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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments field 20 March 2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 6, 18 are amended. Claim 7 is canceled. Claims 12-17 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the first diameter that is equal to” should read as “wherein the first diameter is equal to” to correct typographical/grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, limitation "the diameter is approximately 1.0 cm or greater" is unclear if "the diameter" is referring to "a first diameter" or "a second diameter" recited in claim 1, on which claim 6 depends.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets "the diameter" of claim 6 as "the first diameter" in light of para. [0032] and [0033].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voronin et al. (US 2024/0331979 A1 having effectively filed date of 3 April 2023 and hereinafter “Voronin) in view of Kodaira et al. (US 2017/0316918 A1 hereinafter “Kodaira”) and Berry III, et al. (US 2016/0064232 A1 hereinafter “Berry”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Voronin teaches: an apparatus (comprising plasma processing apparatus 100, Fig. 1A-1C, para. [0021]), comprising:
a first plate (comprising first mesh 108A, Fig. 1A-1C; comprising mesh 240 Fig. 2B, para. [0052]; comprising mesh-e 260, Fig. 2C, para. [0053]), wherein a plurality of first holes pass through a thickness of the first plate (para. [0023]-[0024]);
a second plate (comprising second mesh 108B, Fig. 1A-1C; comprising 230, Fig. 2B; comprising 250, Fig. 2C) over the first plate, wherein a plurality of second holes pass through a thickness of the second plate (para. [0023]-[0024]; para. [0052]-[0053]).
Voronin does not explicitly teach a spacer between the first plate and the second plate; individual ones of the plurality of first holes having a first diameter, individuals of the plurality of second holes having a second diameter less than the first diameter.
Examiner notes that Voronin is silent regarding how the first and second plate are mounted in the apparatus.
However, Kodaira teaches an apparatus comprising a first plate (comprising third electrode 117, Fig. 7) and a second plate (comprising second electrode 116, Fig. 7) with a spacer (comprising 123 and/or 122 and/or 121, Fig. 7) between the first plate (comprising 117, Fig. 7) and the second plate (comprising 116, Fig. 7), wherein the spacer supports (comprising 123 and/or 122 and/or 121, Fig. 7) the first plate and the second plate (para. [0065]) .
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a spacer between the first plate and the second plate because Kodaira teaches/suggests that such a configuration is a known suitable configuration for supporting/mounting the first and second plate in the apparatus.
Voronin in view of Kodaira as applied above does not explicitly teach individual ones of the plurality of first holes having a first diameter, individuals of the plurality of second holes having a second diameter less than the first diameter.
However, Berry teaches an apparatus having a first plate (comprising electrode 111, Fig. 2) including a plurality of first holes (comprising 110, Fig. 2) having first diameters and a second plate (comprising electrode 109 which is disposed over electrode 111, Fig. 2) including a plurality of second holes (comprising holes in electrode 109 , Fig. 2) in the second/upper plate (comprising 109, Fig. 2) is smaller than the diameter of holes in the lower/first plate (comprising 111, Fig. 2) (para. [0043]-[0044]). Berry teaches that such a configuration is suitable for extracting ions (para. [0043]-[0044]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the second diameter of individual ones of the plurality of second holes to be less than the first diameter of individual ones of the plurality of first holes because Berry teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable alternative configuration of first holes and second holes in respective first and second plates to enable extracting ions.
Examiner further notes that there does not appear to be any particular criticality for limitation “individual ones of the plurality of second holes having a second diameter less than the first diameter” in light of instant application Specification para. [0046] reciting “the second diameter D2 is smaller than the first diameter D1.Though, in other embodiments, the second diameter D2 may be larger than the first diameter D1” without establishing any particular benefit of the claimed embodiment over other embodiments.
Regarding claim 2, Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Voronin further teaches an actuator (comprising actuator 110A, Fig. 1A-1C) coupled to the first plate (comprising 108A, Fig. 1A-1C, para. [0032]), wherein the actuator is configured to displace the first plate along a plane that is substantially parallel to a top surface of the second plate (i.e. a lateral/horizontal movement) (para. [0032], [0036]).
Regarding claim 6, Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further teaches wherein the first holes (Voronin: see Fig. 2B) have a diameter.
Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry as applied above does not teach that the first diameter is approximately 1.0 cm or greater.
However, Berry teaches an apparatus having a first plate (comprising 109, Fig. 2) including a plurality of first holes (comprising 110, Fig. 2) with diameter of 0.5-1 cm which is suitable for extracting ions (para. [0043]-[0044]).
Further, Kodaira teaches that the diameter of the hole (i.e. ion passage hole) in the plate (comprising 109, Fig. 7) is a result-effective variable which affects the amount of ion beams drawn (para. [0057]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the diameter of the first holes because Berry teaches an example suitable range of hole diameter and because Kodaira further teaches that the diameter of the first holes is a result-effective variable which affects the amount of ion beams drawn (Kodaira: para. [0057]), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the diameter of the first holes to optimize the amount of ion or ion beams drawn to optimize plasma processing.
Regarding claim 10, Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Voronin further teaches the first plate (comprising first mesh 108A, Fig. 1A-1C; comprising mesh 240 Fig. 2B, para. [0052]; comprising mesh-e 260, Fig. 2C, para. [0053]) and the second plate (comprising second mesh 108B, Fig. 1A-1C; comprising 230, Fig. 2B; comprising 250, Fig. 2C) comprises one or more of alumina or aluminum (para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 10 as applied above and Voronin further teaches wherein a coating is provided over the first plate (comprising first mesh 108A, Fig. 1A-1C; comprising mesh 240 Fig. 2B, para. [0052]; comprising mesh-e 260, Fig. 2C, para. [0053]) and the second plate (comprising second mesh 108B, Fig. 1A-1C; comprising 230, Fig. 2B; comprising 250, Fig. 2C), and wherein the coating comprises yttria (para. [0024]).
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voronin et al. (US 2024/0331979 A1 having effectively filed date of 3 April 2023 and hereinafter “Voronin) in view of Kodaira et al. (US 2017/0316918 A1 hereinafter “Kodaira”) and Berry III, et al. (US 2016/0064232 A1 hereinafter “Berry”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11 above and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2014/0302680 A1 hereinafter “Singh”).
Regarding claim 3, Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Voronin further teaches an actuator (comprising actuator 110A, Fig. 1A-1C) coupled to the first plate (comprising 108A, Fig. 1A-1C, para. [0032]),
Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator is configured to displace the first plate in order to change a gap between the first plate and the second plate.
However, Singh teaches an actuator assembly (see Fig. 4, para. [0059]) configured to displace the first plate (i.e. lower plate) in order to change a gap between the first plate (i.e. lower plate) and the second plate (i.e. upper plate) to enable wider range of electron temperature and plasma density tuning (para. [0058], [0059]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the actuator assembly (Voronin: comprising 110A, Fig. 1A-1C) to be configured to displace the first plate in order to change a gap between the first plate and the second plate because Singh teaches such a configuration enables wider range of electron temperature and plasma density tuning (para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first diameter is equal to or greater than the thickness of the first plate.
However, Berry teaches the first diameter of the first holes (comprising holes 110 in electrode 111, Fig. 2) can be in a range of 0.5-1 cm (para. [0044]) and the thickness of the first plate (comprising 111, Fig. 2) is 0.5 mm-10 cm (para.[0051]).
Examiner notes that the diameter and the thickness have overlapping values.
Additionally, Kodaira teaches that the diameter of the hole (i.e. ion passage hole) in the plate (comprising 109, Fig. 7) is a result-effective variable which affects the amount of ion beams drawn (para. [0057]).
Further, Singh teaches the thickness of the plate affects the aspect ratio of the holes which ultimately affects electron density and effective electron temperature (para. [0038], [0042]-[0043]). In other words, the thickness of the first plate is a result-effective variable which affects the aspect ratio of the plate and the mass of the plate which ultimately affects the blocking of the species, the electron density and the effective electron temperature (para. [0038], [0042]-[0043]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the diameter of the first holes and the thickness of the first plate because Berry already teaches/suggests overlapping range values for the diameter and the thickness and additionally because Kodaira teaches that the diameter of the first hole is a result-effective variable which affects the amount of ion beams drawn and because Singh teaches the thickness of the first plate is a result-effective variable which affects the aspect ratio of the plate and the mass of the plate which ultimately affects the blocking of the species, the electron density and the effective electron temperature wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the diameter of the first hole and the thickness of the first plate to enable optimal ion beams and optimal blocking of the species, the electron density and the effective electron temperature for optimal plasma processing.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voronin et al. (US 2024/0331979 A1 having effectively filed date of 3 April 2023 and hereinafter “Voronin) in view of Kodaira et al. (US 2017/0316918 A1 hereinafter “Kodaira”) and Berry III, et al. (US 2016/0064232 A1 hereinafter “Berry”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11 above and further in view of Schork et al. (US 6,087,615 hereinafter “Schork”).
Regarding claim 8, Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the spacer is electrically insulating.
However, Voronin teaches that the first plate (comprising 108A, Fig. 1B) and second plate (comprising 108B, Fig. 1B) can be electrodes which are biased (para.[0024]).
Additionally, Schork teaches: an apparatus (comprising ion beam unit 124, Fig. 5a and 5b, col 9 line 12-col 10 line 43), comprising: a first plate (comprising extraction grid 118, Fig. 5a and 5b, (col 7 line 24-26); a second plate (comprising slotted silicon cathode 108, Fig. 5a and 5b, (col 7 line 4-5); and a spacer (comprising teflon ring 528, Fig. 5a and 5b, col 9 line 61-65) between the first plate (comprising 118, Fig. 5a and 5b) and the second plate (comprising 108, Fig. 5a and 5b), wherein the spacer (comprising 528, Fig. 5a and 5b) is electrically insulating to avoid short circuit between the first plate (comprising 118, Fig. 5a and 5b) and the second plate (comprising 108, Fig. 5a and 5b) which are electrodes (col 9 line 61-65).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an electrically insulating material as the material of the spacer because Voronin teaches that the first plate and the second plate are electrodes which are biased and because Schork further teaches selection of an electrically insulating spacer between a first plate and a second plate to prevent short circuiting between the first plate and the second plate.
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Voronin in view of Kodaira, Berry and Schork as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 8 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first plate is configured to be held at a first voltage, and wherein the second plate is configured to be held at a second voltage that is different than the first voltage.
However, Voronin teaches that the first plate (comprising 108A, Fig. 1B) and second plate (comprising 108B, Fig. 1B) can be electrodes which are biased (para.[0024]).
Additionally, Schork teaches wherein the first plate (comprising 118, Fig. 5a and 5b) is configured to be held at a first voltage (i.e. extraction voltage, col 7 line 22-23 and col 9 line 25-26), and wherein the second plate (comprising 108, Fig. 5a and 5b) is configured to be held at a second voltage (i.e. high voltage UHF, col 6 line 60-61) that is different than the first voltage (col 6 line 60-61, col 7 line 22-23, col 9 line 25-26, col 9 line 61-65, col 10 line 6-7). Schork teaches that such a configuration enables extraction of ions (col 7 line 22-23).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first plate to be configured to be held at a first voltage, and wherein the second plate is configured to be held at a second voltage that is different than the first voltage because Voronin already teaches that the first plate and the second plate are electrodes which are biased and because Schork further teaches holding a first plate at a first voltage and holding the second plate at a second voltage different than the first voltage is a known suitable alternative configuration of first and second plate electrode which would enable suitable extraction of ions for plasma processing.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2014/0302680 A1 hereinafter “Singh”) in view of and Berry III, et al. (US 2016/0064232 A1 hereinafter “Berry”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Singh teaches: an apparatus (Fig. 5, para. [0022], [0023], [0035]-[0063], note: para. [0053]-[0063] discuss multiple grid plate configurations, see also claim 1 and 7), comprising:
a first plate (comprising lower grid/shield shown in Fig. 5), wherein a plurality of first holes pass through a thickness of the first plate (para. [0036], [0043]);
a second plate (comprising upper grid/shield shown in Fig. 5) over the first plate (comprising lower grid/shield shown in Fig. 5), wherein a plurality of second holes pass through a thickness of the second plate (para. [0036], [0043]); and
a spacer (comprising shield support Fig. 5,) between the first plate (comprising lower grid/shield, Fig. 5) and the second plate (comprising upper grid/shield, Fig. 5) (para. [0059], [0062]-[0063]). See annotated Fig. 5 of Singh below.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Singh does not explicitly teach individual ones of the first holes having a first diameter; individual ones of the plurality of second holes having a second diameter less than the first diameter.
However, Berry teaches an apparatus having a first plate (comprising electrode 111, Fig. 2) including a plurality of first holes (comprising 110, Fig. 2) having first diameters and a second plate (comprising electrode 109 which is disposed over electrode 111, Fig. 2) including a plurality of second holes (comprising holes in electrode 109 , Fig. 2) in the second/upper plate (comprising 109, Fig. 2) is smaller than the diameter of holes in the lower/first plate (comprising 111, Fig. 2) (para. [0043]-[0044]). Berry teaches that such a configuration is suitable for extracting ions (para. [0043]-[0044]).
Additionally, Singh further teaches that the diameter of the holes affects the aspect ratio which ultimately affects electron density and effective electron temperature (para. [0042]-[0043]). In other words, the first diameter of the first holes is/are result-effective variable(s) and the second diameter of the second holes which affects the aspect ratio of the holes and ultimately the electron density and effective electron temperature.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the second diameter of individual ones of the plurality of second holes to be less than the first diameter of individual ones of the plurality of first holes additionally or alternatively to optimize diameters of the first and second holes because Berry teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable alternative configuration of first holes and second holes in respective first and second plates to enable extracting ions and because Singh teaches that the first diameter of the first holes and the diameters of the second holes is/are result-effective variables which affect the aspect ratio of the holes which ultimately affects the electron density and the effective electron temperature (para. [0042]-[0043]), wherein one of ordinary skill would optimize the first and second diameters to enable optimal electron density and electron temperature for optimal plasma processing.
Examiner further notes that there does not appear to be any particular criticality for limitation “individual ones of the plurality of second holes having a second diameter less than the first diameter” in light of instant application Specification para. [0046] reciting “the second diameter D2 is smaller than the first diameter D1. Though, in other embodiments, the second diameter D2 may be larger than the first diameter D1” without establishing any particular benefit of the claimed embodiment over other embodiments.
Regarding claim 3, Singh in view of Berry teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and further teaches an actuator/lifter configured to displace the first plate in order to change a gap between the first plate (i.e. lower plate) and the second plate (i.e. upper plate) (para. [0058]-[0059])
Singh in view of Berry does not explicitly teach that the embodiment of Fig. 5 has the actuator coupled to the first plate (i.e. lower plate), wherein the actuator is configured to displace the first plate in order to change a gap between the first plate (i.e. lower plate) and the second plate (i.e. upper plate).
However, Singh further teaches an alternatively embodiment, Fig. 4 showing the spacer (comprising shield support/support leg and actuator/lifter, Fig. 5) as part of an actuator assembly and to the lower plate (para. [0059]-[0062]) wherein the configuration of the actuator assembly (i.e. comprising support leg/shield support/moveable support structure and actuator) can be rearranged such that the actuator assembly (i.e. comprising support leg/shield support/moveable support structure and actuator) is connected with the top of the reaction chamber (para. [0062]). Singh additionally teaches the actuator assembly is configured to displace the first plate (i.e. lower plate) in order to change a gap between the first plate (i.e. lower plate) and the second plate (i.e. upper plate) to enable wider range of electron temperature and plasma density tuning (para. [0058]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the support structure comprising the actuator assembly such that the actuator assembly is coupled to the first plate wherein the actuator is configured to displace the first plate in order to change a gap between the first plate and the second plate (i.e. configure the support structure/spacer of Fig. 4 to be supported on the top of the chamber such that the spacer/support structure extends between the first and second plate and the support structure comprises a lifter/actuator) because Singh already teaches adjusting the gap between the first and second plate using the support structure/spacer comprising the actuator assembly and additionally teaches/suggests rearranging the support structure/spacer comprising the actuator (para. [0062]) wherein such a configuration is an obvious and easily envisaged embodiment. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 4, Singh in view of Berry teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 3, as modified above and Singh further teaches the actuator is part of the spacer (comprising moveable support structure, para. [0058], [0059],[0062]).
Regarding claim 5, Singh in view of Berry teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first holes have a diameter that is equal to or greater than the thickness of the first plate.
However, Singh further teaches the first holes have a diameter of 0.05 inches to 0.2 inches (i.e. 1.27 mm to 5.08 mm)(para. [0043]). Additionally, Singh teaches the first plate has a thickness of 1-50 mm (para. [0038]). Examiner notes that the diameter and the thickness have overlapping values. Additionally, Singh further teaches that the diameter affects the aspect ratio which ultimately affects electron density and effective electron temperature (para. [0042]-[0043]). In other words, the first diameter of the first holes is/are result-effective variable(s) which affects the aspect ratio of the holes and ultimately the electron density and effective electron temperature. Further, Singh teaches the thickness of the plate affects the aspect ratio and the mass of the plate wherein if the plate is too thick it may block too many species and have too much mass which takes up too much space in the reaction chamber of the apparatus (para. [0038]). Additionally, the thickness of the plate affects the aspect ratio of the holes which ultimately affects electron density and effective electron temperature (para. [0038], [0042]-[0043]). In other words, the thickness of the first plate is a result-effective variable which affects the aspect ratio of the plate and the mass of the plate which ultimately affects the blocking of the species, the electron density and the effective electron temperature (para. [0038], [0042]-[0043]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the diameter of the first holes and the thickness of the first plate because Singh already teaches/suggests overlapping range values for the diameter and the thickness and additionally because Singh teaches that the first diameter of the first holes and the thickness of the first plate is/are result-effective variables which affect the aspect ratio of the holes which ultimately affects the electron density and the effective electron temperature (para. [0042]-[0043]), wherein one of ordinary skill would optimize the first diameter and the thickness of the first plate to enable optimal electron density and electron temperature for optimal plasma processing.
Regarding claim 10, Singh in view of Berry teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Singh further teaches wherein the first plate (comprising lower plate, Fig. 5) and the second plate (comprising upper plate, Fig. 5) comprise aluminum (para. [0036]). Thus, the combination meets claim 10 limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Singh in view of Berry teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Singh further teaches wherein a coating is provided over the first plate and the second plate, and wherein the coating comprises yttria (Y2O3, para. [0036]). Thus, the combination meets claim 10 limitations.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny et al. (US 2017/0207077 A1 hereinafter “Nagorny”) in view of Berry III, et al. (US 2016/0064232 A1 hereinafter “Berry”).
Regarding independent claim 18, Nagorny teaches a tool (comprising plasma processing apparatus 100, Fig. 2, para. [0040]), comprising:
a chamber (comprising processing chamber 110, Fig. 2, para [0040]);
a plasma source (comprising plasma chamber 120 and induction coil 130, Fig. 2, para. [0041]) coupled to the chamber (comprising 110, Fig 2);
a pedestal (comprising pedestal 112, Fig. 2, para. [0040]) for supporting a substrate (comprising 114, Fig. 2) in the chamber (comprising 110, Fig. 2); and
an ion blocking system (comprising variable pattern grid 200 including first grid plate 210 and second grid plate 220, Fig. 2, para. [0042] discloses blocking/affecting the transparency of charged particles) between the pedestal (comprising 112, Fig. 2)) and the plasma source (comprising 120 and 130, Fig. 2), wherein the ion blocking system comprises:
a first plate (comprising 220, Fig. 2), wherein a plurality of first holes (shown in Fig. 2 but not labeled) pass through a thickness of the first plate (comprising 220, Fig. 2) (para. [0042]); and
a second plate (comprising 210, Fig 2 and 3) over the first plate (comprising 220, Fig. 2), wherein a plurality of second holes pass (shown in Fig. 2 and 3 but not labeled) through a thickness of the second plate (comprising 210, Fig. 2 and 3) (para. [0042]).
Nagorny does not explicitly teach individual ones of the plurality of first holes having a first diameter; individual ones of the plurality of second holes having a second diameter less than the first diameter.
However, Berry teaches an apparatus having a first plate (comprising electrode 111, Fig. 2) including a plurality of first holes (comprising 110, Fig. 2) having first diameters and a second plate (comprising electrode 109 which is disposed over electrode 111, Fig. 2) including a plurality of second holes (comprising holes in electrode 109 , Fig. 2) in the second/upper plate (comprising 109, Fig. 2) is smaller than the diameter of holes in the lower/first plate (comprising 111, Fig. 2) (para. [0043]-[0044]). Berry teaches that such a configuration is suitable for extracting ions (para. [0043]-[0044]).
Additionally, Nagorny teaches that the diameter/size of the holes in the first and second plate (comprising grid plates 210 and 220, Fig. 2) is a result-effective variable which affects transparency for both charged and neutral particles (para. [0042]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure individual ones of the plurality of first holes having a first diameter; individual ones of the plurality of second holes having a second diameter less than the first diameter, additionally or alternatively, optimize the first diameter of the first holes and optimize the second diameter of the second holes because Berry teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable alternative configuration of first holes and second holes in respective first and second plates to enable extracting ions and because Nagorny teaches that the size/diameter of holes in the first and second plates is/are a result-effective variable(s) which affects transparency for charged and neutral particles wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize both the first diameter and the second diameter to enable optimized plasma processing.
Regarding claim 19, Nagorny in view of Berry as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 18 above and Nagorny further teaches wherein the plasma source comprises an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source (comprising induction coil 130, Fig. 2, para. [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 20, Nagorny in view of Berry as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 18 above and Nagorny teaches wherein the first plate (comprising 220, Fig. 2) and the second plate (comprising 210, Fig. 2) are displaceable relative to each other (para. [0044], [0046]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7-9) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)1 rejection of independent claim 1 and 18 that cited art of record does not teach amended claim 1 and similar amended claim limitation "a first plate, wherein a plurality of first holes pass through a thickness of the first plate, individual ones of the plurality of first holes having a first diameter," "a second plate over the first plate, wherein a plurality of second holes pass through a thickness of the second plate, individual ones of the plurality of second holes having a second diameter less than the first diameter" and "a spacer between the first plate and the second plate."
Examiner responds independent claim 1 and 18 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently none the claims are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)1. Currently independent claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voronin in view of Kodaira and Berry and additionally over Singh in view of Berry, as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Currently claim 18 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny in view of Berry as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Examiner explains that Berry is cited to teach/suggest the amended claim 1 and 18 limitations as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Examiner further notes that there does not appear to be any particular criticality for limitation “individual ones of the plurality of second holes having a second diameter less than the first diameter” in light of instant application Specification para. [0046] reciting “the second diameter D2 is smaller than the first diameter D1. Though, in other embodiments, the second diameter D2 may be larger than the first diameter D1” without establishing any particular benefit of the claimed embodiment over other embodiments.
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 18 are rejected. Additionally, dependent claims 1-6,8-11, 19-20 are also rejected.
Conclusion
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 LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights