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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 22, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9 in the reply filed on November 25, 2024 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (claims 1-3, 7-9) in the reply filed on January 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Note, in Species I-Figure 3 the lengths of the lower slits are the same and the number of lower slits and upper slits are the same. Hence, additionally, claim 7 is withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 8-9 read on the elected Species I-Figure 3.
Claims 4-7 and 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein a vertical distance between an uppermost portion of the upper slit and an uppermost portion of the upper ring is greater than a vertical distance between a lowermost portion of the upper slit and a lowermost portion of the lower ring”. There is no support for this limitation. First of all, the numerical values for the vertical distances are not explicitly described in the specification. Second, applicant refers to Figure 5 for the vertical distances; however, the figures are not drawn to scale. Lastly, the upper slit length L3 range is not limited to 30 mm to 50 mm. The upper slit length L3 may be greater than the lower slit length L1. Therefore, when upper slit length L3 is greater than the lower slit length L1, then the a vertical distance between an uppermost portion of the upper slit and an uppermost portion of the upper ring would be less than a vertical distance between a lowermost portion of the upper slit and a lowermost portion of the lower ring. There is no support in the specification for “wherein a vertical distance between an uppermost portion of the upper slit and an uppermost portion of the upper ring is greater than a vertical distance between a lowermost portion of the upper slit and a lowermost portion of the lower ring”.
In light of the above, dependent claims 2-3 and 8-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) at least due to dependency to rejected claim 1.
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 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka et al. (U.S. 2016/0260582) in view of Park et al. (U.S. 2009/0280040) and Park et al. (U.S. 6,178,969).
Referring to Figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0053]-[0057], Hosaka et al. disclose a plasma baffle comprising: a lower ring 61b; and an upper ring 61a that extends upwardly from an edge of the lower ring, wherein the lower ring extends radially inward from the upper ring (Fig. 6), wherein the lower ring comprises: a lower central hole on a center of the lower ring and vertically penetrating the lower ring; and wherein the upper ring comprises: an upper central hole on a center of the upper ring and vertically penetrating the upper ring (Figs. 2 & 6); and an upper slit 61h that penetrates the upper ring to connect an inner lateral surface of the upper ring to an outer lateral surface of the upper ring (Figs. 2 & 6).
Hosaka et al. is silent on a plurality of lower slits outside the lower central hole and vertically penetrating the lower ring and wherein the plurality of lower slits comprises a first lower slit spaced apart from an exhaust port by a first distance, and a second lower slit spaced apart from the exhaust port by a second distance that is greater than the first distance, and wherein a radial length of the first lower slit is less than a radial length of the second lower slit.
Referring to Figures 2B-2C and paragraphs [0064]-[0067], Park et al. teach a plasma baffle wherein it is conventionally known in the art for a plasma baffle to have a plurality of lower slits outside the lower central hole and vertically penetrating the lower ring and wherein the plurality of lower slits 25 comprises a first lower slit spaced apart from an exhaust port by a first distance, and a second lower slit spaced apart from the exhaust port by a second distance that is greater than the first distance, and wherein a radial length of the first lower slit is less than a radial length of the second lower slit in order to enable uniform discharge through the overall plasma baffle 20 (See Figure 2C below). Additionally, the slit size and spacing between slits are varied in order to achieve uniform pumping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lower ring of Hosaka et al. with a plurality of lower slits outside the lower central hole and vertically penetrating the lower ring and wherein the plurality of lower slits comprises a first lower slit spaced apart from an exhaust port by a first distance, and a second lower slit spaced apart from the exhaust port by a second distance that is greater than the first distance, and wherein a radial length of the first lower slit is less than a radial length of the second lower slit as taught by Park et al. in order to enable uniform discharge through the overall plasma baffle and achieve uniform pumping. The resulting apparatus of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al. would yield plasma baffle having a plurality of lower slits outside the lower central hole and vertically penetrating the lower ring and wherein the plurality of lower slits comprises a first lower slit spaced apart from an exhaust port by a first distance, and a second lower slit spaced apart from the exhaust port by a second distance that is greater than the first distance, and wherein a radial length of the first lower slit is less than a radial length of the second lower slit.
With respect to wherein a ratio of a radial length of each of the plurality of lower slits to a radial length of the upper slit is in a range of 1.4 to 3.33.
Hosaka et al. disclose wherein a length of the upper slit in an extending direction of the upper ring is in a range of about 30 mm to about 50 mm (Hosaka et al.-par.[0056]).
Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 is silent on wherein a length of the lower slit in a radial direction is in a range from about 70 mm to about 100 mm.
Referring to column 3, lines 24-28 and column 5, lines 55-57, Park et al.’969 teach that it is conventionally known in the baffle art for a length of the lower slit in a radial direction to be in a range from about 70 mm to about 100 mm in order to achieve the desired baffle features for gas discharging and pumping (Note. The length of the lower slit is less than difference between the outer diameter (365 mm) of the baffle and the inner diameter (260 mm) of the baffle which is approximately 100 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the baffle of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 with a length of the lower slit in a radial direction is in a range from about 70 mm to about 100 mm as taught by Park et al.’969 in order to achieve the desired baffle features for gas discharging and pumping.
Hence, a ratio of a radial length of each of the plurality of lower slits to a radial length of the upper slit Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 and Park et al.’969 is 3.33.
With respect to wherein a vertical distance between an uppermost portion of the upper slit and an uppermost portion of the upper ring is greater than a vertical distance between a lowermost portion of the upper slit and a lowermost portion of the lower ring, Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 and Park et al.’969 satisfy this limitation since the length of the upper slit 61h is variable based on pressure adjustment (Hosaka et al.-par.[0056]). Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed upper and lower ring and an upper and lower ring having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art upper and lower ring, the claimed upper and lower ring was not patentably distinct from the prior art upper and lower ring.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the plasma baffle of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein the upper slit is spaced apart from the lower slit (Hosaka et al.-Fig. 6, Park et al.-Fig. 2C).
With respect to claim 3, the plasma baffle of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein the plurality of lower slits 25 further comprises: a third lower slit spaced apart from the exhaust port by a third distance that is greater than the second distance, and a fourth lower slit spaced apart from the exhaust port by a fourth distance that is greater than the third distance, a first lower slit; and a second lower slit spaced apart in a circumferential direction from the first lower slit, and wherein a first length of the first lower slit in a radial direction of the first lower slit is different from a second length of the second lower slit in a radial direction of the second lower slit the radial length of the second lower slit is less than a radial length of the third lower slit, and wherein the radial length of the third lower slit is less than a radial length of the fourth lower slit (Fig. 2C above).
With respect to claim 8, the plasma baffle of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al. further includes wherein a length of the upper slit in an extending direction of the upper ring is less than a length of the lower slit in the extending direction of the upper ring. (Hosaka et al.-Fig. 6, par.[0056], Park et al.-Fig. 2C).
With respect to claim 9, Hosaka et al. disclose wherein a length of the upper slit in an extending direction of the upper ring is in a range of about 30 mm to about 50 mm (Hosaka et al.-par.[0056]).
Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 is silent on wherein a length of the lower slit in a radial direction is in a range from about 70 mm to about 100 mm.
Referring to column 3, lines 24-28 and column 5, lines 55-57, Park et al.’969 teach that it is conventionally known in the baffle art for a length of the lower slit in a radial direction to be in a range from about 70 mm to about 100 mm in order to achieve the desired baffle features for gas discharging and pumping (Note. The length of the lower slit is less than difference between the outer diameter (365 mm) of the baffle and the inner diameter (260 mm) of the baffle which is approximately 100 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the baffle of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 with a length of the lower slit in a radial direction is in a range from about 70 mm to about 100 mm as taught by Park et al.’969 in order to achieve the desired baffle features for gas discharging and pumping. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed lower slit and a lower slit having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art lower slit, the claimed lower slit was not patentably distinct from the prior art lower slit.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 8, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,322,577 discloses a plasma baffle comprising: a lower ring; and an upper ring that extends upwardly from an edge of the lower ring, wherein the lower ring extends radially inward from the upper ring, wherein the lower ring comprises: a lower central hole on a center of the lower ring and vertically penetrating the lower ring; and a plurality of lower slits outside the lower central hole and vertically penetrating the lower ring, and wherein the upper ring comprises: an upper central hole on a center of the upper ring and vertically penetrating the upper ring; and an upper slit that penetrates the upper ring to connect an inner lateral surface of the upper ring to an outer lateral surface of the upper ring, wherein the plurality of lower slits comprises a first lower slit spaced apart from an exhaust port by a first distance, and a second lower slit spaced apart from the exhaust port by a second distance that is greater than the first distance, and wherein a radial length of the first lower slit is less than a radial length of the second lower slit (claims 1, 5, 8, 11).
With respect to claim 2, the plasma baffle of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,577 further includes wherein the upper slit is spaced apart from the plurality of lower slits (claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that specifically the range of L1 is 70 mm to 100 mm, and the range of L3 is 30 mm to 50 mm, which creates the ratio range of 1.4 to 3.33 recited in the claims. It is respectfully submitted that the cited references do not disclose, teach or suggest the features of claim 1. Park2 only describes the outer diameter and the inner diameter of the baffle plate, and does not disclose the length of the lower slit.
As stated above and seen in Figure 7, the length of the lower slit 52 in Park et al.’969 is less than the difference between the outer diameter of the baffle 50 and the inner diameter of the baffle 50. Since the outer diameter of the baffle is 365 mm and the inner diameter of the baffle is 260 mm, then the length radial length of the baffle is 105 mm and thus the inner lower slit would be less than 100 mm. Hence, a ratio of a radial length of each of the plurality of lower slits (i.e. approximately 100 mm) to a radial length of the upper slit (i.e. approximately 30 mm) of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 and Park et al.’969 is 3.33. Therefore, the apparatus of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 and Park et al.’969 satisfies the claimed requirements.
Applicant has argued that Hosaka describes that a vertical distance between an uppermost portion of the upper slit and an uppermost portion of the upper ring is less than a vertical distance between a lowermost portion of the upper slit and a lowermost portion of the lower ring.
As stated above, in paragraphs [0056], Hosaka et al. disclose that the length of the upper slit 61h is variable based on pressure adjustment. Hence, since the upper slit is variable, the apparatus of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 and Park et al.’969 is capable of yielding a vertical distance between an uppermost portion of the upper slit and an uppermost portion of the upper ring is less than a vertical distance between a lowermost portion of the upper slit and a lowermost portion of the lower ring. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed upper and lower ring and an upper and lower ring having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art upper and lower ring, the claimed upper and lower ring was not patentably distinct from the prior art upper and lower ring. Lastly, as previously mentioned, there is no support for such limitation. Therefore, the apparatus of Hosaka et al. in view of Park et al.’040 and Park et al.’969 satisfies the claimed requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sung et al. teach a baffle having an upper and lower ring. Moon et al. teach a baffle having a lower ring.
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 /PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716