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 .
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1, 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2001/0048981) in view of Panish et al (US 3,677,228), Zhu et al (CN 112074071A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Leek (US 2010/0231144).
Suzuki teaches an apparatus for microwave-plasma deposition of films using electron cyclotron resonance ([0002]-[0008]), comprising a resonant cavity part and a microwave transmission part, wherein the resonant cavity part (chamber 1101) comprises an inner cavity body (chamber 1101), a ring waveguide (annular waveguide 1103), a slot opening (slots 1122), a quartz ring ([0010] and [0034] teaches the dielectric is quartz and a dielectric ring 1102), a platform (wall of chamber 1101 supporting quartz ring 1102), a deposition platform (support 1113 for substrate), a substrate 1112, and a recess, wherein the slot opening 1122 is located on a wall of the inner cavity body, and communicates the inner cavity body with the ring waveguide 1103; the metal platform is configured around a bottom of the inner cavity body (wall of chamber 1101 supporting quartz ring 1102), and the platform supports the quartz ring (wall of chamber 1101 supporting quartz ring 1102); the deposition platform is provided at a center of the bottom of the inner cavity body (Fig 7 show substrate support 1113 at the center and bottom of the chamber); the substrate 1112 is provided above the deposition platform 1113; the recess is provided on a top of the inner cavity body, and is cylindrical; the inner cavity body 1101 and the quartz ring 1112 are both hollow cylindrical; the ring waveguide 1103 is arranged around the inner cavity body, and is circular ring-shaped with a rectangular cross-section (Fig 7). (See Fig 3-8; [0031]-[0063]).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach the substrate is circular disc-shaped. The claims are directed to an apparatus and the substrate is not a structural limitation of the apparatus. Suzuki teaches an apparatus with a support for a substrate; therefore, is capable of supporting a circular disc shaped substrate, thus meets the claimed limitation. Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Suzuki does not teach the deposition platform is H-shaped.
In an apparatus for crystal growth, Panish et al teaches an H-shaped substrate holder (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Suzuki by using an H-shaped deposition platform, as taught by Panish et al, because changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04), and H-shape substrate holders are known in the art of crystal growth.
Suzuki teaches platform, however does not explicitly teach the platform is metal.
Suzuki does not teach a plurality of the microwave transmission parts are provided, all of which are connected to the resonant cavity part for feeding microwaves into the inner cavity body.
In a microwave plasma generating apparatus, Zhu et al teaches a high-power
plasma generator with multiple microwave sources which solves the problems of small plasma size and low power (CT [0002]-[0012]). Zhu et al teaches the microwave cavity is a metal microwave cavity used to concentrate microwave energy (CT [0015]). Zhu et al teaches microwave generators are evenly distributed along the longitudinal cross-section of a quartz tube and microwave generator and waveguide can be in three, four, or five groups (CT [0019]-[0021]; Fig 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Suzuki and Panish et al by providing a plurality of the microwave transmission parts are provided, all of which are connected to the resonant cavity part for feeding microwaves into the inner cavity body, as taught by Zhu et al, to provide high-power and a large-size plasma excitation (Zhu CT [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Suzuki and Panish et al by making the cavity wall from metal, as taught by Zhu et al, which is the platform that supports the quartz ring, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
The combination of Suzuki, Panish et al and Zhu et al does not teach the microwave transmission part comprises a microwave source, a circulator, and a waveguide magic T structure; the microwave source generates microwave oscillations; the circulator is arranged at an outlet of the microwave source to protect the microwave source from reflected microwave power; the waveguide magic T structure is used for tuning impedance.
In a microwave system, Leek teaches a microwave system 16, a first magnetron 18 having an outlet port 20, a waveguide length, and a frequency tuning stub 22 for tuning operating frequencies; a second magnetron 24 in parallel with the first magnetron 18 having an outlet port 26, a waveguide length that is equal to the waveguide length of the first magnetron 18, and a frequency tuning stub 28; a magic T coupler 32 having four ports 34, 36, 38, 40, with port 40 having an output leg employing a mismatch 42; a waveguide 46 for transmitting power from the magic T coupler 32, waveguide 46 employing a section with a mismatch 48; and a circulator 50 for isolating the first and second magnetrons 18, 24, from reflected power from the accelerator 12, which has three ports 52, 54, 56, with port 56 having an output leg terminating in a dummy load, circulator 50 being in direct communication via port 52 and waveguide 46 with coupler 32 and via port 54 and waveguide 46 with the linear accelerator 12 and tuning operating frequencies ([0040]-[0064]; Fig 1-6), which clearly suggests a plurality of microwave sources, circulators and waveguide magic T structures. Leek teaches the microwave system demonstrates increased efficiency and dependability, higher energy and power outputs (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al and Zhu et al by providing a microwave transmission part comprising a microwave source, a circulator, and a waveguide magic T structure; the microwave source generates microwave oscillations; the circulator is arranged at an outlet of the microwave source to protect the microwave source from reflected microwave power; the waveguide magic T structure, as taught by Leek, to improve efficiency and dependability, energy and power outputs (Leek Abstract).
In regards to the apparatus for the deposition of diamond films, this limitation merely recites an intended use of the apparatus in an excitation method. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus, as discussed above; therefore, would be capable of the claimed intended use.
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches a gas inlet and a gas outlet; the gas inlet is located at a bottom of the cylindrical recess on the top of the inner cavity body, and injects a gas vertically downwards to the H-shaped deposition platform; the gas outlet is located at the bottom of the inner cavity body on both sides of the H-shaped deposition platform (Suzuki Fig 7 shows gas inlets 1105/1115 and gas outlets 1116). Furthermore, location of inlets and outlets would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a desired gas flow over the substrate.
Referring to claim 10, this limitation merely recites an intended use of the apparatus in an excitation method. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus, as discussed above; therefore, would be capable of the claimed intended use.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2001/0048981) in view of Panish et al (US 3,677,228), Zhu et al (CN 112074071A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Leek (US 2010/0231144), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Richardson et al (US 2014/0306604).
The combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, except the microwave source is fully shielded or a microwave transistor. The combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches a microwave system 16 comprising a magnetron (Leek [0040]-[0064]; Fig 1-6),
In an apparatus for producing microwaves, Richardson et al teaches a microwave radiation source comprising a magnetron and because of the high levels of stray radiation, it is usually necessary fully to shield the magnetron and the isolation transformer in a metallic or other electrically conductive screened chamber ([0005], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek by fully shielding the magnetron, as taught by Richardson et al, to block stray radiation.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2001/0048981) in view of Panish et al (US 3,677,228), Zhu et al (CN 112074071A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Leek (US 2010/0231144), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fong et al (US 5,902,404).
The combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, except the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek does not explicitly teach a flange cover disposed on the top and bottom of the inner cavity body, assembled detachably with the inner cavity body.
In a microwave resonant chamber, Fong et al teaches a flanged metal lids 40/46 flanged to the resonant cavity 16 (Fig 1; col 3, ln 40 to col 4, ln 65; and col 5, ln 1-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek by providing top and bottom flanged lids, as taught by Fong et al, to provide detachable access to the interior of the resonant cavity.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2001/0048981) in view of Panish et al (US 3,677,228), Zhu et al (CN 112074071A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Leek (US 2010/0231144), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gicquel et al (US 2021/0087676).
The combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, except observation holes provided around an outer wall of the inner cavity body.
In a reactor for microwave plasma deposition, Gicquel et al teaches one or more windows 450 around the outer wall 430 and the windows 450 can be positioned at different heights of an enclosure 400 and preferably at the resonant cavity 41 to observe growth (Fig 2, 4, 7; [0106], [0242]-[0245]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek by providing observation holes provided around an outer wall of the inner cavity body, as taught by Gicquel et al, to observe the interior of the cavity.
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al, Leek and Gicquel et al teaches a movable substrate holder, wherein allowing the substrate to move vertically in the plasma which leads very high control of local growth conditions at the surface of the growing diamond (Gicquel [0021], [0041], [0104], [0122], [0178]). In regards to the depth of the recess being adjustable, the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al, Leek and Gicquel et al teaches an apparatus with recesses, as discussed above; and changes in size and shape is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04); therefore, the recess can be adjusted/replaced with a desired size/shape.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2001/0048981) in view of Panish et al (US 3,677,228), Zhu et al (CN 112074071A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Leek (US 2010/0231144), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Liu et al (US 2019/0362945).
The combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, except an infrared thermometer provided on an upper half outer wall of the inner cavity body, pointing to a center of a spherical plasma formed during resonance.
In microwave plasma generating device, Liu et al teaches a visual observation hole 7 and a plurality of pyrometers 6, which clearly suggests an infrared thermometer, are provided on the outer cavity adjacent to a stage to monitor the reaction state in the cavity (Fig 3; [0018], [0040]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek by providing an infrared thermometer provided on an upper half outer wall of the inner cavity body, pointing to a center of a spherical plasma formed during resonance, as taught by Liu et al, to monitor the reaction state within the cavity.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2001/0048981) in view of Panish et al (US 3,677,228), Zhu et al (CN 112074071A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Leek (US 2010/0231144), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jevtic et al (US 2016/0029472).
The combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, except an air cooling device provided under an inner cavity body for dissipating heat from the quartz ring.
In a plasma generating apparatus, Jevtic et al teaches a dielectric resonator 12 may provide for radially extending standoffs 52 that support the dielectric resonator 12 and the ends of the standoffs 54 may be plated with a metal in order to reduce thermal resistance to a metal enclosure to assist in cooling of the dielectric resonator 12 which may also be cooled by natural convection or forced flow of air around the standoffs 52; and air cooling of a plasma by forced flow of air ([0070]-[0080], [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek by an air cooling device provided under an inner cavity body for dissipating heat from the quartz ring, as taught by Jevtic et al, to cool the quartz ring.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2001/0048981) in view of Panish et al (US 3,677,228), Zhu et al (CN 112074071A), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, and Leek (US 2010/0231144), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kumar et al (US 2008/0129208).
The combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, except water cooling devices provided on the flange cover, the deposition platform, the magnetron and the circulator.
In a microwave plasma generating apparatus, Kumar et al teaches a closed loop deionized water-cooling system cools magnetron 1202, circulator 1210, aluminum applicator chamber and a working platform 1205 inside the chamber (Fig 12A; [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Suzuki, Panish et al, Zhu et al and Leek by providing a water cooling devices for the flange cover, the deposition platform, the magnetron and the circulator, as taught by Kumar et al, to cool the structural elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714