DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Response filed 6/4/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 4-15 are pending.
Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 13, and 15 are currently amended.
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 6-9 and 11 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the claims are regarded as indefinite in scope because they recite a physical dimension of the claimed apparatus (dimension of an outer circumference of the protrusion) as a function of an object that is variable (an “effective wavelength” of the applied microwaves which, as stated by applicant in Remarks pg. 5: “the effective wavelength … can be calculated using equations once a wavelength of the microwave in a vacuum…are known”). See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II). In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claims as reading: “wherein the protrusion has an outer circumference”.
Regarding claims 7-9, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependency to claim 6.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-15 (all pending claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (US Pub. 2018/0114677) in view of Mabuchi (US Patent 5,951,887), Watanabe (JPH-07263187, using the machine translation of record), and Suzuki (US Pub. 2008/0053816).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Komatsu teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1, plasma processing apparatus #100) comprising:
a processing container (Fig. 1, chamber #1) including an opening provided in a ceiling wall of the processing container (see Fig. 1); and
a microwave radiation source (Fig. 1, microwave plasma source #2),
wherein the microwave radiation source includes:
a slot antenna including a slot and configured to radiate microwaves from the slot (Fig. 4, planar antenna #61 with slots #61a; [0047]); and
a transmission window configured to close the opening and to radiate the microwaves from the slot into the processing container (Fig. 1, dielectric window #63; [0049]),
wherein the transmission window includes:
a first surface (Fig. 4, bottom surface of #63); and a second surface which is an opposite surface to the first surface and faces the slot antenna (Fig. 4, top surface of #63 adjacent to #61).
Komatsu does not teach wherein the first surface includes a skirt which suspends to cover a side wall of the opening, wherein the skirt is formed along an entire circumference of the side wall of the opening so as to have a ring shape (Komatsu teaches a flat bottom window).
However, Mabuchi teaches a microwave window with a first surface including a skirt as claimed (Mabuchi – Fig. 11 and C8, L11-35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Komatsu apparatus to comprise a skirt similar to Mabuchi in order to more substantially suppress the number of particles that could stick to the process target (Mabuchi – C8, L31-35).
Modified Komatsu does not teach wherein the second surface has with a gap between the slot antenna and the second surface, wherein the second surface includes a protrusion protruding from the second surface that is in contact with a central portion of the slot antenna, and the second surface is configured, in a surface other than the protrusion, to face the slot antenna with the gap between the slot antenna and the second surface, and wherein a contact surface of the protrusion is a circle.
However, Watanabe teaches these limitations (Watanabe – [0019] and Fig. 14, dielectric member #20 contiguous with transmission window #2, protrudes upward therefrom, and contacts a central portion of slot antenna #7 with gap therebetween; dielectric may be quartz; Komatsu [0051] teaches wherein the window #63 also comprises quartz).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Komatsu apparatus to comprise the additional dielectric structure of Watanabe in order to obtain more uniform plasma generation via resonance mode selectivity (Watanabe – [0020]).
Regarding the limitation: “having a diameter equal to or smaller than an inner diameter of the slot and does not overlap an inside of the slot”, Komatsu modified with Watanabe would meet this limitation as a combination of references in accordance with the high level of skill of a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts.
Modified Komatsu does not teach wherein the slot is formed in an arcuate shape or an annular shape around the central portion (Komatsu is silent as to their exact shape – [0047], but is highly suggestive of an arcuate/annular shape – see Fig. 4).
However, Suzuki teaches this limitation (Suzuki – [0052] and Fig. 2A, arc-shaped slots #114a/b).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use arc-shaped slots in the modified Komatsu apparatus in order to uniformize electron density (Suzuki – [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Komatsu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Watanabe teaches wherein the circle has a smaller diameter than the inner diameter of the slot and is in contact with the central portion to be spaced apart from the slot (Watanabe – [0019] and Fig. 14, dielectric member #20 contiguous with transmission window #2, protrudes upward therefrom, and contacts a central portion of slot antenna #7 with gap therebetween; dielectric may be quartz; Komatsu [0051] teaches wherein the window #63 also comprises quartz; contacting portions have a smaller diameter than the outside slots).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Komatsu apparatus to comprise the additional dielectric structure of Watanabe in order to obtain more uniform plasma generation via resonance mode selectivity (Watanabe – [0020]).
As such, Komatsu modified with at least Watanabe would meet this limitation as a combination of references in accordance with the high level of skill of a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, modified Komatsu does not explicitly teach wherein the protrusion (see Watanabe) has a height of 2 mm or less.
However, the Examiner notes that the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely an absence of a specific recitation of the height of the air gap of Watanabe.
Even if Watanabe were to disclose values for this height outside of the claimed range, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to simply change the height of the air gap (and thus the height of the protrusion) to the claimed range as a matter of applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Lastly, the claimed range would be obvious over the prior art since the courts have held that a mere difference in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Komatsu teaches the second surface (Fig. 4, top surface of #63 adjacent to #61).
Komatsu does not teach a protrusion.
However, Watanabe teaches this gap/protrusion (Watanabe – [0019] and Fig. 14, dielectric member #20 contiguous with transmission window #2, protrudes upward therefrom, and contacts a central portion of slot antenna #7 with gap therebetween; dielectric may be quartz; Komatsu [0051] teaches wherein the window #63 also comprises quartz).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Komatsu apparatus to comprise the additional dielectric structure of Watanabe in order to obtain more uniform plasma generation via resonance mode selectivity (Watanabe – [0020]).
As such, Komatsu modified with at least Watanabe would meet this limitation as a combination of references in accordance with the high level of skill of a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Komatsu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Mabuchi teaches a microwave window with a first surface including a skirt as claimed (Mabuchi – Fig. 11 and C8, L11-35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Komatsu apparatus to comprise a skirt similar to Mabuchi in order to more substantially suppress the number of particles that could stick to the process target (Mabuchi – C8, L31-35).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Komatsu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Mabuchi teaches a microwave window with a first surface including a skirt as claimed (Mabuchi – Fig. 11 and C8, L11-35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Komatsu apparatus to comprise a skirt similar to Mabuchi in order to more substantially suppress the number of particles that could stick to the process target (Mabuchi – C8, L31-35).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Komatsu does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Mabuchi teaches a microwave window with a first surface including a skirt as claimed (Mabuchi – Fig. 11 and C8, L11-35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Komatsu apparatus to comprise a skirt similar to Mabuchi in order to more substantially suppress the number of particles that could stick to the process target (Mabuchi – C8, L31-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claims 6 and 11 are definite since “the effective wavelength of the microwaves is a definite physical object” and thus the provisions of MPEP 2173.05(b)(ii) relating to “reference to an object that is variable” do not apply.
This is not persuasive because the equations still depend from an object that is variable- namely the wavelength of the microwave in a vacuum. The Examiner notes Applicant explicitly states such a value is needed to solve the equations and obtain a definite value for the dimension of an outer circumference of the protrusion (Remarks, pg. 5, par. 4).
The Examiner respectfully submits that there is no “standard definition” or “accepted value” for the wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum that correspond to “microwaves”. That is, the beginning/end points that define what constitutes a microwave is variable, not definite.
The Examiner contacted Jerald Meyer on 6/15 to request a statement from the applicant definitively stating what the intended wavelengths of the disclosed microwaves should be. Put differently, the Examiner requested Applicant make a statement rendering the indefinite/variable part of the claim definite for purposes of examination. Applicant’s representative requested several days to confer with their client, but no reply was received by the date indicated by Applicant’s representative.
In accordance, the §112(b) rejections of these claims are maintained as previously set forth.
As told to Applicant’s representative, a definitive statement on the record by Applicant stating the numerical boundaries of “microwaves” would be sufficient to obviate the §112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s remarks concerning the §103 rejections of claims 1 and 11 regarding Watanabe (Remarks, pgs. 9-12) have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
Principally, Applicant argues that because Watanabe teaches two distinct structures, it does not meet the limitation: “a protrusion protruding from the second surface” of the microwave window in light of the disclosure, which depicts a single/unitary structure. This is not persuasive for two principle reasons:
First, the limitation “a protrusion protruding from the second surface” does not require, explicitly or implicitly, where the microwave window and the protrusion are formed as a unitary structure. The Cambridge dictionary states a protrusion is merely “something that sticks out from a surface”. As Watanabe shows the member #20 “sticking out” from the surface of #2, it reasonably meets the limitations of the claim. Applicant’s arguments are thus not commensurate in scope with the claims, and are not persuasive.
Secondly, both the Komatsu and Watanabe references teach wherein the “protrusion” member and the transmission window both comprise quartz (Watanabe – [0019] and Fig. 14, dielectric member #20 contiguous with transmission window #2, protrudes upward therefrom, and contacts a central portion of slot antenna #7 with gap therebetween; dielectric may be quartz; Komatsu [0051] teaches wherein the window #63 also comprises quartz).
As such, the combined structure would depict two quartz members arranged in the same way as the claimed “protrusion” – the difference being only that Watanabe discloses two structures instead of one. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claim should be construed to cover only a unitary structure, the courts have held that making an object integral or separable (one or two-piece construction) is a matter of obviousness absent any new or unexpected results – See MPEP 2144(V)(B) and (C).
Next, Applicant alleges that “Watanabe does not disclose whether the dielectric member (20) is in contact with the slot antenna (7) and whether the dielectric member is in contact with a central portion of the slot antenna (pg. 10, Id.). This appears to be incorrect, as can be seen in Fig. 14 of Watanabe:
PNG
media_image1.png
502
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finally, Applicant alleges (pg. 10, Id.) that Watanabe does not teach “preventing metal contamination or enhancing plasma ignitability through the structure of the transmission window”, thus does not meet the limitations of the protrusion.
This is not persuasive because the courts have held that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding the limitations of the claimed skirt as previously met by Osada, the arguments are moot since they do not apply to the particular combination of references herein, notably Komatsu and/or Mabuchi.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights