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
With regards to the election of species requirement, the applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Hence, the election of species requirement is withdrawn and all claims are examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: clamping device 44 in claims 1 and 4; moving device 43 in claims 1-2; frame shape holding part 11 in claim 2; positioning device 42 in claim 3; locking unit 411 in claim 5, electrode stabilizing unit 412 in claim 6; and phase synchronizing unit 413 in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Page 10, lines 8-9, a clamping device 44 is rectangular frame body.
Page 9, line 14-page 10, line 1, a moving device 43 includes a driving member 431 (i.e. pneumatic cylinder or hydraulic cylinder) and a lifting member 432.
Page 7, lines 17-18, a frame shape holding part 11 is for holding object 1.
Page 8, line 20-page 9, line 2, a positioning device 42 is a photoelectric sensor.
Page 12, lines 5-15, a locking unit 411 unlocks the locked status of the second radio frequency power source 48.
Page 12, lines 16-20, and page 13, lines 1-7, an electrode stabilizing unit 412 is configured to adjust the power output of the first radio frequency power source 47 and the second radio frequency power source 48 when the plasma is in a stable status.
Page 15, lines 2-12, a phase synchronizing unit 413 is configured to make the first radio frequency power source 47 and the second radio frequency power source 48 achieve a phase-matching status.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, “a frame shape holding part for holding the to-be-processed object” invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, the recitation of “a frame shape holding part” without further specifying a specific structure to perform the function of “for holding the to-be-processed object”. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, “a locking unit unlocks the locked status of the second radio frequency power source .” invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, the recitation of “a locking unit” without further specifying a specific structure to perform the function of “unlocks the locked status of the second radio frequency power source”. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, “an electrode stabilizing unit is configured to adjust the power output of the first radio frequency power source and the second radio frequency power source when the plasma is in a stable status.” invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, the recitation of “an electrode stabilizing unit” without further specifying a specific structure to perform the function of “configured to adjust the power output of the first radio frequency power source and the second radio frequency power source when the plasma is in a stable status”. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, “a phase synchronizing unit is configured to make the first radio frequency power source and the second radio frequency power source achieve a phase-matching status.” invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, the recitation of “a phase synchronizing unit” without further specifying a specific structure to perform the function of “configured to make the first radio frequency power source and the second radio frequency power source achieve a phase-matching status”. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 10 recite the limitation a controller 41. On page 11, lines 2-4, the specification indicates a controller 41 comprises a locking unit 411, an electrode stabilizing unit 412, and a phase synchronizing unit 413. However, the specification shows the structure of a box and gives no indication if the controller is programmable and has memory (i.e. computer or processor). Therefore, it is unclear whether the controller is a processor or simply a switching device that turns on/off. For purposes of examination, the controller is simply a switching device that turns on/off.
With respect to claim 2, claim limitation “a frame shape holding part ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “A frame shape holding part” has no specific structure that corresponds with “a frame shape holding part”, and thus it is unclear what the structure of “a frame shape holding part” is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of examination, the frame shape holding part is simply a frame for holding object.
With respect to claim 5, claim limitation “a locking unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “A locking unit” has no specific structure that corresponds with “a locking unit”, and thus it is unclear what the structure of “a locking unit” is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of examination, the locking unit is simply an on/off structure for the second radio frequency power source.
With respect to claim 6, claim limitation “an electrode stabilizing unit ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “A electrode stabilizing unit” has no specific structure that corresponds with “an electrode stabilizing unit”, and thus it is unclear what the structure of “an electrode stabilizing unit” is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of examination, the electrode stabilizing unit is simply an on/off structure for the first and second radio frequency power sources.
With respect to claim 10, claim limitation “a phase synchronizing unit ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “A phase synchronizing unit” has no specific structure that corresponds with “a phase synchronizing unit”, and thus it is unclear what the structure of “a phase synchronizing unit” is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of examination, the phase synchronizing unit is simply a phase matcher.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-2, 4-6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiangsu et al. (CN113066745A) in view of Collins et al. (U.S. 2008/0178803) and Furuta et al. (U.S. 2008/0274297) and
Referring to Figure 1 and pages 5-6, Jiangsu et al. discloses a two-electrode continuous plasma processing system, comprising: an uploading chamber 2 for inputting a to-be-processed object (page 5, par.[8]); a processing chamber 4 communicated with the uploading chamber for receiving the to-be-processed object and carrying out a plasma process on the to-be-processed object (page 5, par.[8]), the processing chamber comprising a first electrode 33, a second electrode 34, a first radio frequency power source 37, and a second radio frequency power source 35 that are coupled with the controller, the first radio frequency power source and the second radio frequency power source being disposed on two opposite ends in the processing chamber and forming a processing space (Fig. 1, page 6, par.[3]), the first radio frequency power source 37 being coupled with the first electrode 33 and providing the first electrode with a first radio frequency energy to control a density of a plasma, the second radio frequency power source 35 being coupled with the second electrode 34 and providing the second electrode with a second radio frequency energy to control an ion energy of the plasma (Fig. 1, page 6, par.[3]); and a downloading chamber 6 communicated with the processing chamber for receiving and outputting the finished to-be-processed object (page 5, par.[8]).
Jiangsu et al. is silent on controller.
Referring to Figure 1A and paragraphs [0029]-[0032], Collins et al. teach a controller 270 coupled to a first electrode 204, a second electrode 218, a first radio frequency power source 240, 242, and a second radio frequency power source 262, 266 in order to control plasma generation and ion energy. 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 Jiangsu et al. with a controller as taught by Collins et al. in order to control plasma generation and ion energy. The resulting apparatus of Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. would yield a controller coupled to a first electrode, a second electrode, a first radio frequency power source, and a second radio frequency power source.
Jiangsu et al. is silent on a moving device connected with the second electrode and the moving device controls the second electrode to drive the to-be-processed object to move toward the first electrode.
Referring to Figure 1A and paragraph [0033], Collins et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art to use a moving device 234 connected with the second electrode 218 and the moving device controls the second electrode to drive the to-be-processed object to move toward the first electrode in order to improve uniformity of the plasma distribution. 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 Jiangsu et al. with a moving device as taught by Collins et al. in order to improve uniformity of the plasma distribution.
Jiangsu et al. teach an electrostatic chuck is used to clamp the processing object; however, is silent on a clamping device fixed in the processing space such that the second electrode and the clamping device clamp and fix the to-be-processed object.
Referring to Figure 2 and paragraph [0032], Furuta et al. teach a clamping device 75 fixed in the processing space such that the second electrode 72 and the clamping device clamp and fix the to-be-processed object 74. 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 Jiangsu et al. with a clamping device fixed in the processing space such that the second electrode and the clamping device clamp and fix the to-be-processed object as taught by Furuta et al. since it is an alternate and equivalent means for holding a processed object. Additionally, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
With respect to claim 2, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. further comprising a carrier plate 8, the carrier plate comprises a frame shape holding part 8 for holding the to-be-processed object (Figs. 1-2-Jiangsu et al); the moving device 234 controls the second electrode to pass through the frame shape holding part and drive the to-be-processed object to move toward the first electrode, so that the to-be-processed object leaves the frame shape holding part (Fig. 1A-Collins et al.).
With respect claim 4, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. further includes wherein the clamping device 75 is a rectangular frame body (Fig.2-Furutat et al.).
With respect to claim 5, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of Jiangsu et al in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. further includes wherein the controller 270 comprises a locking unit; when the first radio frequency energy provided by the first radio frequency power source reaches an initial power, the locking unit unlocks a locked status of the second radio frequency power source, so that the second radio frequency power source provides the second electrode with the second radio frequency energy (Fig. 1A, pars.[0029]-[0032]).
With respect to claim 6, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of Jiangsu et al in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. further includes wherein the controller 270 comprises an electrode stabilizing unit; when the first radio frequency energy and the second radio frequency energy reach the initial power, the electrode stabilizing unit actuates the first radio frequency power source to increase the first radio frequency energy to a first processing power (Fig. 1A, pars.[0029]-[0032]).
With respect to claim 10, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of Jiangsu et al in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. further includes wherein the controller further comprises a phase synchronizing unit; the phase synchronizing unit is configured to make the first radio frequency power source and the second radio frequency power source achieve a phase-matching status. (Note. Page 6, paragraph 4, Jiangsu et al. discloses that a phase synchronizer is used. 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 controller of Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. to include a phase synchronizing unit for automated phase control.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiangsu et al. (CN113066745A) in view of Collins et al. (U.S. 2008/0178803) and Furuta et al. (U.S. 2008/0274297) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10 above, and further in view of Lariviere et al. (U.S. 2021/00566697).
The teachings of Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. have been discussed above.
Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. fail to teach a positioning device configured to detect if the carrier plate is at a processing position in the processing space.
Referring to paragraph [0033], Lariviere et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art for a positioning device 143, 145,148 configured to detect if the carrier plate is at a processing position in the processing space. 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 Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. with a positioning device as taught by Lariviere et al. to determine the location of the carrier plate.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiangsu et al. (CN113066745A) in view of Collins et al. (U.S. 2008/0178803) and Furuta et al. (U.S. 2008/0274297) and as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2004/0025791).
The teachings of Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. have been discussed above.
Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. fail to teach the initial power is 0.5kW.
Referring to paragraph [0022], Chen et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein the initial power is 0.5kW in order to ignite and maintain a plasma. 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 Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al. and Furuta et al. with the initial power is 0.5kW as taught by Chen et al. in order to ignite and maintain a plasma.
With respect to claim 8, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of Jiangsu et al. in view of Collins et al., Furuta et al. and Chen et al. further includes wherein when the first radio frequency energy is increased to the first processing power, the electrode stabilizing unit 110 actuates the second radio frequency power source to increase the second radio frequency energy to a second processing power (pars.[0029]-[0032]-Collins et al., par.[0033]-Chen et al.).
9. The two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of claim 8, wherein the first processing power and the second processing power range from 1kW to 5kW (pars. [0022], [0031]).
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 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2004/0025791).
Referring to claims 1-5 and 10-11, U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 disclose a two-electrode continuous plasma processing system, comprising: an uploading chamber for inputting a to-be-processed object; a processing chamber communicated with the uploading chamber for receiving the to-be-processed object and carrying out a plasma process on the to-be-processed object, the processing chamber comprising a clamping device, a moving device, and a first electrode, a second electrode, the clamping device fixed in the processing space, the moving device connected with the second electrode; when the to-be-processed object moves into the processing space, the moving device controls the second electrode to drive the to-be-processed object to move toward the first electrode, such that the second electrode and the clamping device clamp and fix the to-be-processed object; and a downloading chamber communicated with the processing chamber for receiving and outputting the finished to-be-processed object.
U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 is silent on a controller; a first radio frequency power source, and a second radio frequency power source that are coupled with the controller, the first radio frequency power source and the second radio frequency power source being disposed on two opposite ends in the processing chamber and forming a processing space; and the first radio frequency power source being coupled with the first electrode and providing the first electrode with a first radio frequency energy to control a density of a plasma, the second radio frequency power source being coupled with the second electrode and providing the second electrode with a second radio frequency energy to control an ion energy of the plasma.
Referring to paragraphs [0022]-[0035], Chen et al. teach it is conventionally known in the art to use a controller; a first radio frequency power source, and a second radio frequency power source that are coupled with the controller, the first radio frequency power source and the second radio frequency power source being disposed on two opposite ends in the processing chamber and forming a processing space; and the first radio frequency power source being coupled with the first electrode and providing the first electrode with a first radio frequency energy to control a density of a plasma, the second radio frequency power source being coupled with the second electrode and providing the second electrode with a second radio frequency energy to control an ion energy of the plasma in order to achieve the desired plasma processing conditions. 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 U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 with a controller; a first radio frequency power source, and a second radio frequency power source that are coupled with the controller, the first radio frequency power source and the second radio frequency power source being disposed on two opposite ends in the processing chamber and forming a processing space; and the first radio frequency power source being coupled with the first electrode and providing the first electrode with a first radio frequency energy to control a density of a plasma, the second radio frequency power source being coupled with the second electrode and providing the second electrode with a second radio frequency energy to control an ion energy of the plasma as taught by Chen et al. in order to achieve the desired plasma processing conditions for substrate processing.
With respect to claim 2, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 in view of Chen et al., further comprising a carrier plate, the carrier plate comprises a frame shape holding part for holding the to-be-processed object; the moving device controls the second electrode to pass through the frame shape holding part and drive the to-be-processed object to move toward the first electrode, so that the to-be-processed object leaves the frame shape holding part (claims 1, 3-5).
With respect to claim 3, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 in view of Chen et al. further includes wherein the processing chamber comprises a positioning device configured to detect if the carrier plate is at a processing position in the processing space (claims 6-7).
With respect to claim 5, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 in view of Chen et al. further includes wherein the controller 110 comprises a locking unit; when the first radio frequency energy provided by the first radio frequency power source reaches an initial power, the locking unit unlocks a locked status of the second radio frequency power source, so that the second radio frequency power source provides the second electrode with the second radio frequency energy (Chen et al., pars. [0022], [0031],[0033]).
With respect to claim 6, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 in view of Chen et al. further includes wherein the controller 110 comprises an electrode stabilizing unit; when the first radio frequency energy and the second radio frequency energy reach the initial power, the electrode stabilizing unit actuates the first radio frequency power source to increase the first radio frequency energy to a first processing power(Chen et al., pars. [0022], [0031],[0033]).
With respect to claim 7, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 in view of Chen et al. further includes wherein the initial power is 0.5kW (Chen et al., pars. [0022], [0031],[0033]).
With respect to claim 8, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 in view of Chen et al. further includes wherein when the first radio frequency energy is increased to the first processing power, the electrode stabilizing unit actuates the second radio frequency power source to increase the second radio frequency energy to a second processing power (Chen et al., pars. [0022], [0031],[0033]).
With respect to claim 9, the two-electrode continuous plasma processing system of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,694 in view of Chen et al. further includes wherein the first processing power and the second processing power range from 1kW to 5kW (Chen et al., pars. [0022], [0031],[0033]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamada et al.’512 teach phase adjustment. Iwase et al.’459, Umehara et al., Tokashiki’689, Midorikawa’196 and Ogawa’615 teach a first power source coupled to a first electrode and a second power source coupled to a second electrode. Yoshimura et al.’462 and Matsuda et al.’790 teach first and second power sources and a moving device. Cho et al.’531 and Kim et al.’611 teach an uploading chamber, a processing chamber, and a downloading chamber. Harikai et al.’026 teach a clamping device. Gregor et al.’628 teach phase and frequency 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
Prosecution Insights