DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Response filed 12/18/2025.
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 3-15 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 14, and 15 are currently amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
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 6-8 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 7-8, 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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada (US 2016/0276139) in view of Watanabe (JPH-07263187, using the attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Osada 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 (Fig. 1, multiple openings in ceiling plate #110); and a microwave radiation source (Figs. 1 and 3, microwave supply unit #40), wherein the microwave radiation source includes: a slot antenna ([0054] and Fig. 3, slot antenna #101) including a slot ([0080] and Fig. 3, slot #101a) and configured to radiate microwaves from the slot ([0081]); and a transmission window ([0080] and Fig. 3, transmitting plate #103) configured to close the opening (see Figs. 1 and 3) and to radiate the microwaves from the slot into the processing container ([0085]), and wherein the transmission window includes: a first surface (Fig. 3, intermediate horizontal surface of #103) including a skirt which suspends to cover a side wall of the opening (Fig. 3, lower portion of #103 covering #110); and a second surface which is an opposite surface to the first surface and faces the slot antenna (Fig. 3, upper surface of #103).
Osada does not teach a gap between the slot antenna and the second surface, wherein the second surface includes a protrusion 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.
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; Osada [0083] teaches wherein the plate #103 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 modify the Osada apparatus to comprise the additional dielectric structure of Watanabe in order to obtain more uniform plasma generation via resonance mode selectivity (Watanabe – [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Osada 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 claim 11, Osada teaches the second surface (Fig. 3, upper surface of #103).
Osada does not teach a protrusion (the Examiner notes this limitation would be met if Osada had a gap therebetween).
However, Watanabe teaches this gap (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; Osada [0083] teaches wherein the plate #103 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 modify the Osada apparatus to comprise the additional dielectric structure of Watanabe in order to obtain more uniform plasma generation via resonance mode selectivity (Watanabe – [0020]).
Regarding claim 12, Osada teaches wherein a height of an end portion of the skirt is aligned with a height of an end portion of the opening (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Osada teaches wherein the skirt is formed along an entire circumference of the side wall of the opening on an outer circumference side of the slot (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Osada teaches wherein the skirt is formed inside the side wall of the transmission window (see Fig. 3, formed as a unitary structure).
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada (US 2016/0276139) and Watanabe (JPH07263187A, using the attached English machine translation), as applied to claims 1 and 10-15 above, further in view of Suzuki (US 2008/0053816).
The limitations of claims 1 and 10-15 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Osada teaches the second surface (Fig. 3, upper surface of #103).
Osada does not teach and a contact surface of the protrusion is a circle having a diameter equal to or smaller than an inner diameter of the slot and does not overlap inside of the slot (the Examiner notes this limitation would be met if Osada had an annular gap therebetween).
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; Osada [0083] teaches wherein the plate #103 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 modify the Osada apparatus to comprise the additional dielectric structure of Watanabe in order to obtain more uniform plasma generation via resonance mode selectivity (Watanabe – [0020]).
Modified Osada does not explicitly teach wherein the slot is formed in an arcuate shape or an annular shape around the central portion (although the Examiner notes Osada allows for freedom in the selection of the shape of the disclosed slots- see [0113]).
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 Osada apparatus in order to uniformize electron density (Suzuki – [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Osada does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Watanabe teaches wherein the contact surface of the protrusion is a circle having 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; Osada [0083] teaches wherein the plate #103 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 modify the Osada apparatus to comprise the additional dielectric structure of Watanabe in order to obtain more uniform plasma generation via resonance mode selectivity (Watanabe – [0020]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Osada 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 claim 6, Osada teaches the second surface (Fig. 3, upper surface of #103).
Osada does not teach a protrusion (the Examiner notes this limitation would be met if Osada had a gap therebetween).
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; Osada [0083] teaches wherein the plate #103 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 modify the Osada apparatus to comprise the additional dielectric structure of Watanabe in order to obtain more uniform plasma generation via resonance mode selectivity (Watanabe – [0020]).
Thus, as a combination, if an annular air-gap region (see Watanabe) were introduced to the Osada apparatus, a portion of the second surface would be protruding upward with an outer circumference as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Osada teaches wherein a height of an end portion of the skirt is aligned with a height of an end portion of the opening (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Osada teaches wherein the skirt is formed along an entire circumference of the side wall of the opening on an outer circumference side of the slot (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Osada teaches wherein the skirt is formed inside the side wall of the transmission window (see Fig. 3, formed as a unitary structure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has appropriately amended claims 9 and 14 to correct antecedent basis issues, thus the §112(b) rejections of these claims are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that claims 6-8 and 11 are definite since “the effective wavelength can be readily obtained using the equations disclosed in the present specification”. 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). For at least this reason, the §112(b) rejections of these claims are maintained as previously set forth.
Applicant’s remarks concerning Ozaki, as applied to previous claim 2 (cancelled; now incorporated into amended claim 1), have been carefully considered and are persuasive. The previous §103 rejections are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are set forth herein using Watanabe. In accordance, this action is a non-final Office action.
Conclusion
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