DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4-12, 14-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koshiishi (2005/0269292).
Koshiishi teaches a plasma processing system comprising:
- a chamber with a process space, see Fig. 1 and related text,
- a first chamber component along a first edge of the process space – see portion including 56 and 58 at an upper edge of the processing space – the first chamber component includes:
- an electrode, see 58, labelled as an electrode support (meets the requirements of an electrode as it is of a conductive material [0090] and connected to an RF power supply [0093], and comprises electrode 38,
- an electrode plate, see 56 which comprises silicon (carbide) [0090], and
- a second chamber component arranged along a second edge of the process space and comprising an electrically conductive material, see particularly susceptor 16, which acts as a second electrode [0096] (understood as conductive).
In regard to a first DC potential being applied to a first chamber component, the teachings include applying DC potential to the first chamber component, see [0151-52].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the edges extend horizontally.
Regarding claims 4, 6-8, 14-16 and 23, the application of any potential is intended use of the apparatus and previously addressed.
Regarding claims 5 and 22, the teachings include a DC potential applied to the chuck [0084](second chamber component).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the teachings include silicon carbide.
Regarding claim 10, the entire lower portion comprises ring 108, which comprises silicon [0168] therefore silicon is over (a portion of) the second component.
Regarding claim 11, all elements of the claim are taught as per above as per claim 1 and claim 5, with the relative potentials being an intended use of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 21, all elements of the claim are met as per above – with the silicon-based plate 56 disposed inward of electrode 58 as per Fig. 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The teachings do not include the claimed components aligned as the edges extending vertically. The use of the prior art system does not readily allow for rotation of the system as understood per the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicants have overcome the previously applied references but the teachings of Koshiishi are applied herein.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights