DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masakazu (JP04/181647, Eng machine translation) in view of Kaszuba (2007/0228618) and Hedge (2013/0015757).
Masakazu teaches
- an ultraviolet generating part disposed in an ultraviolet generating chamber, figures and chamber 16 (discharge space) includes elements to form UV light,
- a UV transparent window 14 between the UV chamber and process chamber.
The teachings do not include a shaft for rotating the substrate – but the teachings of Kaszuba include a system with a chamber application of UV light to a substrate and teach that it is useful to rotate a substrate in such a system, see [0082]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the rotation parts of Kaszuba to the system of Masakazu because Kaszuba teaches that such rotation is beneficial.
Regarding the mesh, Masakazu teaches a mesh 15 (i.e. grid), but does not teach the claimed plurality of layers with an insulator between each. Hedge however teaches that an effective mesh (grid) for controlling flow of material to a substrate includes such a multi-grid assembly [0029]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the multiple grid assembly of Hedge instead of the single grid of Masakazu as an operable substitution. The multiple grids would further same the purpose of the single grid (this is equivalent to purifying an old product wherein as per MPEP 2144.04 VII. improving the purity is a well-understood desire). In regard to the insulator layer – the grids as described are separated and have an insulative (atmospheric) layer between them. In regard to the use of the grid plate – that it intended use of the apparatus - it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). In this case, Masakazu teaches that the mesh is provided and reflects microwaves and transmits light – but further it is taught that the excited gases are applied to the substrate and therefore understood to pass through the grid/mesh.
Regarding claim 2, it would be likewise obvious to add the reflective members of Kaszuba as indicated per claim 2 above and not repeated. Masakazu teaches reflecting the UV light into the chamber so the reflectors would further that.
Regarding claim 3, the system includes a plasma generating part (at least wave guide 11), a gas supply part (gas opening 19), and a vacuum generating part, see at least o-ring 18 (2nd paragraph p2).
Regarding claim 4, the teachings do not include any particular gas, but examiner takes Official notice that the claimed gases are typical gases used in such a process. As per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material for its intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality. To select any of the gases would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus - the system includes the ability to generate a plasma as per the waveguide and discharge, therefore it could function as well in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 6, the system includes a microwave applicator as described.
Regarding claim 7, the window has a slit (17), i.e. a pattern (bottom p3).
Regarding claim 8, the window is sapphire (3rd line p3).
Regarding claim 9, as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. a duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. To include multiple of plasma generating parts would have been an obvious modification based on the teachings and lack of criticality. Additionally – the system of Masakazu includes multiple chambers and multiple parts.
Regarding claim 10, the teachings as combined include all elements of the claim including the UV part, substrate driving part and window per claim 1 - the teachings further include a metal mesh 15 (bottom 1st para p2) – the metal mesh constitutes an electrode the use of the part is intended use and addressed above. In regard to the size of the electrode (mesh) lines, selection of size and shape are obvious without a showing of criticality, see MPEP 2144.04 A./B. Lines of different size would have been obvious in order to control the effect of the mesh, for example from center to the edge. The stacked grid is addressed per above and will not be repeated.
Regarding claim 11, the mesh would be understood to have lines (electrodes) extending in different directions to comprise a mesh.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. There is no reason to connect the mesh of Masakazu to a voltage source nor any reason to add another such electrode grid that is.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants have overcome the teachings of Kaszuba by amendment.
In regard to the multi grid, the addition to Masakazu is taught as applied above. Applicants argue that the metal mesh of the prior art reflects microwaves and therefore does not teach the same intended use of the apparatus. The argument is based again on the intended use, and not persuasive for that reason. Additionally, as noted above, the teachings of Masakazu include that the microwaves are reflected – it is understood that they are used to excite gases and nonetheless transfer charged material through the grid to the substrate
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights