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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 17 October 2023 and 15 July 2024 and 6 February 2026 fail to fully to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference (including NPL) listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein that has been lined through has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 1 and claim 18 microwave path changing member has been interpreted as including a plate and a motor as set forth in the specification and drawings.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected at least based on its dependence.
While claim 1 has been amended to clarify some recitations, recitations to claim 8, which directly influence claim 1, further muddle the features thereof and have changed Examiner’s understanding Applicant’s claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Similar features have been introduced into claim 18.
For example, upon consideration of the amended claims, claims 1 and 18 fail to clearly and properly describe the features of the microwave path changing members and a respective one of the process chambers, wherein “a respective one” of the process chambers is used twice in the claims without proper reference to the first reference thereof in claims 1 and 18. The issue is further exacerbated by claim 8. If Applicant intends to claim that a first posture precludes the microwave from traveling to process chambers except the respective process chamber, Examiner suggest clearly reciting the same. Similarly, if Applicant intends the second posture to preclude the microwave from entering the respective one of the process chambers, Examiner suggests clarifying the claims with language specifying the second posture being configured to block the microwave from the respective one of the process chambers and allow the microwave to travel through a remainder of the wave guide such that it may travel to the process chambers other than the respective one of the process chambers, or similar. In order to expedite examination, the claims have been interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation, wherein no particular distinction is drawn between newly introduced respective chambers of the process chambers and individual and respective microwave path changing members.
With respect to claim 8, as mentioned above, repetitive use of a respective process chamber of the process chambers without referencing previously recited “respective process chambers” renders the bounds and intention of the claim unclear.
With respect to claim 18, similar to the lack of distinction and clarification relating to how process chambers are described (see above re: a/the respective process chamber), language “one chosen chamber” renders the bounds and intention of the claim unclear.
Clarification and/or correction is requested in all instances. Additionally, Applicant should check all claims for compliance with the statutes.
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.
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, 3-10, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN Patent Publication 208444806 to Jin et al. in view of in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,080 to Jennings et al. and JP Patent Publication 58-88086 to Kikuchi et al.
Regarding claim 1: Jin et al. disclose a substrate treating apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: process chambers (Fig. 2, 2b1 and 2b2) configured to perform a first process using a microwave energy; one microwave generator (1) for generating a microwave; a wave guide (3a and 3b [3b1,3b2]) connecting each of the process chambers and the one microwave generator; and microwave path changing members (valve mechanisms 4a [4a1,4a2]) being configured to change the microwave transfer path of one of the process chambers, each one of the microwave changing members including a first posture (e.g., open) and a second posture (e.g. closed), the first posture being configured to allow the microwave to enter a respective one of the process chambers, the second posture being configured to block the microwave from entering the respective one of the process chambers and instead allow the microwave to travel through a remainder of the wave guide.
However, Jin et al. fail to explicitly teach or illustrate the microwave path changing members aligned in series along the microwave transfer path of the wave guide and/or each one of the microwave members being a plate, wherein the plate includes the first posture and the second posture.
In Jennings et al., as an alternative arrangement for providing an arrangement of process chambers and one microwave generator and a wave guide connecting each of the process chambers to the microwave generator, Jennings et al. teaches microwave path changing members (see, e.g., Fig. 2, 22) aligned in series along a microwave transfer path of a waveguide (16), each one of the microwave path changing members being at an inlet of a plurality of branch wave guides (e.g., openings 18) to change a microwave transfer path of one chosen chamber among process chambers (see, e.g., 20) including a first posture and a second posture, the first posture (e.g. open) being configured to allow the microwave to enter a respective one of the process chambers, the second posture (e.g. closed) being configured to block the microwave from entering the respective one of the process chambers and instead allow the microwave to travel through a remainder of the wave guide for the purpose of, inter alia, concurrently controlling a plurality of chemical reactions from a single microwave source (see, e.g., column 3, rows 10-39 and column 7, rows 7-29).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the microwave path changing members provided at inlets of each of the plurality of branch wave guides and configured to open and close the inlet of the corresponding branch waveguides in Jin et al. the microwave path changing members aligned in series along the microwave transfer path of the waveguide, each one of the microwave path changing members being at the inlet of a plurality of branch wave guides to change the microwave transfer path of one chosen chamber among process chambers including a first posture and a second posture, the first posture (e.g. open) being configured to allow the microwave to enter a respective one of the process chambers, the second posture (e.g. closed) being configured to block the microwave from entering the respective one of the process chambers and instead allow the microwave to travel through a remainder of the wave guides in order to concurrently control the plurality of process chambers from a single microwave source concurrently as taught by Jennings et al.
In Kikuchi et al., as an alternative microwave path switching member, a plate is used in order to open and close a waveguide connected to a processing chamber (see, e.g., abstract). Additionally, the courts have ruled an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the microwave switching members each being a plate in order to similarly open and close the plurality of paths each connected individually to a process chamber of the plurality of process chambers as taught by Kikuchi et al.
With respect to claims 3-5 and 9, which are drawn to intended uses of the apparatus, the courts have ruled that 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The claims do not include any additional differentiating structural limitations.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Jin et al., as disclosed above, Jin et al. disclose the wave guide comprises: a main wave guide (16); and a plurality of branch wave guides (18) branching from the main wave guide and transferring the microwave corresponding to each of the process chambers; and wherein each one of the microwave path changing members is provided at an inlet of each of the plurality of branch wave guides.
With respect to claim 7, in modified Jin et al., Kikuchi et al. teach the provision of a plate as a feature of the microwave path changing members, the plate being a metal material (see, e.g., page 2 of translation), that pivots at a first end (i.e. corresponding to 4) of the plate, between a first posture and a second posture to open and close a waveguide. Jennings et al. teach use of a driving portion (31 and 32) to provide the desired movement of a microwave path changing member in order to change the amount of microwave radiation passing through the waveguide.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Jin et al., Jin et al. disclose a controller (“control mechanism”, not shown, see translation) and wherein the controller is configured to control each one of the microwave path changing members to transfer the microwave to the respective one of the process chambers at which the first process is performed among the process chambers.
With respect to claim 10, as part of modified Jin et al., Kikuchi et al. teach the microwave path changing member is provided in a material (i.e., metal) which is the same material as the wave guide (see, e.g., page 2 of translation).
Regarding claim 18: Jin et al. disclose a substrate treating apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: process chambers (Fig. 2, 2b1 and 2b2) configured to perform a first process using a microwave energy; one microwave generator (1) for generating a microwave; a wave guide (3a and 3b [3b1,3b2]) including a main wave guide (3a), a plurality of wave guides (3b1 and 3b2) branching from the main wave guide and transferring the microwave corresponding to each of the process chambers, and connecting each of the process chambers and the one microwave generator; and microwave path changing members (4a [4a1,4a2]) each one of the microwave path changing members being at an inldet of each of the plurality of branch wave guides, each one of the microwave path changing members being configured to open and close the inlet of each of the plurality of branch wave guides to change the microwave transfer path of one chosen chamber among the process chambers, each one of the microwave changing members including a first posture (e.g., open) and a second posture (e.g. closed), the first posture being configured to allow the microwave to enter a respective one (i.e., “one chosen chamber”) of the process chambers, the second posture being configured to block the microwave from entering “a”/the respective one of the process chambers and instead allow the microwave to travel through a remainder of the wave guide; and a controller (“control mechanism”, not shown, see translation) and wherein the first process is a process of treating a substrate using the microwave or a process of treating the substrate using a plasma generated from a process gas by the microwave, and the controller being configured to control the one microwave generator and each one of the microwave path changing members so the process chambers perform the first process at different times, and so the microwave is transmitted to a particular one (i.e. one chosen chamber, respective chamber, etc.) of the process chambers while the first process is being performed.
However, Jin et al. fail to explicitly teach or illustrate the microwave path changing members aligned in series along the microwave transfer path of the wave guide and/or each one of the microwave members being a plate, wherein the plate includes the first posture and the second posture.
In Jennings et al., as an alternative arrangement for providing an arrangement of process chambers and one microwave generator and a wave guide connecting each of the process chambers to the microwave generator, Jennings et al. teach microwave path changing members (see, e.g., Fig. 2, 22) aligned in series along a microwave transfer path of a waveguide, each one of the microwave path changing members being at an inlet of a plurality of branch wave guides (e.g., openings 18) to change a microwave transfer path of one chosen chamber among process chambers (see, e.g., 20) including a first posture and a second posture, the first posture (e.g. open) being configured to allow the microwave to enter a respective one of the process chambers, the second posture (e.g. closed) being configured to block the microwave from entering the respective one of the process chambers and instead allow the microwave to travel through a remainder of the wave guide for the purpose of, inter alia, concurrently controlling a plurality of chemical reactions from a single microwave source (see, e.g., column 3, rows 10-39 and column 7, rows 7-29).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the microwave path changing members provided at inlets of each of the plurality of branch wave guides and configured to open and close the inlet of the corresponding branch waveguides in Jin et al. the microwave path changing members aligned in series along the microwave transfer path of the waveguide, each one of the microwave path changing members being at the inlet of a plurality of branch wave guides to change the microwave transfer path of one chosen chamber among process chambers including a first posture and a second posture, the first posture (e.g. open) being configured to allow the microwave to enter a respective one of the process chambers, the second posture (e.g. closed) being configured to block the microwave from entering the respective one of the process chambers and instead allow the microwave to travel through a remainder of the wave guides in order to concurrently control the plurality of process chambers from a single microwave source concurrently as taught by Jennings et al.
In Kikuchi et al., as an alternative microwave path switching member, a plate is used in order to open and close a waveguide connected to a processing chamber (see, e.g., abstract). Additionally, the courts have ruled an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the microwave switching members each being a plate in order to similarly open and close the plurality of paths each connected individually to a process chamber of the plurality of process chambers as taught by Kikuchi et al.
With respect to claim 21, in modified Jin et al., Kikuchi et al. teach provision of a plate, the plate being a metal material (see, e.g., page 2 of translation), that pivots at a first end (i.e. corresponding to 4) of the plate, between a first posture and a second posture to open and close a waveguide. Jennings et al. teach use of a driving portion (31 and 32) to provide the desired movement of a microwave path changing member in order to change the amount of microwave radiation passing therethrough. Regarding the driving portion of for each one of the microwave path changing member being collinearly aligned with each other along the microwave transfer path, both Jin et al. and Jennings et al. disclose collinear alignment of the identically provided microwave path changing members therein. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided similar features of the microwave path changing members, including driving portions, collinearly aligned, in order to provide the overall microwave path changing members with the overall collinear and same configuration with respect to the process chambers and wave guide as disclosed in the relied upon prior art. The courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim(s) 2, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jin et al. as applied to claims 1, 3-10, 18 and 21 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0326097 to Ma et al.
Modified Jin et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, with respect to claim 19, modified Jin et al. fail to disclose the microwave generator is a high output generator of 10kW or above.
Ma et al. teach that use of a microwave source of 10kW or above is well-known in the art (see, e.g., para. 42).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a microwave source of 10kW or above in modified Kawamura et al. in order to take advantage of a microwave source that is well-known in the art as taught by Ma et al.
With respect to claim 20, and the configuration of each of the microwave path changing members, in modified Jin et al., Kikuchi et al. teach provision of a plate that pivots at a first end (i.e. corresponding to 4) of the plate, between a first posture and a second posture to open and close a waveguide. Jennings et al. teach use of a driving portion (31 and 32) to provide the desired movement of a microwave path changing member in order to change the amount of microwave radiation passing therethrough.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-10 and 21 is withdrawn in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112b based on claim amendments and the newly discovered reference(s), Jin et al., which discloses microwave path changing members aligned in series along a microwave transfer path of a wave guide. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) and newly recognized claim clarity issues are provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection addresses the claims as amended.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub No. 2013/0334964 discloses a microwave power delivery system for plasma reactors. USP Pub. No. 2007/0102403 discloses a microwave processing apparatus wherein supply of microwaves along the length of a waveguide is controlled by a plurality of microwave path changing members/plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights