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 .
Claims 12-20 are pending
Claims 12, 14, 17 and 19 are amended
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn due to restriction
Election/Restrictions
Upon further consideration previously withdrawn claim 20 is rejoined and grouped with methods claims 12-19.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7-15-25 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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. Applicants amendments and arguments regarding claim 14 has overcome the prior art.
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) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayumi Satoshi JP 2007059494 (JP’494) (machine translation used for citations) in view of Ono Tsuyoshi JP 2003209102 (JP’102) (machine translation used for citations) and Sugiyama US 2005/0001527 (US’527).
Regarding claim 12, JP’494 teaches a method of treating a surface with plasma (a normal-pressure plasma processing for performing surface treatment on a substrate, page 1), comprising: igniting the plasma wherein the plasma (the process gas is turned into plasma, page 6-7, see fig. 1 and 3) is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor (processing unit 10 for delivering atmospheric plasma, page 4-6, see fig. 3a-b); and moving the plasma reactor over a central opening of an assistant plate (a frame is connected to the aluminum stage to hold the substrate to be processed, the processing unit 10 is scanned left and right by the moving mechanism 4, page 4-6) with a metallic top most surface while maintaining the plasma (the stage 21 is made of aluminum, page 4-5, see fig. 3a-b).
JP’494 does not teach igniting the plasma over an ignition plate, wherein the ignition plate has a metallic top most surface, and wherein the plasma is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor positioned above the ignition plate wherein the one or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the central opening in the assistant plate.
JP’102 teaches delivering atmospheric pressure plasma to a substrate using a plasma generating head (see fig. 1-2, abstract). The stage includes stainless steep plates 31 and 32. Plasma generation is started over the stainless steel plates until the plasma flow blown out is made to flow uniformly and is stabilized once the plasma is made to flow uniformly and stabilized the plasma generating head is moved over the surface to be processed (page 4 and 6, see fig. 2 and 3). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that they could apply the teachings of JP‘102 of providing an area connected to the stage and away from the substrate for initiating the atmospheric plasma flow till it is uniform and stabilized in the process of JP’207. According to JP’102 stainless steel would be an appropriate type of material to be used for this area to exposed to the plasma discharge, and stainless-steel reads on metallic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of JP’494 to include igniting the plasma over an ignition plate, wherein the ignition plate has a metallic top most surface, and wherein the plasma is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor positioned above the ignition plate to include because JP’102 teaches it provides the ability to make the plasma flow uniform and stable before processing the substrate and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
The modified method of JP’207 does not teach wherein the one or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the central opening in the assistant plate.
US’527 teaches an atmospheric plasma process (para. 5-6 and 26) that includes a plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the a substrate being processed (para 25, 58, 62, see fig. 1-3), which would correspond to the central opening in the assistant plate in the method of US’527. In this manner, it is possible to supply the processing gas entirely to the surface of the object to be processed (para. 62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’756 to include wherein the one or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the central opening in the assistant plate because US’527 teaches it ensures supply of the processing gas entirely to the surface of the object to be processed.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’494 in view of JP’102 and US’527 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Swanson et al. US 2013/0306101 (US’101) and Utlaut et al. US 2013/0250293 (US’293).
Regarding claim 13, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12.
The modified method of JP’494 does not teach monitoring the plasma to determine an endpoint of a treatment of the surface disposed in the central opening based on an oxygen peak level.
US’101 teaches using atmospheric plasma to clean organic layers of defects on a photomask to extend the mask lifetime including using a carrier gas such as argon and oxygen plasma (para. 2-9, and 92,119-121, 135-136 and 140). US’293 teaches monitoring the emission spectrum for and oxygen based plasma and the intensity of the oxygen spectrum provides an endpointing of the cleaning process because overexposure to cleaning methods, such as oxygen cleaning plasmas, can be harmful to the plasma source (para. 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include monitoring the plasma to determine an endpoint of a treatment of the surface disposed in the central opening based on an oxygen peak level because US’101 teaches the lifetime of a photomask can be increased but using an atmospheric plasma to clean the surface and US’293 teaches endpoint detection can prevent overexposure of the equipment to the cleaning gases and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’494 in view of JP’102 and US’527 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Swanson et al. US 2013/0306101 (US’101).
Regarding claims 15-16, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12.
The modified method of JP’494 does not teach wherein a sample disposed in the central opening is a photomask, with regard to claim 15, and modifying a surface of the photomask; removing a photoresist layer on top of the photomask; or removing organic defects, with regard to claim 16.
US’101 teaches using atmospheric plasma to clean organic layers of defects on a photomask to extend the mask lifetime (para. 2-9, and 119-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include wherein a sample disposed in the central opening is a photomask, with regard to claim 15, and modifying a surface of the photomask; removing a photoresist layer on top of the photomask; or removing organic defects, with regard to claim 16 because US’101 teaches the lifetime of a photomask can be increased but using an atmospheric plasma to clean the surface and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 17, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12. JP’494 further teaches flowing a gas mixture around an RF electrode of at least one of the one or more plasma heads (electrode 11 connected to power supply 1, see fig. 1, page 4).
The modified method of JP’494 does not teach a gas mixture of argon gas and oxygen-based gas.
US’101 teaches using atmospheric plasma to clean organic layers of defects on a photomask to extend the mask lifetime including using a carrier gas such as argon and oxygen plasma (para. 2-9, and 92,119-121, 135-136 and 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include a gas mixture of argon gas and oxygen-based gas because US’101 teaches the lifetime of a photomask can be increased but using an atmospheric plasma to clean the surface and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 19, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12. JP’494 further teaches flowing a gas mixture around an RF electrode of at least one of the one or more plasma heads (electrode 11 connected to power supply 1, see fig. 1, page 4).
The modified method of US’756 does not teach a gas mixture of argon gas and hydrogen-based gas.
US’101 teaches using atmospheric plasma to clean organic layers of defects on a photomask to extend the mask lifetime including using a carrier gas such as argon and hydrogen plasma (para. 2-9, and 92,119-121, 135-136 and 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include a gas mixture of argon gas and hydrogen-based gas because US’101 teaches the lifetime of a photomask can be increased but using an atmospheric plasma to clean the surface and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’494 in view of JP’102 and US’527 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Jackson US 2004/0011378 (US’378).
Regarding claims 17-18, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12. JP’494 further teaches flowing a gas mixture around an RF electrode of at least one of the one or more plasma heads (electrode 11 connected to power supply 1, see fig. 1, page 4).
The modified method of JP’494 does not teach a gas mixture of argon gas and oxygen-based gas, with regard to claim 17 and flowing water vapor with the gas mixture to produce hydroxyl, with regard to claim 18.
US’378 teaches atmospheric plasma cleaning of glass substrates can include argon, oxygen (para. 2-9) and water vapor which produces hydroxyl (OH radicals) providing surface cleaning and modification effects (para. 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include a gas mixture of argon gas and oxygen-based gas, with regard to claim 17 and flowing water vapor with the gas mixture to produce hydroxyl, with regard to claim 18 because US’378 teaches these are known gases for performing cleaning using atmospheric plasma processes and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayumi Satoshi JP 2007059494 (JP’494) (machine translation used for citations) in view of Ono Tsuyoshi JP 2003209102 (JP’102) (machine translation used for citations), Sugiyama US 2005/0001527 (US’527) and Jindo et al. US 2020/0060017 (US’017).
Regarding claim 20, JP’494 teaches a method of treating a surface with plasma (a normal-pressure plasma processing for performing surface treatment on a substrate, page 1), to be performed, the method comprising: igniting plasma, the plasma (the process gas is turned into plasma, page 6-7, see fig. 1 and 3) is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor (processing unit 10 for delivering atmospheric plasma, page 4-6, see fig. 3a-b); and moving the plasma reactor over a central opening of an assistant plate (a frame is connected to the aluminum stage to hold the substrate to be processed, the processing unit 10 is scanned left and right by the moving mechanism 4, page 4-6) and wherein the assistant plate has a metallic top most surface while maintaining the plasma (the stage 21 is made of aluminum, page 4-5, see fig. 3a-b).
JP’494 does not teach igniting the plasma over an ignition plate, wherein the ignition plate has a metallic top most surface, and wherein the plasma is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor positioned above the ignition plate, and wherein the one or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the central opening in the assistant plate and a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method.
JP’102 teaches delivering atmospheric pressure plasma to a substrate using a plasma generating head (see fig. 1-2, abstract). The stage includes stainless steep plates 31 and 32. Plasma generation is started over the stainless steel plates until the plasma flow blown out is made to flow uniformly and is stabilized once the plasma is made to flow uniformly and stabilized the plasma generating head is moved over the surface to be processed (page 4 and 6, see fig. 2 and 3). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that they could apply the teachings of JP‘102 of providing an area connected to the stage and away from the substrate for initiating the atmospheric plasma flow till it is uniform and stabilized in the process of JP’207. According to JP’102 stainless steel would be an appropriate type of material to be used for this area to exposed to the plasma discharge, and stainless-steel reads on metallic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of JP’494 to include igniting the plasma over an ignition plate, wherein the ignition plate has a metallic top most surface, and wherein the plasma is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor positioned above the ignition plate to include because JP’102 teaches it provides the ability to make the plasma flow uniform and stable before processing the substrate and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
The modified method of JP’207 does not teach wherein the one or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the central opening in the assistant plate a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method.
US’527 teaches an atmospheric plasma process (para. 5-6 and 26) that includes a plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the a substrate being processed (para 25, 58, 62, see fig. 1-3), which would correspond to the central opening in the assistant plate in the method of US’527. In this manner, it is possible to supply the processing gas entirely to the surface of the object to be processed (para. 62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’756 to include wherein the one or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the central opening in the assistant plate because US’527 teaches it ensures supply of the processing gas entirely to the surface of the object to be processed.
The modified method of JP’207 does not teach a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method.
US’017 teaches plasma generation system for generating a plasma gas by converting a processing gas into plasma under atmospheric pressure to target object (para. 1-14). control device 29 included in plasma generation system 10 will be described. As shown in FIG. 5, control device 29 includes controller 150, multiple drive circuits 152, control circuit 154, and memory device 156. The multiple drive circuits 152 are connected to conveyance device 20, moving device 24, emitting head 26, temperature measuring device 28, processing gas supply device 103, heating-use gas supply device 121, and the like. Controller 150 is provided with a CPU, ROM, RAM, and so on, is formed mainly from a computer, and is connected to the multiple drive circuits 152. As a result, operation of emitting head 26, temperature measuring device 28, and the like is controlled by controller 150. Further, controller 150 is connected to display device 158 via control circuit 154. Display device 158 is, for example, a touchscreen panel, and includes a liquid crystal panel, a light source such as LEDs for emitting light from the rear surface of the liquid crystal panel, a touch-sensitive film bonded to the surface of the liquid crystal panel, and the like. Thus, controller 150 can display various types of information on display device 158. In addition, controller 150 can receive instructions from a user via display device 158. Further, controller 150 is connected to memory device 156. As a result, various data are stored in memory device 156 (para. 29). Therefore, US’017 teaches that it is conventional to use a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon to perform the modified method of JP’494.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method because the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP2144.04 III.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 12 to include subject matter regarding a metallic top most surface of the ignition plate and the assistant plate has changed the scope of claim 12, and as a result, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 103 as obvious over JP’494 in view of JP’102 and US’527.
Response to Arguments
Applicants filing of a terminal disclaimed has overcome the double patenting rejection cited on the final office action mailed 4-16-25.
Applicant's arguments filed 6-16-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument, with regard to the teachings of Nakajima, filed 6-16-25, with regard to amendments made to claim 12 have been fully considered but are moot, due to the new rejection applied in the above non-final office action not relying on the teachings of Nakajima in the rejection of claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached on 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights