DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (6/30/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A Non-Final office action in response to an election was mailed on 3/4/2025. A second Non-Final office action in response to Applicants response of dated 7/2/2025 was mailed on 10/07/2025. This Final office action is in response to applicant's submission of 1/7/2026.
Drawings
A drawing requirement to clarify the structure of inlet as in Fig 10C was made in the last office action. Applicant stated that the text of the original specification and drawings were sufficient to interpret the disclosed structure and no additional drawing was needed.
In response it is noted that claim 10 recites a first inlet portion with a first radius and a closed bottom. Inlet portion appears to be tubular structure identified in the fig as 1002. However closed bottom of this inlet is not disclosed anywhere. One would presume that the gas would flow from some holes on the side of this inlet as the bottom is closed. The second inlet portion appears to be the one identified as 1022 in Fig 10C. Both inlet portions are visible only above the top surface 1004. Gas flow appears to be on top of second inlet portions. Since the inlet potions below surface 1004 are not disclosed flow trajectories below that surface are not clear.
A cross-section drawing to show both inlet portions above and below surface 1004 and flow trajectories would therefore be required.
Response to Arguments
The applicant does not concede that Fig 1A constitutes AAPA under controlling Law. This however does not appear correct as noted in Fig 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B.
The Applicant argues as below.
“The Examiner’s proposed combination of FIG. 3 of US 2020/0312629 Al (“Leonard”) with FIG. lA of US 2025/0006466 Al (the purported “AAPA”) is unsupported by any articulated motivation grounded in the disclosures of the references themselves. To the contrary, the references pursue fundamentally different-and incompatible-design objectives, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would neither be motivated to combine them nor reasonably expect the combination to function as intended.
Applicant argues further that Leonard is expressly directed to maximizing plasma generation efficiency, density, and stability within a discrete plasma chamber while AAPA is directed to a remote plasma source architecture optimized for fluid diffusion, velocity reduction, and residence time extension.
In response it is noted that the gas flow structure in Leonard when applied to AAPA, does help to diffuse gas and reduce velocity by controlling conduction of flow path by plasma stabilizer 138. Additionally, the turbulence created by 138 helps to increase residence time.
Applicant asserts as below.
“introducing the multi-leg diffusion architecture of the purported AAPA into the plasma chamber of the Leonard publication would necessarily:
1. Increase chamber volume and flow path complexity;
2. Reduce energy density within any given region of the chamber; and
3. Weaken, rather than strengthen, the plasma generated in the Leonard system.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that adding diffusion legs to a discrete microwave plasma chamber would dilute plasma density and destabilize plasma formation, directly contradicting the core purpose of the Leonard publication.”
In response, it is noted that the rejection proposes modifying AAPA gas diffusion structure through the teaching of gas diffusion structure of Leonard but not modifying Leonard by the teaching of AAPA. Therefore, applicant’s assertion that the combination would render a reference, implying Leonard unsatisfactory for its intended purpose is improper.
Regarding “predictable result” it is noted that the flow structure in secondary art shows flow patterns on account of the disclosed structure. This structure would allow greater diffusion, reduction of velocity and increase residence time.
It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art while designing a plasma apparatus would understand that for proper plasma process, gas management which would allow for optimum plasma density, residence time of active radicals and species chamber pressure are controlled by flow control at gas inlet and exhaust conductance among many other things like the geometry of the process space.
Jeong-Ju Kim was noted as pertinent art and is being continued. It is noted that repeated diversion of flow by blocking plates was understood to enhance diffusion (See abstract and Fig 1, 4 and 6).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and rejection is maintained.
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 10-15 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) in view of Leonard III et al (US 20200312629).
AAPA discloses a remote plasma source comprising:
a toroidal chamber (Fig 1A);
a magnetic field generating assembly configured to maintain a plasma within the toroidal chamber (108 and 110);
AAPA discloses gas inlet but not first and second inlet portions as claimed.
Leonard III et al disclose a showerhead type jet inlet comprising
a first inlet portion with a first radius and a closed bottom (Fig 3, 142);
a second inlet portion with a second radius greater than the first radius (Fig 3, 138);
a plurality of showerhead type jets configured to redirect the fluid from the first fluid flow axis toward walls of the second inlet portion, (See the holes in 142);
second inlet portion directs the fluid in two opposite directions which would make it compatible with AAPA.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the inlet of the prior art according to the teaching of Leonard III et al in order to have gas diffused in to both legs of AAPA and increase residence time for plasma activation.
For determination of obviousness several rationales are suggested by KSR vs Teleflex. In this case combining prior art element of AAPA with Leonard III et al to get predictable results would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 11 input leg, output leg and interstitial legs are disclosed by AAPA.
Regarding claims 12 and 23 input leg and output leg are shaped rectangular with curved top which looks like racetrack shaped.
Further regarding shape in reference to claims 12, 14 and 21
“It was held in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) that the shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. (Also see MPEP 2144.04(d)).
Example: Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the desire shape of the (showerhead rim and the isolator 152) in order to obtain better thermal contact between the cooling plate and the showerhead rim as well as isolator 152.
Example: Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the desire size and shape of the cavity in order to direct the plasma inside the chamber as well as to reduce the external portion of the cavity.
Regarding claims 13, 21 and 26, magnetic field generating assembly is disclosed by AAPA.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 24-25 and 27 first and second fluid axis are centrally located in AAPA. AAPA modified by Leonard discloses flow direction as claimed.
Claims 22 and 28 are rejected with claim 10.
Regarding claim 29 second portion in Leonard is greater in radius.
Regarding claim 30-33 first and second portions go on the inlet side which is opposite to outlet as seen in AAPA and on the same axis.
Regarding claim 34 radian jet is perpendicular to fluid flow axis of the first portion as seen in AAPA as modified by Leonard.
Claims 10-15 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) in view of Fujimura (US 4718976) and Kasai et al (US 20060086319).
AAPA discloses a remote plasma source comprising:
a toroidal chamber (Fig 1A);
a magnetic field generating assembly configured to maintain a plasma within the toroidal chamber (108 and 110);
AAPA discloses gas inlet but not first and second inlet portions as claimed.
Fujimura disclose a showerhead type jet inlet comprising:
a first inlet portion (23) with a first small radius and a closed bottom (25);
a second inlet portion with a second radius greater than the first radius (32);
It is noted that Fujimura teaches that the blocking plate 25a is suspended from the lid so as to form plurality of jets between the supports. Fujimora teaches that diffusion could be controlled by adjusting the diameter of blocking plate 25 and its distance from opening 23. The size and shape could also be adjusted depending upon the shape of the chamber (Col 3 lines 42-62). Thus, it would have been obvious to optimize it for applying it to the AAPA.
Showerhead type jet would be more explicit from Kasai et al (Fig 5A or 5B). Kasai et al teach that the blocking plate 205 helps diffuse the processing gas using different structures (Para 72-74) including circular holes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the inlet of the prior art according to the teaching of Fujimura and Kasai in order to have gas diffusion which could be optimized according to the process need.
For determination of obviousness several rationales are suggested by KSR vs Teleflex. In this case substitution of fist inlet portion of Fujimura by Kasai to obtain predictable result would have been obvious. Similarly combining prior art element of AAPA with Fujimura modified by Kasai to get predictable results would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 11 input leg, output leg and interstitial legs are disclosed by AAPA.
Regarding claims 12 and 23 input leg and output leg are shaped rectangular with curved top which looks like racetrack shaped.
Regarding claims 13, 21, 26, magnetic field generating assembly is disclosed by AAPA.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 24-25, 27 first and second fluid axis are centrally located in AAPA. AAPA modified by Fujimura and Kasai discloses flow direction as claimed.
Claims 22 and 28 are rejected with claim 10.
Regarding claim 29 second portion in Fujimura and Kasai is greater in radius.
Regarding claim 30-33 first and second portions go on the inlet side which is opposite to outlet as seen in AAPA and on the same axis.
Regarding claim 34 radian jet is perpendicular to fluid flow axis of the first portion as seen in AAPA as modified by Fujimura and Kasai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shuzo Fujimura (US 5024748, Fig 4-5) discloses a gas inlet with first (22) and second portions (32) of smaller and larger radius of the type claimed.
Jeong-Ju Kim (US 20020104617 Fig 1) also discloses a gas inlet with first (105) and second portions (10) of smaller and larger radius of the type claimed.
Sprey et al (US 6884317 Fig 2) discloses a gas inlet with first (39) and second portions (top lid) of smaller and larger radius of the type claimed.
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
Prosecution Insights