DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “a conveyance part” in claim 1, this is considered as a feed roll 33, a wind-up roll 34 ([0047]) and rollers not labelled in Fig. 1, or the equivalent thereof.
The “a heating part” in claim 1, this is considered as a heater ([0044]), or the equivalent thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“wherein a cross section of the bias electrode cut perpendicularly to a longitudinal direction has a dome-shaped or U-shaped box shape … the longitudinal direction of the bias electrode” implies that the “a longitudinal direction” refers to the bias electrode. Note Applicants’ Specification also describes “the antenna conductor 22 configures a round-trip circuit with respect to the high frequency current supplied to one terminal of the power-feed-side antenna conductor 22X in a longitudinal direction”.
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 2 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the inductive coupling linear antenna is constituted by a quartz tube passing through sidewalls facing each other of the plasma treatment chamber”, it is not clear whether it is sidewalls facing each other, or a singular quartz tube facing what component? Applicants’ Fig. 3 and 4 show two sections of quartz tube 21 facing each other, these also facing quartz tube 24 of heater, and the quartz tube 21 also facing antenna conductor 22. It is also not clear if Applicants plan to claim a plurality of linear antenna.
Claim 2 will be examined inclusive all of the above interpretations.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Outten (US 20190145005, hereafter ‘005), in view of Ando et. al. (US 20160099130, from IDS, hereafter ‘130).
‘005 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view depicting at least a portion of an illustrative plasma ion source 300 used in the deposition of thin film coatings … the plasma ion source 300 is generally mounted on a vacuum chamber (not explicitly shown, but implied), or otherwise placed within the vacuum chamber ([0052], includes the claimed “A plasma treatment apparatus, comprising: a plasma treatment chamber”), The RF driven plasma ion source 102 is positioned proximate a translating (i.e., moving or non-stationary) substrate 104 (Fig. 1, [0044], 2nd sentence, the plasma ion source 300 of Fig. 3 is one embodiment of the plasma ion source 102 of Fig. 1, includes the claimed “in which a treated base material is accommodated”);
The transport mechanism 106 may comprise, but is not limited to, a conveyor belt, a table and a motor configured to drive the table, a roll-to-roll (R2R) assembly, etc. ([0044], 4th sentence, includes the claimed “a conveyance part which conveys the treated base material into the plasma treatment chamber”);
The plasma ion source 300 further includes an inductive antenna 312 configured to supply a source of electromagnetic energy to an interior of the plasma chamber body 302 when an RF signal is applied to the antenna ([0055], includes the claimed “an inductive coupling linear antenna configured to generate plasma”);
the plasma chamber body 302 can be biased to a prescribed voltage level without the need for substrate biasing or providing for an internal source electrode (not shown) disposed inside of the plasma chamber body 302. Hence, the plasma chamber body 302 itself, which is directly biased using an external bias voltage supply (not explicitly shown), serves as a source electrode ([0061], 2nd-3rd sentences, includes the claimed “a bias electrode which applies a bias voltage to the plasma”);
The extraction grid (e.g., 406 in FIGS. 4 and 334 in FIG. 3) is resistively heated during extraction of the plasma ion beam (e.g., 336 in FIG. 3) ([0073], includes the claimed “and a heating part which heats the treated base material”).
Figs. 1-2 show that the plasma ion source 102/200 is rectangular box. Fig. 2 shows conductive rods extends along the short side of the rectangular box. ‘005 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: (1A) wherein a cross section of the bias electrode cut perpendicularly to a longitudinal direction has a dome-shaped or U-shaped box shape, and (1B) the inductive coupling linear antenna and the heating part are disposed substantially in parallel in the bias electrode in the longitudinal direction of the bias electrode.
‘005 also teaches that cooling channels 308 are formed (e.g., machined) in the source flange 306 ([0054]).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a conductive metal, such as the same aluminum material as the chamber body 302 in ‘006, for the purpose of conduct heat transfer to the cooling channels. As a result, the bias electrode is a U-shaped electrode (302+306, the limitation of 1A).
‘130 is an analogous art in the field of ANTENNA FOR PLASMA GENERATION AND PLASMA PROCESSING DEVICE HAVING THE SAME (title). ‘130 teaches that FIG. 1 is a schematic longitudinal sectional view showing an example of the plasma processing device ([0022]), an antenna 20, which is disposed in the vacuum chamber 2 and to which a high frequency current IR is applied to generate an inductively coupled plasma 16 in the vacuum chamber 2 ([0044]), The antenna body 24 has a structure that a plurality of metal pipes 26 are connected in series ([0055]), FIG. 11 is a schematic transverse sectional view showing an example of the plasma processing device that includes a plurality of the linear antennas 20 ([0141], therefore, antenna arranged in longitudinal direction of a rectangular box), When the high frequency current IR is applied to each metal pipe 26, since each metal pipe 26 has a resistance, the metal pipe 26 generates heat (i.e. generates Joule heat) ([0070], 3rd sentence), for the purpose of suppressing increase of the impedance of the antenna even if the antenna is lengthened ([0016], last sentence).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the antenna 312 in Fig. 3 of ‘005 with a plurality of antenna in longitudinal direction of the biased chamber 302 (the limitation of 1B), as taught by ‘130, for the purpose of suppressing increase of the impedance of the antenna even if the antenna is lengthened ([0016], last sentence) and/or for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. The outer two antenna can be considered as heater, as disclosed by ‘130 ([0070], 3rd sentence).
The combination of ‘005 and ‘130 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 2: The antenna 20 includes an insulating pipe 22 and a hollow antenna body 24 (‘130, [0052]), the material of the insulating pipe 22 includes quartz ([0053], includes the claimed “wherein the inductive coupling linear antenna is constituted by a quartz tube passing through sidewalls facing each other of the plasma treatment chamber and an inductive coupling linear antenna conductor inserted into the quartz tube” and as shown in Fig. 1, note insulating parts 46 can be considered part of the quartz pip 22).
Claim 3: Fig. 1 of ‘005 shows the conveyance direction of moving substrate 104, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the rectangular box of the plasma ion source 102/300 (includes the claimed “wherein one or a plurality of the inductive coupling linear antennas substantially perpendicular to a conveyance direction of the treated base material are attached substantially in parallel”).
Claims 4-5: The plasma chamber body 302, in one or more embodiments, is comprised of a high electrical and thermal conductivity metal, preferably aluminum (‘005, 2nd last sentence, includes the claimed “wherein a material of the bias electrode is aluminum or an aluminum alloy” of claim 5 and “wherein thermal emissivity of an outer surface of the dome-shaped or U-shaped bias electrode is less than 0.3” as the property of aluminum).
Claim 7: The voltage signal produced by the bias power supply 630 may comprise either a constant DC voltage, in one or more embodiments, or a varying DC voltage, previously described herein as a pulsed DC signal (Fig. 6, [0080], last sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the bias electrode is connected to a pulse power supply which generates at least one of a positive pulse voltage and a negative pulse voltage”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘005 and ‘130, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Yin et. al. (US 6379575, hereafter ‘575).
The combination of ‘005 and ‘130 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 6: wherein an outer surface of the bias electrode is coated with an insulation film.
‘575 is an analogous art in the field of inductively coupled plasmas (col. 1, lines 15-16), Referring to FIG. 2, a plasma is energized from the etchant gas using the plasma generator 110 by forming an inductive electric field in the chamber 30 and biasing the first and second electrodes 120, 125 in the chamber (col. 11, lines 35-38), an inductor antenna 115 (col. 6, lines 6-7). ‘575 teaches that Metals commonly used to fabricate the enclosed chamber 30 include aluminum, anodized aluminum … anodized aluminum is preferred (col. 5, lines 28-32).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have adopted anodized aluminum, as taught by ‘575, as the aluminum chamber body 302 of ‘005, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘005 and ‘130, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Suzuki et. al. (CN 114765103, from IDS, hereafter ‘103).
The combination of ‘005 and ‘130 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 8: which is an in-line type plasma treatment apparatus in which a plurality of the plasma treatment chambers according to claim 1 are connected, wherein front and rear sides of the plasma treatment chamber are connected via a differential exhaust chamber connected to a differential exhaust system.
‘103 is an analogous art in the field of Plasma Processing Device (title). ‘103 teaches that a roll-to-roll mode device (tiny font English translation provided by Applicant, Fig. 1, [n0002]), pair of induction coupling antenna 2 ([n0052]), a differential type exhaust chamber S8 ([n0038]).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the combined chamber apparatus of ‘005 and ‘130 into roll-to-roll/in-line processing apparatus with differential exhaust in Fig. 1 of ‘103, for the purpose of roll-to-roll coating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5244554 is cited for in-line differential exhaust device 28 (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716