DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 2/11/2026.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 17 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
To clarify the record, the Examiner notes claims 1 and 15 do not recite the processing chamber as a structural element of the plasma generation assembly or plasma generation cell, respectively. As such, limitations of claims 1-7 and 15-20 reciting the processing chamber are merely recitations of intended use and do not add any additional structure.
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 1-2, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy (US Pub. 2020/0312630) in view of Brcka (US Pub. 2008/0308409), Hsieh (US Pub. 2010/0147219), and Watanabe (US Pub. 2021/0233748).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Ramaswamy teaches a plasma processing system (Fig. 1A, entirety), comprising: a processing chamber ([0032] and Fig. 1A, chamber body #100) configured to house a substrate within a first region of the processing chamber ([0032] and Fig. 1A, workpiece #96 within processing zone #92); a support structure disposed within the processing chamber (Fig. 1A, ceiling #110 and plate #190), the support structure forming a set of ducts (Figs. 1A/B, portions of each cell allowing for insertion of #116); and at least one plasma generation cell selectively removable from and selectively replaceable within the support structure (Fig. 1A, point sources #90, each element could be removed and replaced as they are distinct/separate structures), the plasma generation cell comprising: a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) structure (see as follows) comprising a set of electrodes ([0032] and Fig. 1A, electrodes #118) disposed along a first dielectric surface ([0038] and Fig. 1A, lower ceiling #104 is a dielectric) and covered by a second dielectric layer ([0032] and Fig. 1A, dielectric walls #116), wherein the DBD structure is configured to initiate plasma discharge within a plasma processing chamber ([0015]); a stem configured to interface with one of the set of ducts (Fig. 1A, upper portion of each cell directly below #110 for wire routing) and electrical terminals ([0035] and Fig. 1A, power conductors #120) configured coupling the DBD structure with an electric driving network ([0035] and Fig. 1A, to power source #124).
Ramaswamy does not explicitly teach wherein the plasma generation cell is distinct and separate from the support structure.
However, Brcka teaches wherein individual plasma cells can be formed as part of a unitary structure (similar to Ramaswamy) or individually removable from a support structure (Brcka – [0051]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to make the plasma generation cells of Ramaswamy to be separate from the support structure since Brcka teaches such an arrangement can enhance control over uniformity (Brcka – [0065]).
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully submits that the above proposed modification amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (unitary or detached structure). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Modified Ramaswamy does not teach wherein the plasma generation cell is coupled to the support structure by at least one of a friction fit, quick release coupling, compression nut, threaded connector, or elastomeric member (Brcka is silent as to the exact mechanical coupling structure).
However, Hsieh teaches wherein an electrode is attached by threaded connector (Hsieh – [0052], [0055]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a threaded connector similar to Hsieh for the coupling mechanism of modified Ramaswamy in order to allow for selective replacement and easy removal of electrode components (Hsieh – [0052]). It is noted that Hsieh also discloses: “[a]ny other suitable method for attaching the electrode ring 534 to the electrode body 102 can also be employed” (par. [0055]).
Modified Ramaswamy does not appear to teach wherein the electrical terminals pass through an end/upper face of the stem, opposite the DBD structure.
However, Watanabe teaches this structure (Watanabe – Fig. 6, terminals P11/ P12 extend upwards from electrodes 11/12 respectively, through lid #1 into an upper space)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the horizontal connection structure of modified Ramaswamy with the vertical connection structure of Watanabe as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
The Examiner submits that a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning chemistry, electronics, and physics. As such, the Examiner submits that a PHOSITA would be capable of changing the connection structure of the cells of Ramaswamy to any number of different configurations, as desired.
The Examiner further submits that the above proposed modification would result in predictable results, as Watanabe teaches a fully functional dielectric barrier discharge apparatus for wafer processing (similar type to Ramaswamy).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Ramaswamy teaches a plurality of plasma generation cells ([0032] and Fig. 1A, multiple point sources #90), wherein each of the plurality of plasma generation cells is selectively removable from and selectively replaceable within the support structure (see Fig. 1A, each element could be removed and replaced as they are distinct/separate structures).
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy (US Pub. 2020/0312630), Brcka (US Pub. 2008/0308409), Hsieh (US Pub. 2010/0147219), and Watanabe (US Pub. 2021/0233748), as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15 above, further in view of Yagi (US Pub. 2014/0217882).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, Ramaswamy teaches the electrical terminals (see Fig. 1A as set forth above).
Modified Ramaswamy does not appear to teach wherein the electrical terminals extend from the end of the stem/upper face of the cell.
However, Watanabe teaches this structure (Watanabe – Fig. 6, terminals P11/ P12 extend upwards from electrodes 11/12 respectively, through lid #1 into an upper space)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the horizontal connection structure of modified Ramaswamy with the vertical connection structure of Watanabe as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See the rejection of claim 1 for the rest of the Graham factors.
Modified Ramaswamy does not teach wherein: each of the set of electrodes are covered by a third dielectric layer positioned on a first end of the DBD structure; the third dielectric layer is configured to operate within vacuum conditions of the processing chamber.
However, Yagi teaches a stacked dielectric/electrode structure meeting the limitations (Yagi – [0029] and Fig. 2, plasma generating device #51 with dielectric layers #3 and electrodes #9 and #11).
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 electrode structure of modified Ramaswamy to that of Yagi in order to efficiently generate/utilize plasma (Yagi – [0014]) with a small footprint (Yagi – [0106]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Ramaswamy teaches wherein each of the electrical terminals are configured to extend to a position outside the processing chamber under atmospheric pressure (Fig. 1A, #120 extends outward of #126), wherein the stem (Fig. 1A, upper portion of each cell directly below #110 for wire routing) extends through the support structure (Fig. 1A, ceiling #110 and plate #190) and away from the processing chamber (see Fig. 1A, away from #92).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Ramaswamy teaches wherein the electrical terminals are disposed on the first dielectric surface, and wherein a portion of one or more electrodes extends to a position outside the processing chamber (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Ramaswamy teaches a portion of the one or more electrodes extending to the position outside the processing chamber (see Fig. 1A).
Modified Ramaswamy does not teach a fourth dielectric layer.
However, Yagi teaches a stacked dielectric/electrode structure meeting the limitations (Yagi – [0029] and Fig. 2, plasma generating device #51 with dielectric layers #3 and electrodes #9 and #11; [0030]: can comprise additional layers).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the electrode structure of Ramaswamy to that of Yagi in order to efficiently generate/utilize plasma (Yagi – [0014]) with a small footprint (Yagi – [0106]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Brcka and Hsieh remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Long (US Pub. 2022/0384144) teaches a plasma array with a plurality of sources (Fig. 3).
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
Prosecution Insights