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 .
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 21 Jan 2025 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 Dec 2024 has been entered.
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 31 Dec 2024 and RCE filed 21 Jan 2025.
Claims 2-20 are pending. Claims 2, 7, 8, 9 are amended. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn. Claim 1 is canceled.
Drawings
Examiner acknowledges that the amendments filed 31 Dec 2024 to the drawings Fig. 6 corrects drawing objection discussed in the non-final rejection of 04 June 2024 and final rejection of 07 Nov 2024.
Specification
Specification objections discussed in the final rejection of 07 Nov 2024 are withdrawn in light of amended Drawings and amended Specification filed 31 Dec 2024.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner interprets “plasma processor” (claim 1) as comprising a body, chamber, vessel, tube, or wall in light of Fig. 6 and Specification page 30 line 13, 15, 17, 20; page 31 line 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 (and depending claims 2-9) rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in light of amendments to the Specification and Drawings filed 31 Dec 2024.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (JP2000160317A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Kuo (US 2007/0235417 A1).
Regarding independent claim 2, Matsuo teaches a plasma processing device (comprising plasma spraying apparatus, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0010]-[0014]) comprising:
a power supply unit (comprising power source 13, Fig. 1, para. [0011]);
process gas discharging duct (comprising through hole 11a, Fig. 1
a plasma electrode (comprising cathode 12, Fig. 1) connected to the power supply unit (comprising 13, Fig. 1); and
a gas direction changer (comprising guide vanes 14 and spaces/grooves between the guide vanes 14, Fig. 1 and 2) disposed entirely downstream of the plasma electrode (comprising 12, Fig. 1),
wherein the gas direction changer includes a groove portion (comprising channels between guide vanes 14, Fig. 1) defined on an inner side thereof (as understood from Fig. 1 and 2), and wherein the groove portion has a spiral shape on the inner side of the gas direction changer (para. [0010]),
wherein a plasma flowpath is defined between the plasma electrode (comprising 12, Fig. 1) and the process gas discharging duct (comprising 11a, Fig. 1), and wherein the gas direction changer is positioned at an axial position at which the plasma flowpath has a minimum diameter.
See annotated Fig. 1 and 2 of Matsuo below.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
302
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsuo does not clearly and explicitly teach a plasma processor in which the plasma electrode is installed; the process gas discharging duct connected to the plasma processor; the gas direction changer is between the plasma processor and the process gas discharging duct.
However, Kuo teaches a plasma processing device (comprising plasma jet electrode device, Fig. 1 -5, abstract, para. [0021]-[0046] ) comprising: a plasma electrode (comprising metal electrode 40, Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5) connected to the power supply unit (para. [0028]); a plasma processor (comprising coping 60 and orientation base 10, Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5) in which the plasma electrode (comprising 40, Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5) is installed (para. [0021]); a process gas discharging duct (comprising spray head 72, Fig. 1, 3, 5; comprising spray head 74, Fig. 4; para. [0023],[0038], [0040]-[0041]) connected to the plasma processor (comprising 10 and 60, Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5) (para. [0023]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a plasma processor such that the plasma electrode is installed within the plasma processor and to additionally connect the process gas discharging duct (Matsuo: comprising 11a, Fig. 1) to the plasma processor because Kuo teaches that this is a known suitable alternative configuration of a plasma processing device wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the plasma processor would enable holding the plasma electrode (Matsuo: comprising 12, Fig. 1) in place with respect to the anode (Matsuo: comprising 11, Fig. 1) and would also enable containing the plasma generated in the device. Additionally, when modifying Matsuo to include the plasma processor of Kuo, the resulting apparatus would have the gas direction changer (Matsuo: comprising channels between guide vanes 14, Fig. 1) is between the plasma processor and the process gas discharging duct.
Regarding claim 3, Matsuo in view of Kuo teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 above and Matsuo further teaches wherein the groove portion (comprising channel regions between 14, Fig. 1 and 2) has a predetermined angle with respect to the inner side of the gas direction changer (as understood from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuo in view of Kuo teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 2 as applied above but does not explicitly teach that the process gas is discharged as a linear flow when passing through the plasma processor and the process gas is discharged as a turbulent flow when passing through the gas direction changer.
However, Matsuo teaches that the gas direction changer creates a spiral flow of gas (para. [0010]).
Kuo further teaches flowing process gas through the plasma processor (comprising 60, Fig. 10) the process gas is discharged as a turbulent flow of spiral/swirling gas when passing through the gas direction changer (comprising 30, Fig. 1-5) (para. [0027]). Kuo teaches the turbulent swirling gas flow enables fully mixing and spraying of the plasma (para. [0027]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the process gas flow would necessarily be a linear flow when passing through the plasma processor since the gas direction changer (Kuo: comprising 30, Fig. 1-5) is configured to form a turbulent flow, implying that the flow of gas flowing through the plasma processor (Kuo: comprising 60, Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5) is not at a turbulent flow, and would therefore be a “linear flow,” before flowing through the gas direction changer (Kuo: comprising 30, Fig. 1-5).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus such that the process gas flows in the plasma processor and such that the process gas is discharged as a linear flow when passing through the plasma processor and the process gas is discharged as a turbulent flow when passing through the gas direction changer (Matsuo: comprising channels between guide vanes 14, Fig. 1 and 2) because Kuo teaches that such a configuration of producing a spiral/swirling flow enables fully mixing and spraying the plasma (Kuo: para. [0027]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (JP2000160317A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Kuo (US 2007/0235417 A1) as applied to claims 2, 3 above and further in view of Renault et al. (US 7,126,080 B1 hereinafter “Renault”).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuo in view of Kuo teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) above 2, 3 above but does not explicitly teach the predetermined angle (of the groove portion) is about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees.
However, Matsuo teaches the gas direction changer having the groove portion (comprising the channels/flowpath between guide vanes 14, Fig. 1 and 2) provides spiral swirling flow to the plasma (para. [0010]).
Additionally, Renault teaches the predetermined angle of the groove portion in a gas direction changer is about 60 degrees. See annotated Fig. 7 below. Renault teaches that such a configuration is suitable for providing a fully developed spiral/swirling flow (abstract, col 5 line 50-67).
PNG
media_image3.png
799
1263
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the predetermined angle (of the groove portion) to be about 60 degrees because Renault teaches that such a configuration is known to produce a fully developed swirling flow for suitable plasma processing.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (JP2000160317A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Kuo (US 2007/0235417 A1) as applied to claims 2, 3 above and further in view of Sanders et al. (US 4,902,871 hereinafter “Sanders”) and Horner-Richardson et al. (US 2003/0034333 A1 hereinafter “Horner-Richardson”).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuo in view of Kuo teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 3 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein a depth of the groove portion is about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 2 mm.
However, Sanders teaches that a depth of a spiral gas flow groove (comprising 48, Fig. 2) in a plasma processing device (comprising plasma arc torch 10, Fig. 2) is 0.080 inch (i.e. about 2.032 mm) or at least 0.040 inch (i.e. about 1.016 mm) (col 4 line 5-43).
Further, Horner-Richardson teaches a plasma processing device (comprising plasma arc torch, abstract, Fig. 1-12) that a depth of a gas flow groove (comprising 84, Fig. 10c) is a result-effective variable that affects the turbulence of the gas flow (para. [0072]).
Without evidence of unexpected results, the depth of the groove portion cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the depth of the groove portion because Sanders provides an example of a known groove depth and Horner-Richardson further teaches that a groove depth is a result-effective variable that affects turbulence of gas flow wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the depth of the groove portion to optimize the turbulence of the gas flow in the plasma processing device for optimal plasma processing.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (JP2000160317A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Kuo (US 2007/0235417 A1) as applied to claims 2, 3 above and further in view of Kim et al. (WO2014007472A1 hereinafter “Kim”) and Renault et al. (US 7,126,080 B1 hereinafter “Renault”).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuo in view of Kuo teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 3 as applied above wherein Matsuo further teaches wherein the spiral shape of the groove portion (comprising the channels/flowpath between guide vanes 14, Fig. 1 and 2) is disposed at an equal interval (as understood from Fig. 2).
Matsuo in view of Kuo does not explicitly teach the predetermined angle is about 45 degrees, and the equal interval is about 10 mm.
However, Kuo teaches a plasma processing device comprising a gas direction changer (comprising 30, Fig. 1 and 2), wherein an angle, with respect to vertical axis, of the grooves (comprising holes 31, Fig. 1 and 2) formed in a gas direction changer (comprising 30, Fig. 1 and 2) is 45 degrees to suitably form a swirling/turbulent flow (para. [0027]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the groove portion to have a predetermined angle of about 45 degrees because Kuo teaches this is a known suitable alternative angle in a gas direction changer of a plasma processing device suitable for producing a swirl flow in the plasma.
Additionally, or alternatively, Kuo teaches, as discussed in detail above, that an angle of the groove portion is a result-effective variable affecting the swirling/flow of the gas.
Without evidence of unexpected results, the predetermined angle of the groove portion cannot be considered critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the angle of the groove portion in because Kuo teaches an example of angle of the groove portion and further teaches that the angle of the groove portion is a result-effective variable that can be optimized to affect/optimize the swirling of the plasma gas flow for optimized plasma processing.
Matsuo in view of Kuo as applied above does not explicitly teach the equal interval is about 10 mm.
However, Kim teaches a plasma device (abstract) including a spiral groove portion (comprising 115, Fig. 10, para. [0050]) having an interval between adjacent groove portions being several millimeters to several centimeters (para. [0050]), wherein Kim teaches that such a configuration enables the groove portion to maintain a spiral gas flow (para. [0052]).
Additionally, Renault teaches adjusting the interval/pitch to tailor for optimum swirl based on type of gas and current (col 7 line 21-26). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the interval is a result-effective variable affecting the swirl of the plasma.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine optimization, the equal interval/pitch of the groove portion and Kim provides an example interval of the groove portion suitable for maintaining a spiral/swirl gas flow and because Renault teaches that the interval of a groove portion is a result-effective variable that can be optimized to affect the spiral/swirl flow of the plasma for optimal plasma processing.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa (US 2008/0050291A1) in view of Kuo (US 2007/0235417 A1) and Fan et al. (US 2017/0002463 A1 hereinafter “Fan”).
Regarding independent claim 8, Nagasawa teaches a plasma processing device (comprising plasma generation device, Fig. 1, para. [0030]-[0048]) comprising:
a power supply unit (comprising pulse power supply 11, Fig. 1, para. [0043]);
a plasma electrode (comprising electrode bar 1, Fig. 1, para. [0031]) connected to the power supply unit (comprising 11, Fig. 1);
a plasma processor (comprising casing 4 and cylindrical electrode 2, Fig. 1, para. [0033]) in which the plasma electrode (comprising 1, Fig. 1) is installed;
a process gas discharging duct (comprising opening at the end of support member 9, Fig. 1, para. [0040]) connected to the plasma processor (comprising 4, Fig. 1); and
a gas direction changer (comprising electrode plate 3, Fig. 1) disposed entirely downstream of the plasma electrode between the plasma processor (comprising 4, Fig. 1) and the process gas discharging duct (comprising opening at end of support member 9, Fig. 1),
wherein the gas direction changer (comprising 3 and an inner opening of 9, Fig. 1) includes a nozzle (comprising inner opening of 9, Fig. 1) and a gas direction changing filter (comprising 3, Fig. 1) disposed to traverse an inside of the nozzle (comprising inner opening of 9, Fig. 1),
wherein the gas direction changing filter (comprising 3, Fig. 1) defines a hole (comprising 3a, Fig. 1) therein.
PNG
media_image4.png
592
1113
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Nagasawa does not explicitly teach wherein the gas direction changing filter defines a plurality of holes therein; wherein the plurality of holes are the only openings in the gas direction changing filter, and each of the plurality of holes is configured to provide a rotation force to processing gas passing therethrough.
However, Nagasawa teaches a different embodiment in Fig. 8 having a gas direction changing filter defining a plurality of holes (comprising 303a, Fig. 8) therein, wherein the plurality of holes are the only openings in the gas direction changing filter.
Additionally, Kuo teaches a plasma processing device (comprising plasma jet electrode device, Fig. 1 -5, abstract, para. [0021]-[0046] ) comprising a gas direction changing filter (comprising spray head 72, Fig. 1) defining a plurality of holes (comprising 73, Fig. 1) therein, wherein the plurality of holes are the only openings in the gas direction changing filter, wherein the gas direction changing filter is suitable for spraying the plasma (para. [0023]).
Further, Fan teaches a plasma processing device (Fig. 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, para. [0005], [0021]) a gas direction changing filter (comprising second gas plate 150B, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C) defining a plurality of holes (comprising 154 and 153, Fig. 2C) configured (via angled/tilted hole configuration see Fig. 2C) to provide a rotation force to the processing gas passing therethrough (para. [0024]-[0027], [0031]). Fan teaches such a configuration enables uniform process gas distribution (para. [0031]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the gas direction changing filter to define a plurality of holes therein; wherein the plurality of holes are the only openings in the gas direction changing filter, and each of the plurality of holes is configured (i.e. via tilting/angling of the holes) to provide a rotation force to processing gas passing therethrough because Nagasawa teaches/suggests a gas direction changing filter to define a plurality of hole therein wherein the plurality of holes are the only openings in the gas direction changing filter wherein Kuo teaches/suggests that such a configuration enables spraying the plasma and Fan further teaches/suggest that angling/tilting the holes of the gas direction changer enables providing a rotation force wherein such a configuration enables uniform process gas distribution for optimal plasma processing.
Regarding claim 9, Nagasawa in view of Kuo and Fan teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 8 as applied above but does not explicitly teach that the process gas is discharged as a linear flow when passing through the plasma processor and the process gas is discharged as a turbulent flow when passing through the gas direction changer.
However, Fan teaches that the gas direction changer having the angled/tilted holes creates a spiral/vortex flow of gas which enables uniform gas distribution (para. [0025],[0031]).
Kuo further teaches flowing process gas through the plasma processor (comprising 60, Fig. 10) and when process gas is discharged through an angled hole a turbulent flow is created (para. [0027]). Kuo teaches the turbulent swirling gas flow enables fully mixing and spraying of the plasma (para. [0027]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the process gas flow would necessarily be a linear flow when passing through the plasma processor since flowing gas through the angled holes enables forming a turbulent flow (Kuo: para. [0027]), implying that the flow of gas flowing through the plasma processor (Kuo: comprising 60, Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5) is not at a turbulent flow, and would therefore be a “linear flow,” before flowing through the angled holes (Kuo: comprising holes 31, Fig. 1-5).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus such that the process gas flows in the plasma processor and such that the process gas is discharged as a linear flow when passing through the plasma processor and the process gas is discharged as a turbulent flow when passing through the gas direction changer (Nagasaw: comprising 3, Fig. 1 modified in claim 8 to have a plurality of angled holes) because Fan teaches that angled holes enable a spiral/vortex flow which enables uniform process gas distribution and because Kuo teaches angled holes generates a spiral/swirling flow which is turbulent and enables fully mixing and spraying the plasma (Kuo: para. [0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 Dec 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 13-14) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of limitations previously presented in claim 1 and currently claims in amended claim 2 and 8, that Kuo does not teach the gas direction changer to be disposed entirely downstream of the plasma electrode and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Kuo to dispose the round plate 30 entirely downstream of the metal electrode 40 because it would render the apparatus of Kuo to be inoperable for its intended purpose of producing and spraying low-temperature non-equilibrium plasma.
Examiner responds claim 2 and 8 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 2 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Kuo and claim 8 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa in view of Kuo and Fan, as detailed in claims rejections above. Teachings of Kuo have been modified/applied differently as discussed in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remark page 15) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of limitations previously presented in claim 1 and currently claimed in amended claim 2 and 8, that Descamps fails to teach a gas direction changer disposed entirely downstream of the plasma electrode between the plasma processor and the process gas discharging duct.
Examiner responds Descamps is no longer cited in the current rejections and therefore Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 15) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of limitations previously presented in claim 1 and currently claimed in amended claim 2 and 8, that Arata teaches vortex flow producing nozzle 13 is a mechanism of injecting working gas GS and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the vortex flow producing nozzle 13 of Arata as corresponding to the round plate 30 of Kuo and, as such, would not modify the round plate 30 of Kuo in view of the position of the vortex flow producing nozzle 13.
Examiner responds Arata is no longer cited in the current rejections and therefore Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 16) regarding amended claim 8, Kuo fails to teach the plurality of holes being the only openings in the gas direction changing filter, and each of the plurality of holes being configured to provide a rotation force to processing gas passing therethrough. Descamps does not describe the restrictive flow disc and thus also fails to teach amended claim 8.
Examiner responds claim 2 and 8 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 2 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Kuo and claim 8 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa in view of Kuo and Fan, as detailed in claims rejections above. Teachings of Kuo have been modified/applied differently as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Examiner responds Descamps is no longer cited in the current rejections and therefore Applicant’s arguments directed toward Descamps are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 16) regarding amended claim 8, Arata does not does not disclose any structure that could correspond to a gas direction changing filter disposed to traverse an inside of the nozzle, wherein the gas direction changing filter defines a plurality of holes therein, and wherein the plurality of holes are the only openings in the gas direction changing filter, and each of the plurality of holes is configured to provide a rotation force to processing gas passing therethrough.
Examiner responds Arata is no longer cited in the current rejections and therefore Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 17-18) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of limitations previously presented in claim 1 and now currently in amended claim 2, that Renault fails to teach the claimed position of the gas direction changer disposed entirely downstream of the plasma electrode and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the gas distributor 28 that forms the helical gas passageways 52 of Renault to be downstream of the plasma electrode 24 because such a modification would no longer prolong the life of the electrode, defeating the entire purpose of the gas distributor forming the swirling flow in the helical gas passageways 52.
Examiner responds claim 2 and 8 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 2 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Kuo and claim 8 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa in view of Kuo and Fan, as detailed in claims rejections above. Renault is no longer cited to teach the limitations of the independent claims.
Applicant argues (remarks page 19) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of limitations previously presented in claim 1 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the vortex flow producing nozzle 13 of Arata as corresponding to the gas distributor 28 of Renault and as such would not modify the gas distributor 28 of Renault.
Examiner responds claim 2 and 8 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 2 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Kuo and claim 8 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa in view of Kuo and Fan, as detailed in claims rejections above. The combination of Renault and Arata is no longer cited in the current rejections and therefore Applicant’s arguments directed toward the combination of Renault and Arata are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 21-22) regarding amended claim 2, one or ordinary skill in the art would not combine Renault and Luo in the manner suggested in the final rejection. Applicant further argues that Renault does not teach amended claim 2 limitation “wherein the gas direction changer includes a groove portion defined on an inner side thereof, wherein the groove portion has a spiral shape on the inner side of the gas direction chamber, wherein a plasma flowpath is defined between the plasma electrode and the process gas discharging duct, and wherein the gas direction changer is positioned at an axial position at which the plasma flowpath has a minimum diameter.
Examiner responds claim 2 and 8 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 2 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Kuo and claim 8 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa in view of Kuo and Fan, as detailed in claims rejections above. Renault is no longer cited to teach the limitations of the independent claims.
In light of the above, independent claim 2 and 8 is rejected. Additionally, dependent claims 3-7, 9 are also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US2020/0205277A) see Fig. 3 para. [0014]-[0017].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, 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.
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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716