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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 9-11 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
On October 15, 2024, applicant elected Species I-Figure 3. Claim 9 is directed a coil wound multi times; however, Species I is directed to a coil 61, 62 that is wound one time as seen more clearly in Figure 4 (par.[0045]). Additionally, claims 10-11 are directed to non-elected Species II-Figure 6.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 9-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al. (U.S. 2015/0275359) in view of Masuyama et al. (U.S. 5,114,529) and Suzuki (5,707,692).
Referring to Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0021]-[0025], Fukushima et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a reaction tube 1 provided in a processing container 34 (par.[0021]); a boat 3 configured to hold a substrate and be carried into and out from the reaction tube in order to form a film on the substrate (par.[0022]); a plasma generation tube 4 communicating with the reaction tube, and configured to generate plasma from a gas (par.[0023]); a gas supply 63 configured to supply the gas to the plasma generation tube (pars.[0027]-[0029]); electrode installation columns 42 provided to sandwich the plasma generation tube therebetween, and including electrodes 441, 442, provided to face each other in the electrode installation columns respectively and provided along plasma partition walls of the plasma generation tube (Fig. 1,par.[0024]); and an RF power supply 45 connected to the electrodes, and configured to supply a radio frequency to the electrodes (par.[0024]).
Fukushima et al. fail to teach a pair of coils provided side by side with each of the electrodes therebetween to be spaced apart from each of the electrodes in the electrode installation columns; a DC power supply connected to the coil, and configured to supply a direct current to the coil; and wherein the coils are wound one or more times in a common direction along the plasma partition walls of the plasma generation tube, and the direct current is applied to the coils from the DC power supply in a common direction.
Referring to column 3, line 28-column 4, line 49, Masuyama et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a coil 20 provided to be spaced apart from the electrodes 18 and a DC power supply 21 connected to the coil, and configured to supply a direct current to the coil and wherein the coils are wound one or more times in a common direction along the plasma partition walls of the plasma generation tube, and the direct current is applied to the coils from the DC power supply in a common direction in order to minimize charged particles from reaching the substrate. Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines13-19, Suzuki teaches a plasma processing apparatus wherein a pair of coils 112 is provided side by side with each of the electrodes 109, 110 (i.e. plasma generation region) therebetween to be spaced apart from each of the electrodes in order to create a mirror magnetic field to localize the plasma in the plasma generating region to produce the desired plasma properties for substrate processing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Fukushima et al. to include a pair of coils provided side by side with each of the electrodes therebetween to be spaced apart from each of the electrodes in the electrode installation columns; and a DC power supply connected to the coil, and configured to supply a direct current to the coil and wherein the coils are wound one or more times in a common direction along the plasma partition walls of the plasma generation tube, and the direct current is applied to the coils from the DC power supply in a common direction as taught by Masuyama et al. and Suzuki in order to create a mirror magnetic field to localize the plasma in the plasma generating region to produce the desired plasma properties for substrate processing.
PNG
media_image1.png
831
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
628
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the plasma processing apparatus of Fukushima et al. in view of Masuyama et al. further includes wherein the plasma generation tube 4, 42 protrudes from the reaction tube in a rectangular shape (Fukushima et al.-Figs. 1-2).
With respect to claim 3, the plasma processing apparatus of Fukushima et al. in view of Masuyama et al. and Suzuki further includes wherein the coil 20, 112 is wound one or more times along the plasma partition walls of the plasma generation tube (Masuyama et al.-Fig. 1, Suzuki-Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 6, the plasma processing apparatus of Fukushima et al. in view of Masuyama et al. and Suzuki further includes wherein at least one of the coils 112 (i.e. top coil) is provided closer to the reaction tube than the electrodes 110 (Suzuki-Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 12, the plasma processing apparatus of Fukushima et al. in view of Masuyama et al. and Suzuki further includes wherein an insulating member 47 is embedded in the electrode installation columns, and electrically insulates the electrodes and the coils (Fukushima et al.-Fig. 1, par.[0024]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that referring to FIG. 1, Masuyama merely discloses a single coil 20. Furthermore, referring to FIG. 1, applicant notes that Suzuki merely discloses two electromagnets 112, but fails to disclose the winding directions of the two electromagnets 112 or the directions of the direct currents applied thereto, as required by amended claim 1.
However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case and seen above, Masuyama discloses a plasma generation tube 40 having an electrode 18 and a coil 20. Also, Masuyama teaches wherein a single coil 20 is wound one or more times in a common direction along the plasma partition walls of the plasma generation tube 40, and the direct current is applied to the coil from the DC power supply 21 in a common direction (see annotated Figure and column 3, lines 27-37). Hence, Suzuki was simply applied for the arrangement teaching of wherein a pair of coils 112 are provided side by side with each of the electrodes 109 therebetween to be spaced apart from each of the electrodes in the electrode installation columns (see annotated Figure 1 above and column 7, lines13-19). Additionally, the pair of coils 112 of Suzuki are wound one time in a common direction along the plasma partition walls of the plasma generation tube 108 (Figure 1). Thus, the combination of Masuyama and Suzuki would teach wherein the coils are wound one or more times in a common direction along the plasma partition walls of the plasma generation tube, and the direct current is applied to the coils from the DC power supply in a common direction. Therefore, the apparatus of Fukushima et al. in view of Masuyama et al. and Suzuki satisfies the claimed requirements.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights