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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 19-20 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 12 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments, see pp. 13-15, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-6, 20, 12, 15 under 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20220384144 to Long.
Regarding the objections to the drawings, specifically the first set of ducts, second set of ducts—Applicant states in the response to arguments (p. 13) that they are channels 422 and channels through connection elements 406. Examiner requests that Applicant use their own “already recited” lexicography from the specification, in the claims, for clarity. The drawings objections are hereby maintained.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s remaining arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first set of ducts, second set of ducts, boundaries must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Support structure (holding structure, para. [0048]) in at least claims 1-18.
Plasma generation cells (stems, plasma generating structures, para. [0050]) in at least claims 1-18.
Sealing structure (connection structure (para. [0055]) in at least claim 7.
Boundary structure (walls, para. [0069]) in at least claim 1, 12.
Plasma generating elements (electrodes, base structure, dielectric layer, electrical leads, para. [0063, 0065]) in at least claims 12-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Cover structure (connection structure, para. [0052]) in at least claim 4.
Boundaries (walls, para. 0054]) in at least claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220384144 to Long in view of US 20180002203 to Yokoyama.
Claim 1: Long discloses a plasma processing system, comprising: a processing chamber (110/130, Fig. 1) configured to house a substrate (114 [workpiece]) within a first region of the processing chamber (inside 110 of 110/130); a support structure (136 [base plate], Fig. 2) disposed within the processing chamber (110/130), the support structure (136) forming a first set of ducts (140 [apertures], Fig. 4), the support structure (136) comprising a set of boundary structures (walls around 140) extending from the support structure (136) towards the first region of the processing chamber (inside 110 of 110/130), wherein each of the set of boundary structures (walls around 140) is disposed between proximately positioned plasma generation cells (133 [hybrid plasma sourcelets]) of a plurality of plasma generation cells (133, para. [0040]);
the plurality of plasma generation cells (133) each disposed on a corresponding duct (140) of the first set of ducts (140), wherein each of the plurality of plasma generation cells (133) is configured to be selectively activated or deactivated (para. [0041]), wherein, responsive to being activated, the plasma generation cell (133) is considered capable to supply plasma related fluxes to the first region of the processing chamber (110/130, para. [0030]); and
a network of electrical connectors (184 [RF feed], Fig. 8A) coupled to each of the plurality of plasma generating cells (133, para. [0043]), wherein the network of electrical connectors (184) are configured to supply electrical signals that selectively activate or deactivate individual plasma generation cells (133, para. [0043]).
However Long does not disclose the cells disposed within a corresponding duct.
Yokoyama teaches that plasma electrodes (12A, Fig. 1-5) can be either embedded within or disposed on a ceramic structural body (18) for the purpose of improving the energy efficiency of plasma generation (para. [0011]).
Additionally, the courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the options of arrangement as taught by Yokoyama with motivation to improve the energy efficiency of plasma generation.
Claim 4: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama discloses further comprising a cover structure (142 [brackets], Fig. 8A, Long) forming a second set of ducts (144 of 146), wherein the plurality of plasma generation cells (133) are further disposed within a corresponding duct of the second set of ducts (144 of 146).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama discloses wherein the support structure (136, Fig. 2-7, Long) and the cover structure (142) form a second region (130) of the processing chamber (110/130), wherein the processing chamber (110/130) further comprises a gas inlet (151 [gas distribution channel]) configured to supply a process gas to the second region of the processing chamber (130 of 110/130, para. [0030]).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama discloses wherein the support structure (136, Fig. 2-7, Long) forms one or more gas injection sites (252/254, Fig. 11) configured to deliver the process gas to a corresponding plasma generating element (133) of each of the plurality of plasma generation cells (133, para. [0048]).
Claim 10: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama discloses wherein each plasma generation cell (133, Fig. 2-7, Long) comprises an individual electrical connector (electrical connector connected to 134, Fig. 1) coupled to the network of electrical connectors (184) at a position outside the processing chamber (outside of 110/130, para. [0030]).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Yokoyama as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 10 above, and further in view of US 20030007910 to Diamant Lazarovich.
Claims 2-3, 9: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama does not explicitly disclose (claim 2) wherein the network of electrical connectors is configured to selectively activate or deactivate one of the plurality of plasma generation cells independently from other plasma generation cells of the plurality of plasma generation cells; (claim 3) wherein the network of electrical connectors is configured to selectively activate or deactivate each of the plurality of plasma generation cells independently from other plasma generation cells of the plurality of plasma generation cells; (claim 9) wherein the network of electrical connectors is configured to: selectively activate or deactivate a first set of the plurality of plasma generation cells together, wherein each cell of the first set are only activated or deactivated together; and selectively activate or deactivate a second set of the plurality of plasma generation cells together and independent from the first set of the plurality of plasma generation cells, wherein each cell of the second set are only activated or deactivated together.
Diamant Lazarovich discloses a plurality of plasma generation cells (“DBD cells”, Fig. 19-20) which are connected to electrical connectors (1018-1028 [electrical connectors]) which their own power supplies (1012-1016, para. [0071-0072]); wherein the plurality of plasma generation cells (1018-1028) can be selectively activated or deactivated independently or in groups (para. [0073-0076]) for the purpose of providing less thermal stress on the equipment and less waste heat (para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrical connectors power requirements as taught by Diamant Lazarovich with motivation to provide less thermal stress on the equipment and less waste heat.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Yokoyama as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 10, and further in view of US 20080308409 to Brcka.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover structure comprises a sealing structure configured to form a seal between the cover structure and each of the plurality of plasma generation cells.
However Brcka teaches that regarding the microcells, vacuum sealing can be done by methods known in the art for the purpose of forming a simplified assembly of a plasma source (para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sealing option(s) as taught by Brcka with motivation to form a simplified assembly of a plasma source.
Claim 8: (Cancelled).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Yokoyama as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 10 above, and further in view of US 20200258717 to Gandhiraman.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of plasma generation cells is selectively removable from and selectively replaceable in the support structure.
Gandhiraman discloses wherein each of a plurality of plasma cells (“modules”) is selectively removable from and selectively replaceable in the support structure (modular assembly, para. [0212]) for the purpose of allowing for deposition and treatment of surfaces in many different applications (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Gandhiraman with motivation to allow for deposition and treatment of surfaces in many different applications.
Claim(s) 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220384144 to Long in view of US 20180002203 to Yokoyama.
Claim 12: Long discloses a plasma generation assembly, comprising: a support structure (136 [base plate], Fig. 2) configured to be disposed within a processing chamber (110/130), the support structure (136) forming a first set of ducts (140 [apertures], Fig. 4), the support structure (136) comprising a set of boundary structures (walls around 140) extending from the support structure (136) towards the first region of the processing chamber (inside 110 of 110/130), wherein each of the set of boundary structures (walls around 140) is disposed between proximately positioned plasma generation cells (133 [hybrid plasma sourcelets]) of a plurality of plasma generation cells (133, para. [0040]);
the plurality of plasma generation cells (133) each disposed on a corresponding duct (140) of the first set of ducts (140), wherein each of the plurality of plasma generation cells (133) comprises:
a plasma generating element (133) configured to be selectively activated or deactivated (para. [0041]), wherein, responsive to being activated, the plasma generating element (133) is considered capable to supply plasma related fluxes to the first region of the processing chamber (110/130, para. [0030]); and
a network of electrical connectors (184 [RF feed], Fig. 8A) coupled to the plasma generating element (133, para. [0043]), wherein the network of electrical connectors (184) are configured to supply electrical signals that selectively activate or deactivate the plasma generating element (133, para. [0043]).
However Long does not disclose the cells disposed within a corresponding duct.
Yokoyama teaches that plasma electrodes (12A, Fig. 1-5) can be either embedded within or disposed on a ceramic structural body (18) for the purpose of improving the energy efficiency of plasma generation (para. [0011]).
Additionally, the courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the options of arrangement as taught by Yokoyama with motivation to improve the energy efficiency of plasma generation.
Claim 15: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama discloses wherein the support structure (136, Fig. 2-7, Long) forms one or more gas injection sites (252/254, Fig. 11) configured to deliver the process gas to a corresponding plasma generating element (133) of each of the plurality of plasma generation cells (133, para. [0048]).
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Yokoyama as applied to claims 12, 15 above, and further in view of US 20030007910 to Diamant Lazarovich.
Claims 13-14, 16: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama does not explicitly disclose (claim 13) where the network of electrical connectors is configured to selectively activate or deactivate one of the plurality of plasma generation cells independently from other plasma generation cell of the plurality of plasma generation cells; (claim 14) where the network of electrical connectors is configured to selectively activate or deactivate each of the plurality of plasma generation cells independently from other plasma generation cells of the plurality of plasma generation cells; (claim 16) wherein a first set of the plurality of plasma generation cells are configured to be selectively activated or deactivated together; and a second set of the plurality of plasma generation cells are configured to be selectively activated or deactivated together and independent from the first set of the plurality of plasma generation cells.
Diamant Lazarovich discloses a plurality of plasma generation cells (“DBD cells”, Fig. 19-20) which are connected to electrical connectors (1018-1028 [electrical connectors]) which their own power supplies (1012-1016, para. [0071-0072]); wherein the plurality of plasma generation cells (1018-1028) can be selectively activated or deactivated independently or in groups (para. [0073-0076]) for the purpose of providing less thermal stress on the equipment and less waste heat (para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrical connectors power requirements as taught by Diamant Lazarovich with motivation to provide less thermal stress on the equipment and less waste heat.
Claim 17: (Cancelled).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Yokoyama as applied to claims 12, 15 above, and further in view of US 20200258717 to Gandhiraman.
Claim 18: The apparatus of Long in view of Yokoyama does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the plurality of plasma generation cells is selectively removable from and selectively replaceable in the support structure.
Gandhiraman discloses wherein each of a plurality of plasma cells (“modules”) is selectively removable from and selectively replaceable in the support structure (modular assembly, para. [0212]) for the purpose of allowing for deposition and treatment of surfaces in many different applications (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Gandhiraman with motivation to allow for deposition and treatment of surfaces in many different applications.
19-20. (Withdrawn)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240170261 discloses a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) edge plasma generator (709, Fig. 7) including a plurality of electrodes (705), and plasma source (138, para. [0046]). US 11466366 discloses a plurality of discharge cells (70, Fig. 1) includes first electrode portions (1 and 2) and second electrode portions (5, 31, and 3), with openings (102) is formed so as to penetrate the first dielectric (2) and the low voltage electrode (1). US 20220384144 discloses a plasma source array (130, Fig. 3) coupled to an RF power generator (134, Fig. 1) having a dielectric tube (170) and inductively coil (180) surrounding the tube (para. [0042-0044], Fig. 8A-8D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights