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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings appear to be hand-drawn in all the figures. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20010026243 to Koitsalu.
Claim 1: Koitsalu discloses an impedance transformer comprising: a thermal break (16 [impedance-matching device], Fig. 5-6) comprising a housing (16) having a first end (32 [low-impedance end]) and a second end (34 [high-impedance end]) defining a length of the housing (16), the housing (16) having a channel (30 [inner conductor]) with channel walls (30) extending through the length from the first end to the second end (32 to 34, Fig. 6), the channel (30) having an opening (38 [center aperture] at first end) in the first end of the housing with a first end diameter and an opening (38 at second end) in the second end of the housing with a second end diameter, the first end diameter being greater than the second end diameter (see Fig. 6), the channel (30) acting as a conical impedance transformer (para. [0037], [0036], abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koitsalu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5154347 to Vijay.
Claims 2-4: The apparatus of Koitsalu does not disclose (claim 2) wherein the channel walls have a curved taper; (claim 3) wherein the curved taper comprises a plurality of linear facets; (claim 4) wherein there are in the range of 2 to 15 facets.
However Vijay discloses (claim 2) wherein the channel walls (39 [peripheral walls], Fig. 3) have a curved taper (Fig. 3); (claim 3) wherein the curved taper (Fig. 3) comprises a plurality of linear facets (see where at least 2 facets are shown in Fig. 3); (claim 4) wherein there are in the range of 2 to 15 facets (Fig. 3); for the purpose of producing the desired modulations with much lower stress as compared to the stepped or simple conical transformers (c. 6, l. 35-47).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the curved taper limitations as taught by Vijay with motivation to produce the desired modulations with much lower stress as compared to the stepped or simple conical transformers.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koitsalu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180296267 to Hancock.
Claims 5-6: The apparatus of Koitsalu does not disclose (claim 5) further comprising an upper sleeve positioned within the housing, the upper sleeve extending a distance into the housing from the first end; (claim 6) wherein the upper sleeve comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
However Hancock discloses (claim 5) further comprising an upper sleeve (1326 [dielectric spacer], Fig. 13) positioned within a housing (1304 [outer body]), the upper sleeve (1326) extending a distance into the housing (1304) from the first end (1304); (claim 6) wherein the upper sleeve (1326) comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (para. [0096]) for the purpose of ensuring electrical isolation (para. [0096]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the upper sleeve as taught by Hancock with motivation to ensure electrical isolation.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koitsalu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20100228244 to Hancock.
Claims 7-8: The apparatus of Koitsalu does not disclose (claim 7) further comprising a lower sleeve positioned within the housing, the lower sleeve extending a distance into the housing from the second end; (claim 8) wherein the lower sleeve comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
However Hancock discloses disclose (claim 7) further comprising a lower sleeve (50 [PTFE dielectric], Fig. 11B) positioned within the housing (20 outer conductor]), the lower sleeve (50) extending a distance into the housing (20) from the second end (end of 20, Fig. 11B); (claim 8) wherein the lower sleeve (50) comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (para. [0078]); for the purpose of being impedance matched and having low permittivity (para. [0078]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the lower sleeve as taught by Hancock with motivation to of be impedance matched and having low permittivity.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koitsalu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220068610 to Schungel.
Claim 9: The apparatus of Koitsalu does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the length of the housing comprises outwardly projecting and spaced apart vanes for heat dissipation.
However Schungel discloses wherein at least a portion of the length of the housing (31 [body], Fig. 14) comprises outwardly projecting and spaced apart vanes (30PL [metallic material areas]) for heat dissipation for the purpose of preventing plasma to burn therein (para. [0172]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spaced apart vanes as taught by Schungel with motivation to prevent plasma to burn therein.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koitsalu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200343065 to Chua.
Claims 10, 12, 15: The apparatus of Koitsalu does not disclose (claim 10) further comprising a microwave antennae pin positioned within the channel and extending a distance from the second end of the housing; (claim 12) wherein the microwave antennae pin has a substantially uniform diameter along a length of the pin; (claim 15) further comprising a coaxial connector attached to the first end of the housing.
However Chua discloses (claim 10) further comprising a microwave antennae pin (143/151 [antenna]/[trace], Fig. 1) positioned within a channel (channel of 144/150) and extending a distance from the second end of the housing (second end of 150); (claim 12) wherein the microwave antennae pin (143/151) has a substantially uniform diameter along a length of the pin (Fig. 1 where substantially is interpreted as mostly); (claim 15) further comprising a coaxial connector (155/153 [coaxial cable]/[connectors]) attached to the first end of the housing (first end of 150 [thermal break]). Chua discloses the above limitations for the purpose of reducing complexity and providing for a compact construction (para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above limitations as taught by Chua with motivation to reduce complexity and provide for a compact construction.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koitsalu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20070030200 to Heng.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Koitsalu does not disclose wherein the microwave antennae pin comprises a beryllium copper pin.
However Heng teaches wherein the antennae pin comprises a beryllium copper (para. [0042]) among other materials as choices for the purpose of having good conductivity (para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material requirement as taught by Heng with motivation to have good conductivity.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koitsalu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20140139384 to Elliot.
Claim 13: The apparatus of Koitsalu does not disclose wherein the diameter of the microwave antennae pin is in the range of 3 mm to 4 mm.
However Elliot discloses an antenna (104/130, Fig. 1B) monopole wherein the diameter of the microwave antennae pin (104/130) is in the range of 3 mm to 4 mm (para. [0080], which reads on the claimed range) for the purpose of having a thinner monopole to achieve better gain coverage and bandwidth than a thicker antenna (para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the diameter requirements as taught by Elliot with motivation to have a thinner monopole to achieve better gain coverage and bandwidth than a thicker antenna.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koitsalu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20030038688 to Mitrovic.
Claim 14: The apparatus of Koitsalu does not disclose wherein the housing comprises aluminum.
Mitrovic discloses wherein a housing (16 [outer conductor], fig. 1a/1b) comprises aluminum (or other materials, para. [0033]) for the purpose of having a loss lost conducting material (para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material requirement as taught by Mitrovic with motivation to have a low loss conducting material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses a plasma source comprising: a cooled plate comprising a plurality of openings therethrough; a pumping ring below the cooled plate; a thermal break positioned within at least some of the plurality of openings, the thermal break comprising a housing having a first end and a second end defining a length of the housing, the housing having a channel with channel walls extending through the length from the first end to the second end, the channel having an opening in the first end of the housing with a first end diameter and an opening in the second end of the housing with a second end diameter, the first end diameter being greater than the second end diameter, the channel acting as a conical impedance transformer; a plasma plate below the pumping ring, the plasma plate comprising a plurality of pin openings in a top surface thereof;
each of the thermal breaks comprising a microwave antennae pin positioned within the channel in the housing, the microwave antennae pins extending a distance from the second end of the housing of the thermal breaks into the pin openings in the plasma plate.
However the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the second end of the thermal breaks extending below a bottom surface of the cooled plate and connected to the pumping ring, as set forth in the present claims. The apparatus of Koitsalu in view of Chua does not disclose the limitations above. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. This subject matter is therefore rendered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights