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 § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) defining 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) above the treating space (4; Figure 1); and a electrically 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 the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) having a top surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface being exposed to the treating space (4; Figure 1), and the electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) being formed on the top surface of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 1. With respect to the amended claimed feature of “…the electrically conductive layer being formed on the top surface of the window plate…”, Sasaki’s claim 11 requires that Sasaki’s nonmagnetic conductive film be formed “on the surface of the metal window” is interpretted as all surfaces of Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2). Importantly, claim 12 cites a “wiring shape” for the bottom surface of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) which is specifically stated as being the “conductive film 205” in Sasaki’s [0112]. See below alternative grounds under §103.
Sasaki further teaches:
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is a coating of a first thickness on the top surface, 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) is above the electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2), the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) being in a ring shape (“spiral”; [0041]), the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) being connected to a high frequency power (15; Figure 1) source, 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 in a coated (“film” is a coating) region of the electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) when viewed an overhead perspective, 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 along a circumference of an edge region of the electrically 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 viewed an overhead perspective, as claimed by claim 6
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 4, wherein a lower surface of the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) and a top surface of the electrically 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 electrically 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 electrically 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 electrically 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 electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) because Sasaki’s reference to the electrically 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 electrically 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 electrically 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 electrically 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 electrically 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 first material of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) includes a quartz, a second material of the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) includes a metal, and the metal includes a copper or an aluminum, 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 electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is transparent – claim 9.
Sasaki does not teach Sasaki’s transparent electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is made of a material including 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 electrically 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 electrically 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) orientated in a first horizontal plane (bottom/top), a treating space (4; Figure 1) being at a bottom side of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2), an outer space being at a top side of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2); Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) at the outer space, the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) being configured {to form} an electric field at Sasaki’s treating space (4; Figure 1) when a voltage is applied to the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2), and Sasaki’s electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) orinetated in a second horizontal plane (bottom/top) at Sasaki’s outer space, the electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) being transparent – 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 along a circumference of an edge region of Sasaki’s electrically 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 above Sasaki’s edge region of Sasaki’s electrically 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 electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is formed at an upper 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) in Sasaki’s treating space (4; Figure 1) when viewed from an overhead perspective, when the substrate is being treated in the treating space (4; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 17
The substrate (G; Figure 1) treating apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 15, wherein a lower surface of Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) and a top surface of Sasaki’s electrically 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) defining 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) outside of the treating space (4; Figure 1), the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) being connected to a high frequency power (15; Figure 1) source, the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) being configured to excite a gas supplied to the treating space (4; Figure 1); a window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) with a top surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface being exposed to the treating space (4; Figure 1), the top surface being outside of the treating space (4; Figure 1); and an electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) on the top surface of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2), the electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) being transparent, and the top surface of the electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) and a lower surface of the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) contacting each other, the electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) is positioned at an edge region of the transparent electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) along a circumferential direction of the transparent electrically 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 heat to the substrate (G; Figure 1), when the substrate is supported on the support unit (23,24; Figure 1), and wherein the heating unit (Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) is at a top side of the electrically 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) is configured to transfer the heat through the electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) and into the treating space (4; Figure 1), 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) at the outer space, the heating unit being configured to transfer heat to the treating space (4; Figure 1) – claim 13
the heating unit (Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) being configured to transfer the heat toward Sasaki’s electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) – claim 16
a heating unit outside the treating space, the heating unit being configured to transmit heat to the treating space (4; Figure 1); the heating unit being positioned at a top side of the electrically conductive layer, the heating unit being configured to transmit heat through the electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) and into the treating space (40; Figure 1) – claim 20
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) outside the treating space (40; Figure 1) the heating unit being configured to transmit heat to the treating space (40; Figure 1); the heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) being positioned at a top side of the window (52; Figure 13),the heating unit (72; Figure 13-Applicant’s 700; Figure 8) being configured to transmit heat through the electrically conductive layer and into the treating space (40; Figure 1) – 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 electrically 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 electrically 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 second material of Sasaki’s electrode (13; Figure 1; copper-[0065]-Applicant’s 640; Figure 2) includes a copper or aluminum.
Sasaki does not teach a first material of Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) includes quartz, Sasaki’s electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) is made of material including an 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 electrically 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 electrically 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki and Horioka (singly or in combination) does not teach or suggest at least "the electrically conductive layer being formed on the top surface of the window plate," as recited in claim 1. Sasaki only teaches conductive strips 205 (Examiner's asserted "electrically conductive layer") on a side surface or a bottom surface of the shelf 5. Therefore, Sasaki teaches awau from an electrically conductive layer on a top surface (as recited in claim 1), and the instant example embodiments which mitigate degradation of the electrically conductive layer by not exposing the electrically conductive layer to plasma in the treating chamber.
Horioka does not remedy the deficiencies of Sasaki. Specifically, Horioka teaches a conductive layer 200 (FIG 2; Examiner's asserted "electrically conductive layer") on a bottom surface of window plate 100. Therefore, Horioka also teaches awau from an electrically conductive layer on a top surface (as recited in claim 1), and the instant example embodiments.
“
In response, the Examiner disagrees. As noted above, Sasaki’s claim 11 requires that Sasaki’s nonmagnetic conductive film be formed “on the surface of the metal window” is interpretted as all surfaces of Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2). Importantly, claim 12 cites a “wiring shape” for the bottom surface of the window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) which is specifically stated as being the “conductive film 205” in Sasaki’s [0112].
Applicant states:
“
Regarding independent claim 13, any combination of Sasaki, Horioka, Panagopoulos, Collins and Theo (singly or in combination) does not teach or suggest "an electrically conductive layer oriented in a second horizontal plane at the outer space, the electrically conductive layer being transparent" as recited in claim 13. The Examiner asserted Sasaki teaches an electrically conductive layer that is transparent. But, Sasaki teaches that the conductive film is copper, a copper alloy, silver, or a silver alloy (para 0065), which would not be transparent. Horioka, Panagopoulos, Collins and Theo do not remedy the deficiencies of Sasaki.
“
In response, the Examiner’s interpretation is “transparent” is with respect to the inductive coupling through Sasaki’s window plate (2; Figure 1; [0064]-[0065]-aluminum, alloy-Applicant’s 500; Figure 2) and Sasaki’s electrically conductive layer (“nonmagnetic conductive film”; [0064]-[0065]; claim 11,12-Applicant’s 620; Figure 2) of Sasaki’s induced electric and magnetic field generated by Sasaki’s coil (13) and RF power source (15). Sasaki’s inductive coupling is identical to Applicant’s inductively coupled RF plasma reactor. Further, 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 Examer 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).
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights