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Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 13-14, and 16 are withdrawn.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 and 15 have been amended.
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.
Claim 1-4, 8, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the slot antenna is arranged only at a side surface of the first cavity portion so as to not overlap with any portion of the sample table in a plan view.” There is insufficient support in the written specification for this claim; the written specification does not provide written support that the slot antenna does not overlap with any portion of the sample table in plan view. Rather, it seems that the applicant is relying on the drawings as support for this limitation. However, the drawings are not to scale and they don’t, by themselves, provide sufficient support that the slot antenna does not overlap with any portion of the sample table in plan view.
There is also insufficient support in the written specification for the slot antenna being arranged “only” at a side surface of the first cavity portion. As shown in Fig. 1, the structure comprising slot antenna 111 is not only disposed at a side surface of the first cavity portion, rather the slot antenna 111 is disposed next to the second cavity portion and the ring resonator 110 as well. As such, it is unclear how the slot antenna 111 is disposed strictly only at the side surface of the first cavity portion when the slot antenna 111 interfaces multiple other structures that are not the first cavity portion.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 8, 11-12, and 17:
Claims 2-4, 8, 11-12, and 17 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the slot antenna is arranged only at a side surface of the first cavity portion so as to not overlap with any portion of the sample table in a plan view.” There is insufficient support in the written specification for this claim; the written specification does not provide written support that the slot antenna does not overlap with any portion of the sample table in plan view. Rather, it seems that the applicant is relying on the drawings as support for this limitation. However, the drawings are not to scale and they don’t, by themselves, provide sufficient support that the slot antenna does not overlap with any portion of the sample table in plan view.
There is also insufficient support in the written specification for the slot antenna being arranged “only” at a side surface of the first cavity portion. As shown in Fig. 1, the structure comprising slot antenna 111 is not only disposed at a side surface of the first cavity portion, rather the slot antenna 111 is disposed next to the second cavity portion and the ring resonator 110 as well. As such, it is unclear how the slot antenna 111 is disposed strictly only at the side surface of the first cavity portion when the slot antenna 111 interfaces multiple other structures that are not the first cavity portion.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claims 18 is rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1-4, 8, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 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 “wherein the slot antenna is arranged only at a side surface of the first cavity portion so as to not overlap with any portion of the sample table in a plan view.” This limitation is indefinite because there is insufficient support in the written specification (see the rejection under 35 USC 112a above). As such, it is unclear how this limitation is to be interpreted. For the purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “wherein the slot antenna is arranged and wherein the opening does not overlap with any portion of the sample table in a plan view.”
Regarding Claims 2-4, 8, 11-12, and 17:
Claims 2-4, 8, 11-12, and 17 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the slot antenna is arranged only at a side surface of the first cavity portion so as to not overlap with any portion of the sample table in a plan view.” This limitation is indefinite because there is insufficient support in the written specification (see the rejection under 35 USC 112a above). As such, it is unclear how this limitation is to be interpreted. For the purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “wherein the slot antenna is arranged and wherein the opening does not overlap with any portion of the sample table in a plan view.”
Regarding Claim 18:
Claims 18 is rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
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), Obama et al. (US 20120186747), and Ishii (US 20010011525).
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 on a sample table (substrate electrode 110); 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 ‘003 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).
Modified Tamura does not specifically disclose wherein the opening is arranged so as to not overlap with any portion of the sample table.
Although Ishii '525 does not specifically disclose "wherein the opening is arranged so as to not overlap with any portion of the sample table," Ishii does disclose that slot dimensions are result effective variables. Specifically, Ishii '525 discloses that it is possible to change the intensity of microwaves by adjusting the dimension of the cross section of each of the antenna waveguides and adjusting the dimension of each of the slots and the interval between adjacent slots every antenna waveguide [Ishii '525 - 0014]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find optimum dimensions for slots to obtain a desired microwave intensity. 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 noted that one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust slot dimensions such that the slots don't overlap with a susceptor.
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), Obama et al. (US 20120186747), and Ishii (US 20010011525, as applied to claims 1-4, 8, and 11-12 above, and further in view of 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), Obama et al. (US 20120186747), and Ishii (US 20010011525).
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 on a sample table (substrate electrode 110); 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 ‘003 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.
Modified Tamura does not specifically disclose wherein the opening is arranged so as to not overlap with any portion of the sample table.
Although Ishii '525 does not specifically disclose "wherein the opening is arranged so as to not overlap with any portion of the sample table," Ishii does disclose that slot dimensions are result effective variables. Specifically, Ishii '525 discloses that it is possible to change the intensity of microwaves by adjusting the dimension of the cross section of each of the antenna waveguides and adjusting the dimension of each of the slots and the interval between adjacent slots every antenna waveguide [Ishii '525 - 0014]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find optimum dimensions for slots to obtain a desired microwave intensity. 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 noted that one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust slot dimensions such that the slots don't overlap with a susceptor.
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 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant’s amendments has necessitated new rejections under 35 USC 112b and 112a.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the slot antenna is arranged only at a side surface of the first cavity portion so as to not overlap with any portion of the sample table in a plan view.” However, this amendment has necessitated new rejections under 35 USC 112a and 112b (see the rejection above). As such, for the purposes of the prosecution on the merits, the limitation has been read as “wherein the slot antenna is arranged and wherein the opening does not overlap with any portion of the sample table in a plan view.”
The applicant’s arguments against this interpretation would not be persuasive because Ishii (US 20010011525) discloses that it is possible to change the intensity of microwaves by adjusting the dimension of the cross section of each of the antenna waveguides and adjusting the dimension of each of the slots and the interval between adjacent slots every antenna waveguide [Ishii '525 - 0014]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find optimum dimensions for slots to obtain a desired microwave intensity. 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 noted that one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust slot dimensions such that the slots don't overlap with a susceptor. Therefore, the combination of references would disclose the limitation as it is currently being interpreted.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights