective portions of the spaces between waveguides 204-207 to be equal in width to the dielectric plates 211) [Tamura - Fig. 4-5, 10 & 0068, 0073-0074, 0086].
Alternatively/additionally, Ishii '525 does disclose that the dimensions of a wave guide is a result effective variable (the intensity of microwaves can be adjusted by adjusting the dimensions of waveguide) [Ishii '525 - 0014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the waveguides of Modified Tamura to achieve a desired microwave intensity [Ishii '525 - 0014]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is also noted that adjusting the dimensions of the waveguides of Tamura would also adjust the dimensions of the spaces between them.
Furthermore, Ikeda also discloses that dielectric thickness is a result effective variable. Specifically, the thickness of a dielectric in a waveguide can be adjusted to achieve desired microwave phases [Ikeda - 0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find optimum dimensions for phase adjusters, as in Ikeda, to obtain a desired microwave behavior [Ikeda - 0062]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Watanabe et al. (US 5276386) also discloses that the dimensions of dielectrics in a waveguide can be changed to modify phase velocity; Watanabe discloses dielectric dimension as a result effective variable [Watanabe - Col. 5 lines 40-42].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 under 35 USC 103 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a first cavity portion comprising an inner cavity; and a second cavity portion comprising a lower cavity formed between the first cavity portion and the dielectric window and disposed on a lower portion of the slot antenna, the slot antenna is arranged at a side surface of the first cavity portion and the opening is formed by a space sandwiched between an outer peripheral surface of an inner edge of the inner cavity and an inner peripheral surface of an outer edge of the inner cavity.” However, this argument is now moot because the argument does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Ishii et al. (US 20050082003) and Obama et al. (US 20120186747) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “that a mode of the propagated microwaves is a mode having microwaves of m wavelengths in an azimuth direction where m is an integer greater than or equal to 2,” because the applicant believes that the rationale used by the examiner to disclose this limitation was for “overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions.” The examiner would like to note that this was not the rationale that was used, but rather, a result effective variable rationale was used (See MPEP 2144.05.). To summarize, Ishii (US 20010011525) was used to disclose that the dimensions (the variable) of a waveguide can be changed/adjusted to achieve certain microwave behavior (the result) [Ishii '525 - 0014]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover optimum dimensions for a waveguide to achieve a desired microwave intensity [Ishii '525 - 0014].
Furthermore, the aforementioned limitation is merely an intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). A wave guide’s dimensions can be adjusted to obtain a desired microwave intensity [Ishii - 0014]. As such, the combination of references would be capable of achieving a desired microwave mode.
In addition, the examiner has also utilized a rejection under 35 USC 112b for the limitation “a ring resonator configured to resonate microwaves propagated through a circular waveguide having a circular cross section such that a mode of the propagated microwaves is a mode having microwaves of m wavelengths in an azimuth direction where m is an integer greater than or equal to 2.” Specifically, reference to a propagated microwave is indefinite because microwaves of different wavelengths can be supplied. This limitation is indefinite by reference to an object that is variable because a structure (structure/dimensions of the ring resonator) is claimed as a function of a variable (wavelengths of the propagated microwaves); the physical dimensions of the resonator is being claimed such that they are configured to propagate microwaves of unknown wavelengths. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). ). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, this limitation will be read as “a ring resonator configured to resonate microwaves propagated through a circular waveguide having a circular cross section
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein each said phase adjusters has a width in the circumferential direction that is equal to a width of each of a plurality of connection portions disposed between each adjacent pair of said phase adjusters,” because the interval between feeding points of Tamura et al. (JP 2012049353) is 67.5 degrees, and is thus fundamentally different from the claimed device. In response, the examiner would like to note that this physical characteristic is not present in the claims. Furthermore, the examiner disagrees that the device of Tamura is fundamentally different from the claimed invention, because both apparatuses are directed to microwave apparatuses with waveguides. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize both apparatuses as being analogous art.
Applicant further argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose the aforementioned limitation because they do not agree that a “portion” is an “imaginary subdivision of a whole.” In response, Merriam-Webster defines a portion as “an often limited part of a whole.” As such, this limited part is arbitrary and can be freely set by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, “the connection portion” can be set as an arbitrary, limited portion of the spaces between waveguides 204-207 of Tamura, wherein these “portions” can be arbitrarily set to equal a width of each phase adjuster (the individual dielectric plates 211 disposed within waveguides 204-207, respectively) arranged in a circumferential direction in the flat plate line portion [Tamura - Fig. 4-5, 10 & 0068, 0073-0074, 0086].
Additionally, Ishii '525 discloses that the dimensions of a wave guide is a result effective variable (the intensity of microwaves can be adjusted by adjusting the dimensions of waveguide) [Ishii '525 - 0014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the waveguides of Tamura to achieve a desired microwave intensity [Ishii '525 - 0014]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is also noted that adjusting the dimensions of the waveguides of Tamura would also adjust the dimensions of the spaces between them. As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size the connection portions of Tamura in such a way that they equal the widths of each respective phase adjuster.
The teachings of Ikeda et al. (US 20110018651) and Watanabe et al. (US 5276386) have also been further utilized herein to disclose “wherein each said phase adjusters has a width in the circumferential direction that is equal to a width of each of a plurality of connection portions disposed between each adjacent pair of said phase adjusters,” as additional/alternative references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718