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 Amendment
The amendment filed 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 and 13-26 are pending.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 24-26 are newly added.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US 20150314233 A1) in view of Lazarovich (US 6685803 B2) and Polak (US 20200286712 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hur teaches an exhaust pipe apparatus functioning as a part of an exhaust pipe disposed between a process chamber and a vacuum pump that exhausts gas inside the process chamber (Hur, Fig. 1, [0044], plasma reactor 210 is disposed between process chamber 11 and vacuum pump 12, where the pump 12 exhausts gas from process chamber 11), the apparatus comprising: a dielectric pipe (Hur, Fig. 2, [0050], insulator 20 may be a pipe); a radio-frequency electrode to which a radio-frequency voltage is applied (Hur, Fig. 2, [0050], plasma is generated by power supplied from RF power supply 41 to electrode 40), the radio frequency electrode includes: a thin metal plate disposed on an outer periphery side of the dielectric pipe (Hur, Fig. 2, [0050], electrode 40 is fixed to the external circumferential surface of insulator 20, where electrode 40 is a metal [0052]), and a plasma generation circuit that generates plasma inside the dielectric pipe (Hur, Fig. 2, [0050], plasma is generated by power supplied from RF power supply 41 to electrode 40).
Hur fails to teach a buffer member disposed on an outer periphery side of the thin metal plate, and a conductive hollow structure having a space that surrounds the buffer member disposed on an outer periphery side of the buffer member and to which a radio-frequency voltage is applied, and one or more conductive parts that are in contact with the thin metal plate and in contact with the conductive hollow structure so that the thin metal plate and the conductive hollow structure are electrically connected by the one or more conductive parts.
However, Lazarovich teaches a buffer member disposed on an outer periphery side of the thin metal plate (Lazarovich, Fig. 8, C5 L5-13, Fig. 7, gap 120 is filled with electrically insulating silicone based paste) and a conductive hollow structure having a space that surrounds the buffer member (Lazarovich, Fig. 13, C6 L59-64, DBD electrode 400 is segmented with gaps in between each section and segments are made from metals) disposed on an outer periphery side of the buffer member (Lazarovich, Fig. 8, C7 L20-24, silicone sealing paste is used to secure DBD electrode 400 to pipe body 114, where DBD electrode 400 and electrodes 110+112 are equivalent).
Lazarovich is considered analogous art to claimed invention because it is in the same field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the segmented conductive hollow cathode structure of Lazarovich onto the exhaust pipe apparatus of Hur because such segmented configurations have been empirically found to improve abatement believed to be due to “the hollow cathode effect”, wherein plasma density is enhanced inside a hollow cathode (Lazarovich, C7 L1-4). It also would have been obvious to dispose the silicone-based paste of Lazarovich between the segmented hollow cathode structure and the exhaust pipe apparatus of Hur as doing so prevents the small gap present between mating surfaces to be filled, eliminating possible air gaps, which reduce plasma efficiency (Lazarovich, C5 L34-50).
While Hur modified by Lazarovich teaches disposing the silicone-based paste of Lazarovich between the segmented hollow cathode structure and the exhaust pipe apparatus of Hur, modified Hur fails to teach one or more conductive parts that are in contact with the thin metal plate and in contact with the conductive hollow structure so that the thin metal plate and the conductive hollow structure are electrically connected by the one or more conductive parts, as Lazarovich discloses the silicone paste is electrically insulating.
However, Polak teaches wherein a thermal transfer medium 608 can be arranged between the conductive coil 622 and the cylindrical chamber 620, where thermal transfer medium 608 can include a polymer with its thermal conductivity enhanced by including electrically conductive or dielectric, thermally-conductive particles such as a silicone with ceramic particles distributed therein (Polak, Fig. 6, [0050]). The conductive coil 622 is coupled to a power supply (Polak, Fig. 6, [0052]) and the multi-turn powered coil can include passages for fluid (Polak, Fig. 6, [0059]).
Polak is considered analogous art to claimed invention because it is in the same field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have included electrically conductive particles to silicone in the manner taught by Polak to the apparatus of modified Hur as doing so would allow enhancement of the thermal conductivity between the elements the silicone is disposed between (Polak, [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Hur teaches wherein the thin metal plate is disposed on the outer periphery side of the dielectric pipe in close contact with the dielectric pipe (Hur, Fig. 2, [0050], electrode 40 is fixed to the external circumferential surface of insulator 20).
Regarding claim 6, Hur teaches wherein the radio-frequency voltage is applied to the thin metal plate (Hur, Fig. 2, [0050], plasma is generated by power supplied from RF power supply 41 to electrode 40).
Hur fails to teach wherein the radio-frequency voltage is applied to the hollow structure, and the radio-frequency voltage is applied to the thin metal plate via the hollow structure, and the hollow structure and the thin metal plate are electrically at substantially a same potential.
However, Lazarovich teaches wherein the radio-frequency voltage is applied to the hollow structure (Lazarovich, Fig. 14, C7 L56-64, high frequency AC power supply 518 supplies power to electrodes 512/514). Therefore, the combination of the RF powered hollow structure of Lazarovich with the apparatus of Hur would allow for the radio-frequency voltage to applied from the hollow structure of Lazarovich to the thin metal plate of Hur via the buffer layer (Lazarovich, Fig. 8, C5 L5-13, Fig. 7, gap 120 is filled with electrically insulating silicone-based paste), thereby making it such that the hollow structure and the thin metal plate are electrically at substantially a same potential.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the segmented conductive hollow cathode structure of Lazarovich onto the exhaust pipe apparatus of Hur because such segmented configurations have been empirically found to improve abatement believed to be due to “the hollow cathode effect”, wherein plasma density is enhanced inside a hollow cathode (Lazarovich, C7 L1-4), and therefore gain the benefits of such structure while effectively still maintaining the singular side-mounted RF power connection configuration, similar to the manner of Hur.
Regarding claim 7, Hur fails to teach an outer pipe disposed outside the radio-frequency electrode; and a second cooling mechanism configured to introduce a second refrigerant into a space between the dielectric pipe and the outer pipe and cool the dielectric pipe and the space between the dielectric pipe and the outer pipe.
However, Lazarovich teaches an outer pipe disposed outside the radio-frequency electrode and a second cooling mechanism configured to introduce a second refrigerant into a space between the dielectric pipe and the outer pipe and cool the dielectric pipe and the space between the dielectric pipe and the outer pipe (Lazarovich, C15 L39-50, DBD reactors have cooling feature where a housing substantially encloses the reactor, and air flow is provided to contact the dielectric tube, reactors, and electrodes to cool them).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have interposed the segmented conductive hollow cathode and buffer structure of Lazarovich in between the RF power supply and thin metal electrode of Hur because doing so would provide the air cooling features of Lazarovich to the apparatus of Hur, which lacks cooling features.
Regarding claim 8, Hur fails to teach wherein the second refrigerant is cooling gas.
However, Lazarovich teaches wherein the second refrigerant is cooling gas (Lazarovich, C15 L39-50, air is used in cooling feature).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have interposed the segmented conductive hollow cathode and buffer structure of Lazarovich in between the RF power supply and thin metal electrode of Hur because doing so would provide the air cooling features of Lazarovich to the apparatus of Hur, which lacks cooling features.
Regarding claim 9, Hur fails to teach wherein the cooling gas in introduced at a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure.
However, Lazarovich teaches wherein the cooling gas is introduced (Lazarovich, C15 L39-50, DBD reactors have cooling feature where a housing substantially encloses the reactor, and air flow is provided to contact the dielectric tube, reactors, and electrodes to cool them) at a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have interposed the segmented conductive hollow cathode and buffer structure of Lazarovich in between the RF power supply and thin metal electrode of Hur because doing so would provide the air cooling features of Lazarovich to the apparatus of Hur, which lacks cooling features.
To clarify the record, the claim limitation “introduced at a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure” is merely an intended use and is given patentable 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 11, Hur fails to teach wherein the hollow structure includes one half and an other half, the one half hollow structure and the other half hollow structure obtained by halving a circumference of a cylindrical shape, a first space is formed in the one half hollow structure and a second space is formed in the other half hollow structure, and the hollow structure is formed as a combination of the one half hollow structure and the other half hollow structure.
However, Lazarovich teaches wherein the hollow structure includes one half and an other half, the one half hollow structure and the other half hollow structure obtained by halving a circumference of a cylindrical shape (Lazarovich, C6 L29-39, Fig. 11 and 13, electrode segments 410 and 420 are half rings that are joined together by securing means, such as bolts 224 and 226, Fig. 10), a first space is formed in the one half hollow structure and a second space is formed in the other half hollow structure, and the hollow structure is formed as a combination of the one half hollow structure and the other half hollow structure (Lazarovich, Fig. 13, C6 L59-64, DBD electrode 400 is segmented with gaps in between each section and segments are made from metals).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have used the half ring hollow structures of Lazarovich because it facilitates the ease of removal or replacement of the electrodes (Lazarovich, C7 L11-25). As well, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have used the half ring hollow structures of Lazarovich because the cavities of such structures allow for a cooling medium to cool the electrode and reactor components (Lazarovich, C15 L39-50).
Regarding claim 14, Hur fails to teach wherein the one half hollow structure and the other half hollow structure are electrically connected.
However, Lazarovich teaches wherein the one half hollow structure and the other half hollow structure are electrically connected (Lazarovich, C6 L29-39, Fig. 11 and 13, electrode segments 410 and 420 are half rings that are joined together by securing means, such as bolts 224 and 226 made of metal, which form a high conductivity of electrical connection between the two segments).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have used bolts to connect the half ring hollow structures of Lazarovich because it facilitates the removal or replacement of the electrodes, while maintaining electrical connection integrity for RF power application (Lazarovich, C7 L11-25).
Regarding claim 15, Hur fails to teach wherein the buffer member includes one half buffer member and the other half buffer member obtained by halving a circumference of a cylindrical shape, and the buffer member is formed as a combination of the one half buffer member and the other half buffer member.
However, Lazarovich teaches wherein the buffer member includes one half buffer member and the other half buffer member obtained by halving a circumference of a cylindrical shape, and the buffer member is formed as a combination of the one half buffer member and the other half buffer member (Lazarovich, Fig. 6-10, C5 L5-13, gap 120 is filled with electrically insulating silicone based paste applied on inner circumference of half cylindrical members 212+214).
It would have been obvious to dispose the silicone-based paste of Lazarovich between each of the two parts of the segmented hollow cathode structure and the exhaust pipe apparatus of Hur as doing so prevents the small gap present between mating surfaces to be filled, eliminating possible air gaps, which reduce plasma efficiency (Lazarovich, C5 L34-50).
Regarding claim 16, Hur teaches a thin metal plate (Hur, Fig. 2, [0050], electrode 40 is fixed to the external circumferential surface of insulator 20, where electrode 40 is a metal [0052]).
Hur fails to teach wherein the buffer member is disposed so as to be in close contact with the thin metal plate with the thin metal plate sandwiched by the one half buffer member and the other half buffer member.
However, Lazarovich teaches wherein the buffer member is disposed between each half buffer member and the other half buffer member (Lazarovich, Fig. 6-10, C5 L5-13, gap 120 is filled with electrically insulating silicone based paste applied on inner circumference of half cylindrical members 212+214). Therefore, the combination of the two half buffer members of Lazarovich around the thin metal plate of Hur meet the limitation of wherein the buffer member is disposed so as to be in close contact with the thin metal plate with the thin metal plate sandwiched by the one half buffer member and the other half buffer member.
It would have been obvious to dispose the silicone-based paste of Lazarovich between each of the two parts of the segmented hollow cathode structure and the exhaust pipe apparatus of Hur as doing so prevents the small gap present between mating surfaces to be filled, eliminating possible air gaps, which reduce plasma efficiency (Lazarovich, C5 L34-50).
Regarding claim 17, Hur fails to teach wherein the one half buffer member is disposed on an inner surface side of the one half hollow structure, and the other half buffer member is disposed on an inner surface side of the other half hollow structure.
However, Lazarovich teaches wherein the one half buffer member is disposed on an inner surface side of the one half hollow structure, and the other half buffer member is disposed on an inner surface side of the other half hollow structure (Lazarovich, Fig. 6-10, C5 L5-13, gap 120 is filled with electrically insulating silicone based paste applied on inner circumference of half cylindrical members 212+214).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the segmented conductive hollow cathode structure of Lazarovich onto the exhaust pipe apparatus of Hur because such segmented configurations have been empirically found to improve abatement believed to be due to “the hollow cathode effect”, wherein plasma density is enhanced inside a hollow cathode (Lazarovich, C7 L1-4). It also would have been obvious to dispose the silicone-based paste of Lazarovich between the segmented hollow cathode structure and the exhaust pipe apparatus of Hur as doing so prevents the small gap present between mating surfaces to be filled, eliminating possible air gaps, which reduce plasma efficiency (Lazarovich, C5 L34-50).
Regarding claim 26, Hur fails to teach wherein the conductive hollow structure includes: an inner surface disposed on the outer periphery side of the buffer member, an outer surface facing the inner surface, a first end surface connected to the inner surface and the outer surface, a second end surface connected to the inner surface and the outer surface, the inner surface and the outer surface being extended from the first end surface to the second end surface along the buffer member, and a cavity surrounded by the inner surface, the outer surface, the first end surface, and the second end surface.
However, Lazarovich teaches wherein the conductive hollow structure includes: an inner surface disposed on the outer periphery side of the buffer member, an outer surface facing the inner surface, a first end surface connected to the inner surface and the outer surface, a second end surface connected to the inner surface and the outer surface, the inner surface and the outer surface being extended from the first end surface to the second end surface along the buffer member, and a cavity surrounded by the inner surface, the outer surface, the first end surface, and the second end surface Lazarovich, Figs. 9 and 13, [0051]-[0055], electrode 212 is a cylinder with and outer wall and an inner wall, where the outer wall and inner wall are connected by two separate members, and where the electrodes can have hollow spaces in between the heat sink elements 421-418).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have used the half ring hollow structures of Lazarovich because it facilitates the ease of removal or replacement of the electrodes (Lazarovich, C7 L11-25). As well, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have used the half ring hollow structures of Lazarovich because the cavities of such structures allow for a cooling medium to cool the electrode and reactor components (Lazarovich, C15 L39-50).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US 20150314233 A1) in view of Lazarovich (US 6685803 B2) and Polak (US 20200286712 A1), as applied in claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 above, and further in view of Shibata (US 20060042545 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hur fails to teach a first cooling mechanism configured to introduce a first refrigerant into a space in the hollow structure and cool the dielectric pipe via the buffer member and the thin metal plate.
However, Shibata teaches a first cooling mechanism configured to introduce a first refrigerant into a space in the hollow structure (Shibata, Fig. 18, [0130], hollow electrodes 23+24 circulate cooling water in channels 27), and cool the dielectric pipe via the buffer member and the thin metal plate.
Shibata is considered analogous art to the claim invention because it is in the same field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the hollow cathode structure of Lazarovich to utilize the cooling structure of Shibata as doing so would allow for direct water cooling of the electrodes during plasma operation (Shibata, [0130]) instead of the air cooling of Lazarovich.
To clarify the record, the claim limitation “and cool the dielectric pipe via the buffer member and the thin metal plate” is merely an intended use and is given patentable 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hur fails to teach wherein the first refrigerant is cooling water.
However, Shibata teaches wherein the first refrigerant is cooling water (Shibata, Fig. 18, [0130], hollow electrodes 23+24 circulate cooling water in channels 27).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the hollow cathode structure of Lazarovich to utilize the cooling structure of Shibata as doing so would allow for direct water cooling of the electrodes during plasma operation (Shibata, [0130]) instead of the air cooling of Lazarovich.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US 20150314233 A1) in view of Lazarovich (US 6685803 B2) and Polak (US 20200286712 A1), as applied in claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 above, and further in view of Okumura (US 20050276928 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hur fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the thin metal plate is thinner than a thickness of the hollow structure.
However, Okumura teaches wherein a thickness of the thin metal plate is thinner than a thickness of the hollow structure (Okumura, Fig. 1, [0092]-[0094], susceptor 12 has hollow spaces 44 and is thicker than electrode 40a, where insulating films 40b and 40c are disposed between).
Okumura is considered analogous art to the claim invention because it is in the same field of plasma processing apparatuses. While Okumura teaches a pedestal, the structure and function of the pedestal is similar to the hollow cathode (susceptor 12 with hollow spaces 44, to which RF power is applied), buffer (insulating films 40b and 40c), and electrode (electrode 40a). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to one ordinarily skilled in the art to have made the hollow cathode thicker than the thin metal electrode because effectively, both components perform the same operation of receiving RF power, but the hollow cathode must accommodate space for additional cavities. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the hollow cathode is thicker than the thin metal plate, such as in Okumura, Fig. 1.
Claims 10, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US 20150314233 A1) in view of Lazarovich (US 6685803 B2) and Polak (US 20200286712 A1), as applied in claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20140004009 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hur fails to teach a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure in the space between the dielectric pipe and the outer pipe.
However, Lee teaches a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure in the space between the dielectric pipe and the outer pipe (Lee, Fig. 4, [0057], sensor unit 250 measures space between conduit 210 and outer pipe 240 for changes in fluid characteristics).
Lee is considered analogous art to the claim invention because it is in the same field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have implemented the sensor unit of Lee because doing so would allow for the benefit of detection of anomalous conditions within the space, and automatically stop the operation of the plasma reactor (Lee, [0057]).
To clarify the record, the claim limitation “measure a pressure” is merely an intended use and is given patentable 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hur fails to teach a flange that is disposed on an end side of the dielectric pipe and configured to fix the dielectric pipe, wherein the flange is grounded, and the plasma is generated by a potential difference between the radio-frequency electrode and the flange.
However, Lee teaches a flange that is disposed on an end side of the dielectric pipe and configured to fix the dielectric pipe (Lee, Fig. 4, [0055], sealing flanges 242 are provided on both ends of dielectric conduit 210) wherein the flange is grounded, and the plasma is generated by a potential difference between the radio-frequency electrode and the flange (Lee, Fig. 4, [0040], flange 242 is in contact with ground electrode 280, and plasma is generated between electrode unit 220 and ground electrode 280).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have implemented the flange of Lee because doing so would provide for a dual pipe structure in which the external pipe would contain any process byproducts should the internal pipe leak (Lee, [0054).
Regarding claim 20, Hur teaches a ring-shaped protrusion disposed on an inner side of the dielectric pipe so as to extend from the flange toward the radio-frequency electrode (Hur, Fig. 10B, [0090], protrusion part 325 is connected to grounded surface 329, is located concentric to dielectric tube 20, and extends towards driving electrode 40).
While the protrusion presented by Hur is not ring-shaped (open in the center and solid on the edges), it is solid in the center and open on the edges, whereby gas flow can still be maintained through the apparatus and it serves the same purpose of a grounded plasma electrode. Therefore, the structural and functional characteristics of the limitation are met and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 22, Hur fails to teach a flange disposed on an end portion side of the dielectric pipe, wherein in a state where the flange is grounded, the plasma generation circuit applies a radio- frequency voltage to the hollow structure.
However, Lee teaches a flange disposed on an end portion side of the dielectric pipe (Lee, Fig. 4, [0055], sealing flanges 242 are provided on both ends of dielectric conduit 210), wherein in a state where the flange is grounded (Lee, Fig. 4, [0040], flange 242 is in contact with ground electrode 280).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have implemented the flange of Lee because doing so would provide for a dual pipe structure in which the external pipe would contain any process byproducts should the internal pipe leak (Lee, [0054).
Hur modified by Lee fails to teach wherein the plasma generation circuit applies a radio- frequency voltage to the hollow structure.
However, Lazarovich teaches the plasma generation circuit applies a radio- frequency voltage to the hollow structure (Lazarovich, Fig. 14, C7 L56-64, high frequency AC power supply 518 supplies power to electrodes 512/514).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the segmented conductive hollow cathode structure of Lazarovich onto the exhaust pipe apparatus of modified Hur because such segmented configurations have been empirically found to improve abatement believed to be due to “the hollow cathode effect”, wherein plasma density is enhanced inside a hollow cathode (Lazarovich, C7 L1-4), and therefore gain the benefits of such structure while effectively still maintaining the singular side-mounted RF power connection configuration, similar to the manner of Hur.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US 20150314233 A1) in view of Lazarovich (US 6685803 B2) and Polak (US 20200286712 A1), as applied in claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20140004009 A1) and Shibata (US 20060042545 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hur fails to teach a first cooling mechanism.
However, Shibata teaches a first cooling mechanism (Shibata, Fig. 18, [0130], hollow electrodes 23+24 circulate cooling water in channels 27).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the hollow cathode structure of Lazarovich to utilize the cooling structure of Shibata as doing so would allow for direct water cooling of the electrodes during plasma operation (Shibata, [0130]) instead of the air cooling of Lazarovich.
Modified Hur in view of Shibata fails to teach wherein the first cooling mechanism includes a pipe configured to connect the first space of the one half hollow structure and the second space of the other half hollow structure.
However, Lee teaches wherein the first cooling mechanism includes a pipe configured to connect the first space of the one half hollow structure and the second space of the other half hollow structure (Lee, Fig. 3, [0060], cooling unit 260 has inlet 262 and outlet 264).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the pipes of Lee to connect the hollow structure cavities as doing so would provide circulation of the cooling fluid through all channels and cavities, preventing damage due to heat to the electrode unit (Lee, [0059]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hur fails to teach an outer pipe disposed outside the radio-frequency electrode; and an introduction terminal that is introduced from outside to inside of the outer pipe and is connected to the radio-frequency electrode.
However, Lee teaches an outer pipe disposed outside the radio-frequency electrode (Lee, Fig. 4, [0052], external pipe 240 encloses electrode unit 220); and an introduction terminal that is introduced from outside to inside of the outer pipe and is connected to the radio-frequency electrode (Lee, Fig. 4, [0056], wiring holes 244 in external pipe 240 allow connection between electrode unit 220 and power supply 270).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have implemented the outer pipe and sensor unit of Lee because doing so would provide for a dual pipe structure in which the external pipe would contain any process byproducts should the internal pipe leak (Lee, [0054).
Modified Hur in view of Lee fails to teach wherein the radio-frequency voltage is applied to the hollow structure via the introduction terminal.
However, Shibata teaches wherein the radio-frequency voltage is applied to the hollow structure (Shibata, Fig. 18, [0130], power source 6 is connected to hollow electrodes 23+24). Therefore, the combination of the hollow electrode structure of Shibata (Shibata, Fig. 18, [0130], power source 6 is connected to hollow electrodes 23+24) with the outer pipe and wiring holes of Lee (Lee, Fig. 4, [0056], wiring holes 244 in external pipe 240 allow connection between electrode unit 220 and power supply 270) would allow for the radio-frequency voltage to be applied to the hollow structure via the introduction terminal.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the hollow electrodes of Shibata because doing so would allow for direct water cooling of the electrodes during plasma operation (Shibata, [0130]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US 20150314233 A1) in view of Lazarovich (US 6685803 B2), Polak (US 20200286712 A1), and Okumura (US 20050276928 A1), as applied in claim 4 above, and further in view of Parkhe (US 20190078204 A1).
The limitations of claim 4 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 21, modified Hur fails to explicitly teach wherein the thickness of the thin metal plate is 0.1 mm to 3 mm.
However, Parkhe teaches wherein the thickness of the thin metal plate is 0.1 mm to 3 mm (Parkhe, Fig. 3, [0021], electrodes 312 and 314 can be 1mm in thickness). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Parkhe is considered analogous art to claimed invention because it is in the same field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have chosen the thickness of the thin metal plate as taught by Parkhe to be able to effectively induce an electric field to affect the process gas passing through the pipe while still being disposed on an outer surface of the pipe (Parkhe, [0021]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US 20150314233 A1) in view of Lazarovich (US 6685803 B2) and Polak (US 20200286712 A1), as applied in claim 11 above, and further in view of Komori (US 20150047565 A1).
The limitations of claim 11 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 23, modified Hur fails to teach a first cooling mechanism configured to introduce a first refrigerant into the first space in the hollow structure and cool the dielectric pipe via the buffer member and the thin metal plate, wherein the first refrigerant is refrigerant that overflows from an upper portion of the first space and is supplied to a lower portion of the second space in the hollow structure.
However, Lazarovich teaches a first cooling mechanism configured to introduce a first refrigerant into the first space in the hollow structure and the second space in the hollow structure (Lazarovich, [0084], DBD cells/reactors are provided with a suitable cooling feature which includes a housing substantially enclosing the DBD cells/reactor therein, and providing an air flow for contacting the tube of the cell or reactor).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have interposed the segmented conductive hollow cathode and buffer structure of Lazarovich in between the RF power supply and thin metal electrode of Hur because doing so would provide the air cooling features of Lazarovich to the apparatus of Hur, which lacks cooling features.
Modified Hur fails to teach wherein a first refrigerant is introduced into the first space in the hollow structure, and wherein the first refrigerant is refrigerant that overflows from an upper portion of the first space and is supplied to a lower portion of the second space in the hollow structure.
While Komori does not explicitly teach the claim limitation above, Komori teaches a jacket body 106 having an internal hollow space that is filled with coolant, where coolant introduction nozzle 116 injects coolant into bottom internal volume of jacket body 106, and the inlet of coolant discharge nozzle 118 is located at the top of the internal volume of jacket body 106, and that the coolant discharged from nozzle 118 can be connected to the coolant inlet 88, which enters at the bottom of cooling jacket 80A and exits via coolant outlet 90, located at the top of cooling jacket 90A (Komori, Fig. 2, [0046]). Komori is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of process gas effluent treatment. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the inlet/outlet arrangements of coolant as taught by Komori to each half of the DBD reactors of Lazarovich as doing so would ensure that the coolant does not exit the cooling bodies until the coolant fully fills the internal volume of each body (Komori, [0046]).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur (US 20150314233 A1) in view of Lazarovich (US 6685803 B2) and Polak (US 20200286712 A1), as applied in claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 above, and further in view of Tsuji (US 20210102289 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 5-9, 11, 14-17, and 26 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 24, modified Hur fails to teach wherein the conductive parts are screws.
However, Tsuji teaches wherein the conductive parts are screws (Tsuji, Fig. 12, [0035], connection plate portions 60a-60d can be fixed to one another with a conductive adhesive or screw fastening).
Tsuji is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the paste of Polak with screws as Tsuji teaches they are equivalents known for the same purpose. Polak teaches wherein a thermal transfer medium 608 can be arranged between the conductive coil 622 and the cylindrical chamber 620, where thermal transfer medium 608 can include a polymer with its thermal conductivity enhanced by including electrically conductive or dielectric, thermally-conductive particles such as a silicone with ceramic particles distributed therein (Polak, Fig. 6, [0050]). Tsuji teaches that the elements 60a-60d to which power is applied of connection plate 60 can be fixed with a conductive adhesives or screw fastenings such that the elements 60a-60d are maintained at desired temperatures via thermally secured contact (Tsuji, [0035]-[0041). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Regarding claim 25, modified Hur fails to teach wherein a tip of the conductive parts are in contact with the conductive hollow structure.
However, Tsuji teaches wherein a tip of the conductive parts are in contact with the conductive hollow structure (Tsuji, Fig. 12, [0035], connection plate portions 60a-60d can be fixed to one another with a conductive adhesive or screw fastening).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the paste of Polak with screws as Tsuji teaches they are equivalents known for the same purpose. Polak teaches wherein a thermal transfer medium 608 can be arranged between the conductive coil 622 and the cylindrical chamber 620, where thermal transfer medium 608 can include a polymer with its thermal conductivity enhanced by including electrically conductive or dielectric, thermally-conductive particles such as a silicone with ceramic particles distributed therein (Polak, Fig. 6, [0050]). Tsuji teaches that the elements 60a-60d to which power is applied of connection plate 60 can be fixed with a conductive adhesives or screw fastenings such that the elements 60a-60d are maintained at desired temperatures via thermally secured contact (Tsuji, [0035]-[0041). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 02/02/2026, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited references teach the claim limitation “one or more conductive parts that are in contact with the thin metal plate and in contact with the conductive hollow structure so that the thin metal plate and the conductive hollow structure are electrically connected by the one or more conductive parts”, as newly amended in claim 1. The Examiner maintains that the combination of references Lazarovich and Polak are capable of meeting the claim limitations as currently written, detailed in the 103 rejections section above. Further limiting subject matter presented in dependent claims 24-25 regarding the conductive parts as screws are rejected using new reference Tsuji.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights