DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (1/20/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (20-39) were examined in a Non-Final office action on 7/30/2025. This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 1/29/2026. Claim 20 was amended.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s arguments related to the latest amendment are not persuasive. As noted below, they raise several issues related to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and 112(b). As best understood control of microwave generator depending on optical signal was known in the prior art. Goldberg discloses control of microwave generator electronics dependent on optical sensor output (Fig 4 116) and description in Col 8 lines 38-46.
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 maybe 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “control and feedback stage” in claim 20.
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.
However, there is no disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim limitation “control and feedback stage” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant has stated that the limitation is supported by Fig 3 and Paragraphs 56 and 58. These paragraphs mention the possibility of using sensor to control length of plasma jet (Para 56). The description in (para 58) is unclear as to light sensing. Sensing is indicated at para 87, but it is not related to light but indicated control of oscillator.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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.
Claims 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge (US 2014/0263202) incorporating Hammer (US 7030979) in view of Christopher Paul Hancock (US 20100296977) or Cuomo et al (US 5179264) or Chua et al (US 20180294143) and further Goldberg (US 4494085) as best understood.
Partridge teaches a system for depositing a material onto a receiving surface (0039), where the material is formed by use of a plasma to modify a source material in-transit to the receiving surface of a substrate (Para 0039), the system comprising:
a microwave generator electronics stage 104 (Abstract and Para 0009, 0022);
a microwave applicator stage including a cavity resonator structure (e.g. resonant cavity 132 – Figs. 2A, 2B and 0027);
a resonator cavity 132 (including common interaction space 122 – Figs. 1, 2 and 0024, 0025);
a multi-component flow assembly (Fig. 5 and para 44) comprising:
a flow nozzle 514 providing a shield gas (additional gas);
a zonal flow nozzle 512 providing a functional process gas (e.g. fluid to be mixed), and
a source material flow nozzle 510 configured to deliver the source material (plasma forming gas), wherein the source material flow nozzle and zonal flow nozzle are physically configured to facilitate a reaction between the source material and the functional process gas within a plasma region 534 generated by the microwave generator electronics stage and the microwave applicator stage (Para 0041, 0046),
wherein the plasma region 534 is between an outlet of the source material flow nozzle 510 and the receiving surface, and
wherein the flow nozzle 514 is configured to flow the shield (additional) gas so as to effectively isolate the functional process gas and the source material in the plasma region.
Partridge teaches that flow nozzle 514 is coaxial to plasma torch axis 142 (0027), i.e. the coaxial tubes define a plurality of flow paths along torch axis (0044), therefore, the coaxial tubes/nozzles would provide laminar flow paths.
It is noted that the plasma is contained in the resonant structure as more clearly shown in Hammer (Fig 3, 40 and Abstract).
Partridge do not explicitly teach the cavity resonator structure comprises:
an outer conductor, an inner conductor,
the resonator cavity interposed between the outer conductor and the inner conductor, and
the flow nozzle that is configured to flow shield gas is a laminar flow nozzle.
Christopher Paul Hancock discloses a microwave plasma system including microwave generator electronics stage (Fig 1, 10-30, 50-100 etc.) and a microwave applicator stage represented at 300, 310, 320, 330, 340 and 350. The applicator has an outer conductor and an inner conductor and a coaxial structure (Para 98). Outer conductor extends past the inner conductor to create high electric field (Para 51). Hancock teaches sweeping through frequency band to find the resonant position where maximum electric field is created (See para 51, 55-56, 94, 280).
Plasma generation zone is at 350 and for modified Partridge will be between the emission position of source and the receiving surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-component flow assembly of Partridge to incorporate plasma resonant structure in it by making the nozzle and outer coaxial tube of conductor material and coupling to microwave power as taught by Hancock.
Regarding the amendment “control and feedback stage” as best understood, Goldberg discloses control of microwave generator electronics dependent on optical sensor output (Fig 4 116) and description in Col 8 lines 38-46.
It would have been obvious to use light sensor for control for precision.
Regarding claim 21-23 all the three gases including shield gas disclosed at 514 would be around process gas at 516 in a ring like cross sectional shape.
Regarding claims 24-26 two functional gas outlets, and two shield gas outlets are unclear from the specification. However, they appear to be no more than duplication of parts.
Regarding claim 27, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that gas flow through capillary would prevent plasma contamination. (See other rejection also.)
Regarding claim 28 resonant structure generates high electric field (Para 51).
Regarding claim 29 the frequency of use could be 400 MHz-100 GHz.
Regarding claim 30 outer conductor 330 and inner conductor 310 are insulated to enable claimed functions.
Regarding claims 31-32, microwave application could be in continuous or pulse mode by using a modulator (Fig 1, 30 and Para 156).
Regarding claim 33 solid state amplifiers are used (Para 21).
Regarding claims 34-35 one of ordinary skill in the art would know that use of bias to accelerate ions or electrons as the case may be was used in the prior art very frequently.
Regarding claim 36 shield gas was known to work like an air curtain.
Claims 37-39 are direct to functional limitations, the cited prior art is fully capable of.
Cuomo et al like Christopher Paul Hancock also disclose a microwave plasma system including microwave generator electronics stage (Fig 1, 10, 12 and 14) and a microwave applicator stage (18). The applicator has an outer conductor (16) and an inner conductor (21) and a coaxial structure (Fig 1). Outer conductor extends past the inner conductor to create high electric field (Fig 1). Coumo et al teach resonant position where maximum electric field is created by coupling microwave power to plasma (Col 2 lines 16-32). Teach further impedance matching during operation to maintain a desired plasma load (at least Figs. 1, 5 and col. 9, lines 25-27 and col. 10, line 66 to col. 11, line 10). Regarding claim 29 the frequency of use could be 300 MHz-1000 GHz.
Chua et al also disclose a microwave plasma system including microwave generator electronics stage (Fig 1, 110, 120 and 130) and a microwave applicator stage (Fig 1, 142). The applicator has an outer conductor (Fig 3A, 356) and an inner conductor (357) and a coaxial structure (Fig 1). Outer conductor extends past the inner conductor to create high electric field (Fig 1). The resonant cavity (353) is disposed between outer and inner conductor and could be a dielectric, vacuum or air (Para 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-component flow assembly of Partridge to incorporate plasma resonant structure in it by making the nozzle and outer coaxial tube of conductor material and coupling to microwave power as taught also by Cuomo et al and Chua et al.
It is noted that dependent claims are shown in reference to Christopher Paul Hancock, but they are equally applicable to the combination of Partridge with Cuomo et al or Chua et al.
Claim 27 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge (US 2014/0263202) incorporating Hammer (US 7030979) in view of Christopher Paul Hancock (US 20100296977) or Cuomo et al (US 5179264) or Chua et al (US 20180294143) and Goldberg (US 4494085) as applied to claim 20 and further in view of Cui et al (US 6148764).
Regarding Claim 27, Partridge etc. as above discloses a zonal flow nozzle (as explained above under claim 1) but do not explicitly teach the zonal flow nozzle comprises bundled capillary tubes that receive the functional process gas from a functional process gas plenum.
Cui teaches a microwave plasma jet apparatus comprising a gas inlet that consists of bundled capillary tubes 54 (fine capillaries - Fig. 5, col. 7, lines 31-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the zonal flow nozzle comprises bundled capillary tubes that receive the functional process gas from a functional process gas plenum in view of teaching by Cui in the apparatus of Partridge as alternate structure for gas flow nozzle used in microwave plasma jet to obtain less retarding effect on the local gas jet flow (col. 7, lines 38-40, Cui).
Claims 31-32 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge (US 2014/0263202) incorporating Hammer (US 7030979) in view of Christopher Paul Hancock (US 20100296977) or Cuomo et al (US 5179264) or Chua et al (US 20180294143) and Goldberg (US 4494085) as applied to claim 20 and further in view of Riccardi et al (US 2013/0017342).
Regarding Claims 31-32, Riccardi teach a plasma apparatus with microwave coupling and further teach that electromagnetic power can be coupled to plasma in a continuous mode or pulsed mode (0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the microwave generator electronics in a continuous or pulsed mode of operation in view of teaching by Riccardi in the apparatus of Partridge to obtain enhanced electron density.
Claims 34-35 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge (US 2014/0263202) incorporating Hammer (US 7030979) in view of Christopher Paul Hancock (US 20100296977) or Cuomo et al (US 5179264) or Chua et al (US 20180294143) and Goldberg (US 4494085) as applied to claim 20 and further in view of Ihde et al (US 20120261391) and Nauman et al (US 20090127101).
Regarding claims 33-34, Ihde teach an atmosphere pressure plasma apparatus (Figs. 1-3) and disclose that a high removal of sputtered particles from a negatively charged electrode is possible when using a pulsating DC voltage (at least 0039).
Still-further, Nauman teach a plasma apparatus (abstract) and disclose that plasma ions are accelerated towards a target and cause target material to be dislodged from the cathode surface on impact. The dislodged target material is then deposited on a substrate to form a film (e.g., thin film). The film may constitute material sputtered by the plasma from the target surface, as disclosed above, or may be the result of a reaction between the target material and some other element included in the plasma or process gases (0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used DC voltage as a bias to accelerate ions or electrons as the case may be for process.
Claim 36 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge (US 2014/0263202) incorporating Hammer (US 7030979) in view of Christopher Paul Hancock (US 20100296977) or Cuomo et al (US 5179264) or Chua et al (US 20180294143) and Goldberg (US 4494085) as applied to claim 20 and further in view of Yuasa et al (US 20030057848).
Regarding claim 36 Yuasa et al teach using air curtain around process gases as in Fig 2A, 38 and para 31.
Since air curtain prevents migration of particles from process region to outside or vice versa, having shield gas would have been obvious for prevention of contamination.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 20-39 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11560627. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are fully included in patented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt et al (US 20050257570) teaches inter alia shield gas coming off annular gap 16 (Fig 1 and para 46) and the three tube structure to give a gas jet profile similar to that of the claim.
McMillin et al (US 6013155) teaches inter alia bundled capillary tubes.
Choi et al (US 20100130973) discloses a cold plasma (Fig 3) like that of claimed apparatus and operating in the claimed frequency range.
Maynard et al (US 20110256732) with functional similarly teaches a pulsed plasma system (abstract).
Yang et al (US 20090218211) teaches a similar plasma apparatus which could be powered by continuous or pulsed wave.
Carr (US 20040173316) teaches a similar plasma torch with three annular regions, like the claimed apparatus where gas sheath could be used as shield (Para 34).
Sieber et al (US 2016/0329191) teach an atmosphere pressure plasma torch (jet) 300 mounted on a robot 602 (Fig. 6 and 0140).
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716