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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I-Figure 3 (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on February 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Note. Claims 11 and 13 are withdrawn since they depend on withdrawn claims 8 and 12.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application would not place a serious burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the search and examination of the entire application would place a serious burden on the Examiner since the search required for the features of the elected species is not co-extensive with the search required for the features of the non-elected species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okumura et al. (U.S. 5,015,330).
Referring to Figures 1-2 and column 4, line 40-column 5, line 52, Okumura et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container 40 (col. 4, lines 45-48); a substrate holder 43, 44 configured to dispose a plurality of substrates 52 in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container (col. 4, lines 48-56); a rotary shaft 45 configured to rotate the substrate holder (col. 4, lines 57-64); a gas supply 46 configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container (col. 4, lines 65-68); an exhaust 48 configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container (col. 5, lines 5-9); a plurality of electrodes 50, 51 disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container (col. 5, lines 14-57); and a radio-frequency power supply 53 configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container (col. 6, lines 11-22).
With respect to claim 3, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. further includes wherein the plurality of electrodes 50, 51 are disposed in a wider range than a range in a height direction of the plurality of substrates disposed in the substrate holder 43, 44 (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 4, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. further includes wherein the plurality of electrodes 50, 51 are arranged at equal intervals in the circumferential direction of the processing container (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. further comprising: a heater 49 configured to surround the processing container 40 and the plurality of electrodes 50, 51 (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 10-13).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. (U.S. 5,015,330) in view of Morisako (U.S. 6,033,586).
The teachings of Okumura et al. have been discussed above.
Okumura et al. disclose a radio-frequency power supply; however, is silent on the radio- frequency power supply is configured to vary a voltage and a phase of the radio-frequency power applied to each of the plurality of electrodes.
Referring to Figure 2 and column 2, line 64-column 3, line 32, Morisako teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein the radio-frequency power supply 16, 18 is configured to vary a voltage and a phase of the radio-frequency power applied to each of the plurality of electrodes 15, 17 in order to effectively improve plasma generation (col. 1, lines 44-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Okumura et al. the radio- frequency power supply is configured to vary a voltage and a phase of the radio-frequency power applied to each of the plurality of electrodes as taught by Morisako in order to effectively improve plasma generation.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. (U.S. 5,015,330) in view of Gallagher et al. (U.S. 4,576,698) or Shimada et al. (U.S. 5,383,984).
The teachings of Okumura et al. have been discussed above.
Okumura et al. fail to teach a shield configured to surround the processing container, the plurality of electrodes, and the heater.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 3, lines 23-30, Gallagher et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a shield 14 configured to surround the processing container, the plurality of electrodes, and the heater to act as a thermal shield and as a ground path. Referring to Figure 1 and column 3, lines 64-67, Shimada et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a shield 10 configured to surround the processing container, the plurality of electrodes, and the heater. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Okumura et al. with a shield configured to surround the processing container, the plurality of electrodes, and the heater as taught by Gallagher et al. or Shimada et al. since it provides a thermal shield and as a ground path during plasma processing.
With respect to claim 7, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Gallagher et al. or Shimada et al. further includes wherein the shield is grounded (Gallagher et al.-col. 3, lines 25-30, Shimada et al.-col. 3, lines 64-67).
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 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/388,974 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Referring to claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/388,974, copending Application No. 18/388,974 disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container; a substrate holder configured to dispose a plurality of substrates in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container; a rotary shaft configured to rotate the substrate holder; a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container; an exhaust configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container; a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container; and a radio-frequency power supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container.
With respect to claim 5, the plasma processing apparatus of copending Application No. 18/388,974 further comprising: a heater configured to surround the processing container and the plurality of electrodes (claim 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/935,537 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Referring to claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/935,537, copending Application No. 18/935,537 discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container; a substrate holder configured to dispose a plurality of substrates in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container; a rotary shaft configured to rotate the substrate holder; a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container; an exhaust configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container; a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container; and a radio-frequency power supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/935,538 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Referring to claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/935,538, copending Application No. 18/935,538 disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container; a substrate holder configured to dispose a plurality of substrates in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container; a rotary shaft configured to rotate the substrate holder; a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container; an exhaust configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container; a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container; and a radio-frequency power supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/242,912 in view of Okumura et al. (U.S. 5,015,330).
Referring to claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/242,912, copending Application No. 19/242,912 disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container; a substrate holder configured to dispose a plurality of substrates in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container; a rotary shaft configured to rotate the substrate holder; a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container; and a radio-frequency power supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container.
copending application No.19/242,912 is silent on a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container; an exhaust configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container;
Referring to Figure 1 and column 4, line 65-column 5, line 9, Okumura et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art to use a gas supply 46 configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container (col. 4, lines 65-68); an exhaust 48 configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container (col. 5, lines 5-9) since they are essential components used in plasma processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending application No.19/242,912 since they are essential components used in plasma processing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hur et al.’17, Ko et al.’128, Takeda et al.’067, Takeda et al.’705, Masuyama et al.’529, Takashima et al.’396, Kurono et al.’560, and Takeda et al.’212 teach a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container. Kawamura et al.’768, Nakahata et al.’502, Setoyama et al.’482, Yamazaki et al.’508, Chu’939, and Nishio’206 teach a voltage and phase control.
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 at 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
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716