DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
Claims 1- 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yamamoto (JP 2016-072258 as cited on IDS dated 5/15/2024 see translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a plasma treatment apparatus, comprising: a plasma treatment chamber (100) in which a treated base material (S) at a ground potential is accommodated (120, fIg. 8, [0073]);
a conveyance part (2, 21) which conveys the treated base material (S) in the plasma treatment chamber (100, fig. 1 [0032]);
an inductive coupling antenna unit (41) configured to generate plasma;
and a bias electrode (81, 82) which applies a bias voltage to the plasma, wherein the bias electrode is disposed around a plasma generation region (V, Fig. 1) in which the plasma is generated.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the bias electrode (81, 82) has a structure that surrounds the plasma generation region (V fig. 1, 3, [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the inductive coupling antenna unit (41) has a structure mounted to close an opening portion formed in a wall surface (3, 5,fig. 1) of the plasma treatment chamber (100), and is constituted by a lid body (3, 5) in a rectangular shape [0033] and an inductive coupling antenna conductor (41) attached to an inner side surface of the lid body (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto teaches the lid body is constituted by a rectangular metal flange (3) and a dielectric plate (5).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the inductive coupling antenna conductor is installed on the inner side surface of the lid body via a feed-through (42, [0041]) fixed to the lid body (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the inductive coupling antenna unit (41) has a plurality of the inductive coupling antenna conductors installed on the inner side surface of the lid body ([0040-0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto teaches a plurality of opening portions are formed in a wall surface ([0040], 41, fig. 2) of the plasma treatment chamber (100) substantially in parallel (Fig. 1), and the inductive coupling antenna unit (41) is mounted in each of the opening portions.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the bias voltage applied to the bias electrode is a positive DC voltage, a positive pulse voltage, or a positive pulsating current voltage obtained through half-wave rectification of an AC voltage [0058].
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto teaches a heating heater configured to heat the treated base material is provided in the bias electrode [0051].
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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above in view of Suzuki (US 2021/0233751).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto teaches an in-line type plasma treatment apparatus (Fig. 1) but does not teach a plurality of the plasma treatment chambers 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.
Suzuki directed to a plasma treatment apparatus teach an in-line type plasma treatment apparatus in which a plurality of the plasma treatment chambers (S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, Fig. 1 [0039]) are connected, wherein front and rear sides of the plasma treatment chamber are connected via a differential exhaust chamber (S8) connected to a differential exhaust system (P1, [0039]) because it would differentially exhaust air to provide each plasma treatment chamber with a predetermined degree of vacuum without providing a gave valve between the chambers [0039].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the in-line type plasma treatment apparatus of Yamamoto by providing a plurality of the plasma treatment chambers 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, as taught by Suzuki, because it would differentially exhaust air to provide each plasma treatment chamber with a predetermined degree of vacuum without providing a gave valve between the chambers [0039].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794