Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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. The claims require a “conductive layer”, however, the claims do not specify if the conductivity is electrical or thermal. The below action assumes electrical conductivity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sasaki; Kazuo (US 20100175831 A1) in view of, if necessary, Horioka; Keiji et al. (US 6132551 A). Sasaki teaches a substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) comprising: a chamber (1; Figure 1) having a treating space (4; Figure 1); a support unit (23,24; Figure 1) configured to support a substrate (G; Figure 1) in the treating space (4; Figure 1);a window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) positioned above the treating space (4; Figure 1); and a conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) formed on the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2), and wherein a bottom surface of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) is exposed to the treating space (4; Figure 1), and the conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is formed on a top surface among a top surface and a bottom surface of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 1
Sasaki further teaches:
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 1, wherein the conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is coated (“film” is a coating) to have a predetermined thickness on the top surface of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 2
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 2, wherein an electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) in a ring shape to which a high-frequency voltage (15; Figure 1) is applied is disposed above the conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 3
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 3, wherein the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is positioned within a coated (“film” is a coating) region of the conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) when seen from above, as claimed by claim 4
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 4, wherein the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is disposed along a circumference of an edge region of the conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 5
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 4, wherein the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) partially overlaps a substrate (G; Figure 1) supported on the support unit (23,24; Figure 1) when seen from above, as claimed by claim 6
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 4, wherein a bottom surface of the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) and a top surface of the conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) are bonded to each other by an ohmic contact, as claimed by claim 7. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Under anticipation Sasaki is believed to teach Sasaki’s conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is formed on a top surface of Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) because Sasaki’s broad claim 11 is further narrowed by dependent claim 12 requiring Sasaki’s conductive layer to be “is formed on a side surface of the metal window and a surface of the metal window exposed to the processing chamber”. Further, Sasaki is believed to teach the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is positioned within a coated (“film” is a coating) region of the conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) when seen from above and the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is disposed along a circumference of an edge region of the conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) because Sasaki’s reference to the conductive layer of “…may be formed on a surface of the metal window 2.” ([0064]) implies the entire surface.
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds of anticipation are not accepted, then, Horioka teaches a substrate (105; Figures 2,4) treating apparatus (Figures 2-5) comprising: a chamber (120; Figures 2,4) having a treating space; a support unit (110; Figures 2,4) configured to support a substrate (105; Figures 2,4) in the treating space; a window plate (240; Figure 3; 510; Figure 5-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) positioned above the treating space; and a conductive layer (200; Figure 3; 524; Figure 5-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) formed above the window plate (240; Figure 3; 510; Figure 5-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2), and wherein a bottom surface of the window plate (240; Figure 3; 510; Figure 5-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) is exposed to the treating space, and the conductive layer (200; Figure 3; 524; Figure 5-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is formed above a top surface among a top surface and a bottom surface of the window plate (240; Figure 3; 510; Figure 5-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sasaki to form Sasaki’s conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) on a top surface of Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) and Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is positioned within a coated (“film” is a coating) region and along a circumference of Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) as taught by Horioka.
Motivation for Sasaki to form Sasaki’s conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) on a top surface of Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) and Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is positioned within a coated (“film” is a coating) region and along a circumference of Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) as taught by Horioka is at least for reducing ion sputtering of the chamber wall and subsequent metal contamination as taught by Horioka (column 2; lines 10-16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki; Kazuo (US 20100175831 A1) in view of Horioka; Keiji et al. (US 6132551 A). Sasaki is discussed above. Sasaki does not teach the substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 3, wherein a material of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) includes a quartz, a material of the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) includes a metal, and the metal includes a copper (Cu) or an aluminum (Al), as claimed by claim 8
Horioka is discussed above. Horioka further teaches the substrate (105; Figures 2,4) treating apparatus (Figures 2-5) of claim 3, wherein a material of the window plate (240; Figure 3; 510; Figure 5-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) includes a quartz (“alumina”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sasaki to use alumina for Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) as taught by Horioka.
Motivation for Sasaki to use alumina for Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) as taught by Horioka is for protecting from “…highly-corrosive/etch precursors, including fluorine, chlorine, and other halogens as well as oxidizing gases such as oxygen or nitrogen dioxide.” as taught by Horioka (column 9; lines 5-10).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki; Kazuo (US 20100175831 A1) in view of Panagopoulos; Theo et al. (US 20210104414 A1). Sasaki is discussed above. Sasaki further teaches the substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 2, wherein Sasaki’s conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is provided as a transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) – claim 9.
Sasaki does not teach Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is made of a material including an ITO (Indium tin oxide).
Panagopoulos also teaches a plasma reactor (Figure 9) including a window (954) is made from ITO ([0033], [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sasaki to use ITO for Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) as taught by Panagopoulos.
Motivation for Sasaki to use ITO for Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) as taught by Panagopoulos is for “grounding and powering” as taught by Panagopoulos ([0033]).
Claims 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki; Kazuo (US 20100175831 A1) and Panagopoulos; Theo et al. (US 20210104414 A1) in view of Collins; Kenneth S. (US 6589437 B1). Sasaki and Panagopoulos are discussed above. Sasaki further teaches Sasaki’s substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) comprising: Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) dividing into an outer space at a top side and a treating space (4; Figure 1) at a bottom side; Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) positioned at the outer space and forming an electric field at Sasaki’s treating space (4; Figure 1) by applying a power (15; Figure 1), and Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) positioned at Sasaki’s outer space among Sasaki’s treating space (4; Figure 1) and Sasaki’s outer space – claim 13
Sasaki further teaches:
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 13, wherein Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is disposed along a circumference of an edge region of Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 14
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 14, wherein Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is positioned above Sasaki’s edge region of Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 15
Sasaki’s substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 15, wherein Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is formed at a top surface of Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) – claim 16
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 16, wherein Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) partially overlaps with Sasaki’s substrate (G; Figure 1) positioned at Sasaki’s treating space (4; Figure 1) when seen from above, as claimed by claim 17
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 15, wherein a bottom surface of Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) and a top surface of Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) are bonded to each other by an ohmic contact, as claimed by claim 18. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
A substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) comprising: a chamber (1; Figure 1) having a treating space (4; Figure 1);a support unit (23,24; Figure 1) configured to support a substrate (G; Figure 1) in the treating space (4; Figure 1); a gas supply unit (20a; Figure 1) configured to supply a gas to the treating space (4; Figure 1); an electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) positioned outside of the treating space (4; Figure 1), and exciting a gas supplied to the treating space (4; Figure 1) by applying a high-frequency voltage (15; Figure 1); a window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) with its bottom surface exposed to the treating space (4; Figure 1) and its top surface positioned outside of the treating space (4; Figure 1); and a transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) formed on the top surface of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2), and wherein a top surface of the transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) and a bottom surface of the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) contact each other, the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is positioned at an edge region of the transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) along a circumferential direction of the transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2), a material of the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) includes a copper (Cu) or an aluminum (Al) – claim 20
Sasaki and Panagopoulos do not teach:
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 9 further comprising: a heating unit (Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) configured to transfer a heat source to a substrate (G; Figure 1) supported on the support unit (23,24; Figure 1), and wherein the heating unit (Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) is positioned at a top side of the transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 10
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 10, wherein the heating unit (Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) transfers the heat source to the treating space (4; Figure 1) by passing through the transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 11
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 11, wherein the heating unit (Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) includes a lamp, a laser optical system, or a microwave generator, as claimed by claim 12
heating unit (Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) positioned at the outer space and configured to transfer a heat source to the treating space (4; Figure 1) – claim 13
the heating unit (Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) transfers the heat source toward Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) – claim 16
Panagopoulos is discussed above and also teaches a plasma reactor (Figure 9) including a window (954) is made from ITO ([0033], [0093]).
Collins also teaches an inductive plasma reactor including
The substrate (56; Figure 13) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 9 further comprising: a heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) configured to transfer a heat source to a substrate (56; Figure 13) supported on the support unit (540; Figure 1), and wherein the heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) is positioned at a top side of the transparent window (52; Figure 13) - claim 10
The substrate (56; Figure 13) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 10, wherein the heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) transfers the heat source to the treating space (40; Figure 1) by passing through the transparent window (52; Figure 13) - claim 11
The substrate (56; Figure 13) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 11, wherein the heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) includes a lamp (72; Figure 13), a laser optical system, or a microwave generator, as claimed by claim 12
heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) positioned at the outer space and configured to transfer a heat source to the treating space (40; Figure 1) – claim 13
the heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) transfers the heat source toward the transparent window (52; Figure 13) – claim 16
a heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) positioned outside of the treating space (40; Figure 1) and configured to transmit a heat source to the treating space (40; Figure 1); the heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) is positioned at a top side of the transparent window (52; Figure 13),the heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) transmits the heat source to the treating space (40; Figure 1) by passing through the transparent window (52; Figure 13) – claim 20
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sasaki to add Collins’ heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) above Sasaki’s conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2).
Motivation for Sasaki to add Collins’ heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) above Sasaki’s conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is for temperature control of the ceiling as taught by Collins (column 19; lines 16-50).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki; Kazuo (US 20100175831 A1), Panagopoulos; Theo et al. (US 20210104414 A1), and Collins; Kenneth S. (US 6589437 B1) in view of Horioka; Keiji et al. (US 6132551 A). Sasaki, Panagopoulos, and Collins are discussed above.
Sasaki further teaches a material of Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) includes a copper (Cu) or an aluminum (Au).
Sasaki does not teach Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is made of material including an ITO (Indium tin oxide)
Panagopoulos also teaches a plasma reactor (Figure 9) including a window (954) is made from ITO ([0033], [0093]).
Sasaki, Panagopoulos, and Collins do not teach Sasaki’s substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 14, wherein a material of Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) includes a quartz.
Horioka is discussed above. Horioka further teaches the substrate (105; Figures 2,4) treating apparatus (Figures 2-5) of claim 3, wherein a material of the window plate (240; Figure 3; 510; Figure 5-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) includes a quartz (“alumina”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sasaki to use alumina for Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) as taught by Horioka.
Motivation for Sasaki to use alumina for Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) as taught by Horioka is for protecting from “…highly-corrosive/etch precursors, including fluorine, chlorine, and other halogens as well as oxidizing gases such as oxygen or nitrogen dioxide.” as taught by Horioka (column 9; lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sasaki to use ITO for Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) as taught by Panagopoulos.
Motivation for Sasaki to use ITO for Sasaki’s transparent conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) as taught by Panagopoulos is for “grounding and powering” as taught by Panagopoulos ([0033]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ICP plasma sources with electrically conductive film associated with the dielectric window include US 20080083615 A1; US 6197165 B1; US 20060137821 A1; US 20120322270 A1; US 5948215 A; US 20240047181 A1; US 20250232966 A1; US 20230407458 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716