DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on April 30, 2026. Claim 71 is amended.
The applicant contends that paragraphs [0185]-[0186] clearly establish that each of the first support portion (4111), the support top plate (41121), and the support bottom plate (41122) are insulated from each other and function as discharge electrodes. Thus, the instant invention discloses three distinct and insulated discharge electrodes, whereas the cited prior art discloses only two (pp. 8-9).
In response, the examiner concurs with the spirit of the argument and suggests the following amendments to advance the case towards allowance. Firstly, the examiner requests stipulating that the claimed acts of insulation are electrical in nature, e.g., electrically insulated. Secondly, it must be clarified that the first support portion is configured to support a workpiece so as to distinguish over prior art teaching a showerhead of layered configuration yet unequipped to bear a substrate.
As written, the contested limitation – “the support top plate and the support bottom plate are insulated from each other…[and] configured to serve as discharge electrodes” – reads upon an embodiment where two plates composing the same showerhead are thermally insulated from the other. And given that these two plates are structurally distinct and conductive, they may each be designated as electrode; collectively, then, they would satisfy the claimed limitation of “electrodes” tautologically.
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 of this title, 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 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seshimo et al., US 2018/0182652, in view of Agarwal et al., US 2010/0248488, and Fukuoka et al., US 2004/0069230.
Seshimo discloses coating equipment for coating a workpiece, comprising a reaction chamber device (8) provided with a reaction chamber (22) (Fig. 1). Within said chamber, Seshimo disposes a multi-layered support, each support layer comprising a first support portion (31) disposed atop a second support portion (35) via an insulating member (37) (Fig. 3). The second support portion comprises top and bottom support plates which structure a space for temporarily storing gas, and gas outlets (36) are formed within the bottom plate to supply gas to a subjacent workpiece [0035-36]. The gas between the top and bottom support plates may serve as an insulator. Although the apparatus may be configured for capacitive plasma, Seshimo is silent regarding this particular operation [0039].
In supplementation, Agarwal discloses an exemplary capacitive plasma system comprising a first support portion (136) configured as a discharge electrode for a pulse power supply (144) and a second support portion (108) for feeding gas to the workpiece disposed on the first support portion (Fig. 1). Both of the first and second support portions are configured to serve as discharge electrodes for respective RF power supplies (148, 140) [0028]. It would have been obvious to configure Seshimo’s capacitive system in accordance with the paradigm established by Agarwal to achieve plasma generation, as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill. In view of Agarwal’s guidance, one would be motivated to couple an RF power supply to Seshimo’s second support portion and two RF supplies to the first support portion, as modeled by Figure 1 of Agarwal.
Lastly, Seshimo’s schematic renderings do not appear to show a proper electrode plate constituting the first support portion such that it can serve as the claimed “discharge electrode.” Fukuoka, however, discloses an analogous system of stacked, multi-layer supports where the first support portion (4) is constituted by a conductive plate which, in turn, is disposed upon a conductive second support portion (34) which feeds gas to a workpiece below ([0072-73]; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to constitute Seshimo’s first support portion as an electrode in order to establish a capacitive relationship with the electrode of the second support portion, thereby inducing the electric field necessary to ionize the processing gas.
Claims 88-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seshimo in view of Agarwal and Fukuoka, and in further view of Gorin et al., US 4,264,393.
Claim 88: Seshimo is silent regarding the matter of spacing between two support parts but Gorin, disclosed previously and of analogous construction to Seshimo’s apparatus, suggests a spacing of 0.5 inches, which is equivalent to nearly 13 millimeters (3, 45-47). This spacing is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to adopt this spacing within Seshimo’s system, as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233).
Claim 89: Gorin does not address the diameter of the gas outlets, but given the similarity of the dimension of Gorin’s support part (307 mm) to Applicant’s support part, the examiner understands that one of ordinary skill would have been capable of deriving the claimed aperture size via routine experimentation, as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Claim 90: Gorin attests that the support part may be 12” x 12”, i.e., 307 mm x 307 mm, but the “ultimate size is a matter of design choice to accomplish the specific task.” Further, Gorin states that the “area of the plates 12, 14 is somewhat arbitrary and can be made as large as necessary to accommodate the required size of the workpiece” (3, 47-56). In view of the preceding, the examiner understands that one of ordinary skill, through routine experimentation responsive to variable constraints such as workpiece size, would have been capable of arriving at the claimed dimensions.
Claim 93 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seshimo in view of Agarwal and Fukuoka, and in further view of Engle, US 4,289,598.
Seshimo does not address the connectivity of the support posts bearing the support parts. Remedying the deficiency is Engle, who situates a workpiece frame (30) within a plasma reactor (10) (Fig. 2). A series of electrodes (34) are situated within the frame and electrically coupled to the adjacent posts, wherein a Teflon member (48), i.e., the “insulating part,” is disposed at the bottom end of a frame to electrically isolate the frame from the reaction chamber (3, 30-36; 3, 65ff; Fig. 4).
Claim 95 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seshimo in view of Agarwal and Fukuoka, and in further view of Bolden, II et al., US 2009/0288773, and Suzuki et al., US 2008/0241379.
Seshimo is silent regarding the material composition of the chamber. In supplementation, Bolden nominates stainless steel as an optimal material choice for a processing chamber operating under vacuum conditions [0024]. Further, Suzuki attests that polishing the inner surface of a chamber to below 0.5 microns inhibits the adhesion of extraneous deposits, which the examiner understands to render obvious the claimed threshold [0088]. As such, it would have been obvious to compose the reaction chamber of polished stainless steel, as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Kinoshita et al., US 5,795,452. Kinoshita provides a reaction chamber (1) comprising a discharge device (6) and a gas supply part (4), whereby a multi-layered support bears workpieces at a preset spacing (7, 44ff; Fig. 4).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights