DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5,8-11,14 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make the internal space of the dielectric space and having the insulation sheath being located inside the internal space of the dielectric chamber, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on JP2012-188701 to Shirokura et al is presented below.
The Examiner notes that amendments have been clarified in the rejection below with the interpretation for the dielectric chamber being clarified. The Examiner notes that the insulation sheath and conductor has been clarified as shown in the rejection using Fig. 8 below.
The Examiner notes that an amendment extending the gas outlet 21 beyond that of the pedestal 31 would overcome the prior art of record and encourages the Applicant to contact the Examiner for potential amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by JP2012-188701 to Shirokura et al. The English Machine translation is relied upon for the rejection below.
In regards to Claim 1, Shirokura teaches an atmospheric pressure remote plasma CVD apparatus Fig. 1, 8 (which shoes the extended conductor and insulation sheath [0001-0005], comprising an external chamber 3 which has side walls 32, 33 and inside of which a microwave confinement chamber 35 is formed; a dielectric chamber 4, 41, 42 [0021] having a gas inlet 2, an internal space (space within 4, 41, 42) including a microwave supply region (region concentric with 6 and below in 32) and a plasma outlet (opening of 4 and 36) and a plasma generator 6, 61, 62, 63 which generates plasma in the internal space of the dielectric chamber and comprises an annular resonator 6 provided around the microwave confinement chamber of the external chamber and a plurality of slit antennas 61 formed in the surface of the annular resonator on the microwave confinement chamber side (as shown in the concentric alignment of 6 and 33) and in the side walls of the external chamber, wherein the plasma outlet comprises a nozzle (end of 21 in 7) having an opening area smaller than an average cross-sectional area of a cross-section orthogonal to a gas flow direction of the internal space (as 21 is smaller than 7 is smaller than that of 35) wherein the atmospheric pressure remote plasma CVD apparatus further comprises a first conductor 22 [0062] which can be arranged in, inserted into, and removed from the internal space of the dielectric chamber [0060-0065, disposal of 22 in 4] and which extends to at least a part of the microwave supply region when the conductor is arranged in the internal space of the dielectric chamber (as shown by 2 extending down through 35), and wherein the conductor comprises an insulation sheath 21 [0026] which extends from the gas inlet of the dielectric chamber into the internal space of the dielectric chamber into the internal space of the dielectric space, at least a portion of the insulation sheath 21 being located inside the internal space of the dielectric chamber, as 2 and thus also 21 is placed within 41 as shown in Fig. 8, and wherein the external chamber comprises a pedestal 31 at a bottom part of the external chamber [0018], and the center of the pedestal is open (see opening of 36), and the plasma outlet of the dielectric chamber is arranged so as to project outward through the center of the pedestal (as they are aligned concentrically along the same axis and stacked within each other as shown in Fig. 1), such that the plasma outlet is located outside the microwave confinement chamber (as shown in how 36 is below 35 in Fig. 1, [0001-0082]).
In regards to Claim 2, Shirokura teaches the dielectric chamber 41 is tubular [0021], and in the longitudinal direction of the dielectric chamber, the gas inlet 2is arranged at one end of the dielectric chamber and the plasma outlet is arranged at the other end of the dielectric chamber, as broadly recited, as the bottom of 41 is connected to 2 which releases the plasma at the end.
In regards to Claim 3, Shirokura teaches the dielectric chamber comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a fluororesin [0021].
In regards to Claim 4, Shirokura teaches the plasma generator is a microwave irradiation device (microwave introduction 6 [0039-0040]).
In regards to Claim 5, Shirokura teaches the opening diameter of the nozzle is 15 mm (inner diameter) and the diameter of the ring resonator is 200 mm, or the opening area is 0.075 times that of the cross section of the internal space, i.e., 0.01 to 0.1 times the average cross-sectional area of the cross-section orthogonal to the gas flow direction of the internal space of the dielectric chamber [0073-0077], as the gases are open to the space therein.
In regards to Claim 8, Shirokura teaches a raw material gas supply line 51 which is open in an upstream part, middle part, or downstream part of the internal space, wherein a plasma-excited carrier gas 53 and a raw material gas 51 are mixed in the internal space.
In regards to Claim 14, Shirokura teaches an atmospheric pressure remote plasma CVD apparatus Fig. 1 [0001-0005], comprising an external chamber 3 which has side walls 32, 33 and inside of which a microwave confinement chamber 35 is formed; a dielectric chamber 4, 41, 42 [0021] having a gas inlet 2, an internal space (space within 4) including a microwave supply region (region concentric with 6 and below 6) and a plasma outlet 36 and a plasma generator 6, 61, 62, 63 which generates plasma in the internal space of the dielectric chamber and comprises an annular resonator 6 provided around the microwave confinement chamber of the external chamber and a plurality of slit antennas 61 formed in the surface of the annular resonator on the microwave confinement chamber side (as shown in the concentric alignment of 6 and 33) and in the side walls of the external chamber, wherein the plasma outlet comprises a nozzle (end of 21 in 7) having an opening area smaller than an average cross-sectional area of a cross-section orthogonal to a gas flow direction of the internal space (as 21 is smaller than that of 4) wherein the atmospheric pressure remote plasma CVD apparatus further comprises a conductor 22 [0062] which can be arranged in, inserted into, and removed from the internal space [0060-0065, disposal of 22 in 35] and which extends to at least a part of the microwave supply region when the conductor is arranged in the internal space (as shown by 2 extending down through 35 to 36), and wherein the first conductor comprises an insulation sheath 21 [0026] which extends from the gas inlet of the dielectric chamber and into the internal space of the dielectric chamber, at least a portion of the insulation sheath being located inside the internal space of the dielectric chamber, and wherein the external chamber comprises a pedestal 31 at a bottom part of the external chamber [0018], and the center of the pedestal is open (see opening of 36), and the plasma outlet of the dielectric chamber is arranged so as to project outward through the center of the pedestal (as they are aligned concentrically along the same axis and stacked within each other as shown in Fig. 1), such that the plasma outlet is located outside the microwave confinement chamber (as shown in how 36 is below 35 in Fig. 1, [0001-0082].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2012-188701 to Shirokura et al. The English Machine translation is relied upon for the rejection below.
The teachings of Shirokura are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regards to Claims 9 and 16, Shirokura teaches a raw material supply mechanism 51 or a pipe for supplying raw material gas that extends to at least part of the microwave supply region and is a rod [0035-0037] but does not expressly teach it is for introducing a fluororesin or hydrocarbon thermosetting resin rod-shaped object into the internal space so that the fluororesin or hydrocarbon thermosetting resin rod-shaped object extends to at least a part of the microwave supply region.
Shirokura does expressly teach that a rod/pipe for supplying gas can be made out of Teflon, a fluororesin [0077].
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a pipe for gas, or raw material gas, analogous to that of 51 out of Teflon, a fluororesin, as taught for the gas pipe of 21 it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claims 9 and 16, as the raw material gas pipe would be made out a Teflon material rod that extends to at least a part of the microwave supply region.
In regards to Claim 11, Shirokura does not expressly teach the dielectric chamber has a plurality of plasma outlets, and a total opening area of the nozzles of the plurality of plasma outlets is less than the average cross-sectional area of the cross-section orthogonal to the gas flow direction of the internal space.
However, a duplication of parts is considered an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to duplicate the nozzles and gas inlet pipes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. The resulting apparatus would fulfill the claimed apparatus as duplicating the nozzles and pipes, would result in a plurality of plasma outlets, a total opening area being less than the width of the dielectric chamber, as generally shown in the relative sizes of 2 to 32/33 in Fig. 1. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights