DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 10/16/2025.
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 (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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 14-23 are pending.
Claims 2, 9, and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
For clarity of the record, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation: “wherein intensity of an electromagnetic field generated in a region adjacent to a part in which the slot is formed and a region adjacent to a part in which the slot is not formed is adjusted” (claims 1, 12, 20) is interpreted in light of the disclosure as a functionality resulting from the mere presence of the claimed slot in the cover member (see pg. 28, line 13- pg. 29, line 5, cited by Applicant on Remarks pg. 11 as support for the amendment). No additional structural features appear to be necessary to generate this EM field adjustment, thus if the prior art teaches the claimed slot, it is regarded as capable of performing and/or inherently possessing this functionality.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 20-21, and 23 are 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 claims 1 and 20, the limitation: “a plasma generation unit that is separated from and attached to the housing of the process treating unit” (similar in claim 20) is regarded as new matter. As is shown in instant Fig. 2, plasma generation unit #300 appears to be attached to diffusion unit #400, which is attached to process treating unit #100. Thus no attachment can be found between plasma generation unit #300 and housing #110 of process unit #100- the limitation appears to be new matter.
Regarding claims 3-8, 10-11, 21, and 23, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
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, 3-8, 10-11, 20-21, and 23 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 claims 1 and 20, the limitation: “a plasma generation unit that is separated from and attached to the housing of the process treating unit, in a position above the housing of the process treating unit” (similar in claim 20) is regarded as indefinite in light of the disclosure as a whole. As is shown in instant Fig. 2, plasma generation unit #300 appears to be attached to diffusion unit #400, which is attached to process treating unit #100. Thus no attachment can be found between plasma generation unit #300 and housing #110 of process unit #100 that would be consistent with the disclosure. Additionally, it is unclear how the plasma generation unit is to be simultaneously “separate from” yet “attached to” the process treating unit in light of the disclosure.
In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claims such that the plasma generation unit and process treating unit are merely parts of a rigidly attached apparatus.
Regarding claims 3-8, 10-11, 21, and 23, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11-12, 14, 16, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2014/0190635) in view of Yasui (US Pub. 2020/0402774) and Arai (JP-3736060-B2, using the translation for JPH1167494A as provided by Applicant on the IDS 10/30/2023).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Lee teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising: a process treating unit ([0047] and Fig. 1, process unit #100), a plasma generation unit ([0047] and Fig. 1, plasma generation unit #300) above the process treating unit (see Fig. 1) comprising an outer wall ([0051] and Fig. 1, housing #302), and an antenna ([0051] and Fig. 1, coil #303).
Lee does not teach a cover member surrounding an outside of the antenna, a shield member positioned between the antenna and the plasma chamber, wherein the cover member and the shield member are grounded.
However, Yasui teaches a cover member surrounding an outside of the antenna (Yasui - [0033] and Fig. 1, shield plate #223 radially outward of #212); and a shield member positioned between the antenna and the plasma chamber (Yasui - [0033] and Fig. 1, ES shield #400); wherein the cover member and the shield member are grounded ([0078]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Lee apparatus to comprise the cover member and shield of Yasui in order to shield from electric fields outside of the coil (Yasui – [0045]), to construct a resonant structure (Yasui – [0045] and [0068]-[0073]), and to minimize the influence of the electric field between the process vessel and the coil (Yasui – [0097]).
Modified Lee does not teach wherein the cover member has a slot extending from a top end of the cover member to a bottom end of the cover member.
However, Arai teaches wherein the cover member has a slot extending from a top end of the cover member to a bottom end of the cover member (Arai – pgs. 6-7 and Figs. 1-2, slits #16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Yasui apparatus to comprise the elongated slots of Arai in order to eliminate heating of the cover due to induced current (Arai – pgs. 6-7).
As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, modified Lee teaches the structural features of the cover member, thus is regarded as capable of having the functionality: “wherein intensity of an electromagnetic field generated in a region adjacent to a part in which the slot is formed and a region adjacent to a part in which the slot is not formed is adjusted”.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Lee modified by Yasui does not teach the added limitations of the claims.
However, Arai teaches wherein the slot is in a plurality, and the plurality of slots are apart from one another in a direction surrounding the antenna (Arai – pgs. 6-7 and Figs. 1-2, slits #16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Lee apparatus to comprise the elongated slots of Arai in order to eliminate heating of the cover due to induced current (Arai – pgs. 6-7).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lee teaches wherein the antenna comprises a coil part surrounding an outside of the plasma chamber in a plurality of turns (see Fig. 1), and the coil part has a ground terminal to be grounded and a power terminal to be supplied with a high frequency power (Fig. 1, upper end powered, lower terminal grounded).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, modified Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the cover member has a polygonal shape when seen from above.
However, the Examiner regards the difference between the circular shaped cover member of modified Lee and the polygonal cover of the instant claim to be an obvious matter of design choice. The courts have held that the configuration of an object was a matter of choice which a PHOSITA would have found obvious absent any persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration was significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claims 21-23, Lee teaches a diffusion unit as claimed ([0056] and Fig. 1, inlet duct #340 with diffusion space #341b connecting plasma generation unit #300 and process unit #100.
Claims 4-6, 10, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2014/0190635), Yasui (US Pub. 2020/0402774), and Arai (JP-3736060-B2), as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 11-12, 14, 16, and 19-23 above, further in view of Guo (US 5,944,899).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 7, 11-12, 14, 16, and 19-23 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Guo teaches wherein a length of a lengthwise direction of the cover member is a same or longer than a length of a lengthwise direction of the antenna (Guo – Fig. 1, #27 is longer in a vertical direction than the coil #25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Lee apparatus to comprise the cover of Guo in order to allow for active cooling of the coils (Guo – C3, L26-32).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Guo teaches wherein the plasma generation unit further comprises a fan unit supplying an airflow to a space between the cover member and the plasma chamber (Guo – C3, L26-33 and Fig. 1, fan #30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Lee apparatus to comprise the cover of Guo in order to allow for active cooling of the coils (Guo – C3, L26-32).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Guo teaches wherein the fan unit is installed at the cover member, and in a position not overlapping with the slot (Guo – C3, L26-33 and Fig. 1, fan #30 not covering #28).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Lee apparatus to comprise the cover of Guo in order to allow for active cooling of the coils (Guo – C3, L26-32).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Guo teaches wherein the cover member has a disk shape when seen from above (Guo - Figs. 1 and 2, cover #27 surrounds apparatus, Fig. 2 shows circular shape).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Lee apparatus to comprise the cover of Guo in order to allow for active cooling of the coils (Guo – C3, L26-32).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Guo teaches a fan unit supplying an airflow to a space between the cover member and the chamber to cool the chamber (Guo – C3, L26-33 and Fig. 1, fan #30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Lee apparatus to comprise the cover of Guo in order to allow for active cooling of the coils (Guo – C3, L26-32).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Guo teaches wherein a length of a lengthwise direction of the cover member is a same or longer than a length of a lengthwise direction of the antenna (Guo – Fig. 1, #27 is longer in a vertical direction than the coil #25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Lee apparatus to comprise the cover of Guo in order to allow for active cooling of the coils (Guo – C3, L26-32).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2014/0190635), Yasui (US Pub. 2020/0402774), and Arai (JP-3736060-B2), as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 11-12, 14, 16, and 19-23 above, further in view of Rhee (US Patent 10,109,459).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 7, 11-12, 14, 16, and 19-23 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Rhee teaches wherein the coil part comprises a plurality of coils, and each of the plurality of coils is independently connected to the power terminal and the ground terminal (Rhee - Fig. 2, dark and light coils connected as claimed).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coil of modified Lee to comprise a plurality of coils, since Rhee teaches having multiple coils allows for tunable dissipation of generated heat to prevent damage to the device or the generation of deleterious particles (Rhee – C11, L26-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pgs. 8-9) concerning the unitary structure of Yasui have been carefully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits Lee remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record regarding the amended claims and new claims 21-23.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pgs. 9) concerning the combination of Yasui and Arai have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
Particularly, Applicant alleges that the slots #412, 422, 452 of Yasui (Fig. 2) cannot be modified as suggested by Arai. This argument is not persuasive because it incorrectly identifies the slots #412, 422, 452 of the shield #400 Yasui as subject to further modification by Arai, when Arai teaches an additional slot that would modify shield plate #223 of Yasui, not #400.
The Examiner further notes an appropriate motivation for the combination has been supplied (see herein – pgs. 6-7 of Arai), thus a proper prima facie obviousness case appears to have been established.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 on (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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718