DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As to claim 8, this feature, when combined with the subject matter now recited in claim 1, is new matter because it combines two embodiments not shown in the specification as combinable. Compare Fig. 7 (corresponding to claim 8) and Fig. 1 (corresponding to claim 1).
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 11 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. As to claim 11, this claim appears to recite a comparison between an actual apparatus and a hypothetical apparatus.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (US 20090008034) in view of Gray (US 5,350,480)
As to claim 1, Tahara provides a substrate treating apparatus. Tahara provides a chamber having an inner space with an ion blocker (Fig. 1, item 140) dividing the inner space into a first space at a bottom side (within 102) and a second space at a top side (within 104/105). Tahara provides a support unit (106) configured to support a substrate at the first space (within 102) and a heating unit (114 and 112) configured to transmit a heat source to a substrate supported on the support unit. Tahara provides a plasma source configured to generate a plasma at the inner space ([0046]) using a coil (116) surrounding an outer wall of the chamber (105) configured to apply high frequency power ([0070]). Tahara’s ion blocker is made of a dielectric substrate ([0052]) and inherently has the capability to capture an ion or radical passing through the passages (142a and 144a).
Tahara is silent to a heating unit at the top end of the chamber configured to transmit a heat source toward the ion blocker.
Gray teaches an infrared heating unit (Fig. 1, item 84) at a top of a chamber (Fig. 1, item 82) configured to transmit the heat source toward the ion blocker.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Gray infrared heating unit as the use of a known technique to improve a similar apparatus in the same way. Tahara teaches a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by providing heating energy directed toward an ion blocker. Gray teaches an infrared heating unit that heats the channel plate (compare to Tahara’s ion blocker) to a desired operating temperature. One could have applied the same infrared heating from Gray into Tahara to heat the Tahara channel plate to a desired operating temperature to predictably control the pressure and plasma in the similar Tahara device.
As to claims 2 and 3, Tahara teaches an ion blocker with through holes penetrating the top and bottom surfaces of the ion blocker (140) that creates a mesh structure. As to claims 4 and 5, Tahara teaches a plurality of spaced ion blockers with non-overlapping passages (see Fig. 2). As to claim 6, Gray provides an infrared light. See the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 11, the Tahara ion blocker inherently has an aspect ratio and is capable of meeting the claimed condition.
As to claim 13, Tahara provides a substrate treating apparatus. Tahara provides a chamber having an inner space with an ion blocker (Fig. 1, item 140) dividing the inner space into a first space at a bottom side (within 102) and a second space at a top side (within 104/105). Tahara provides a support unit (106) configured to support a substrate at the first space (within 102) and a heating unit (114 and 112) configured to transmit a heat source to a substrate supported on the support unit. Tahara provides a plasma source configured to generate a plasma at the inner space ([0046]) using a coil (116) surrounding an outer wall of the chamber (105) configured to apply high frequency power ([0070]). Tahara’s ion blocker is made of a dielectric substrate ([0052]) and inherently has the capability to capture an ion or radical passing through the passages (142a and 144a).
Tahara is silent to a heating unit at the top end of the chamber configured to transmit a heat source toward the ion blocker.
Gray teaches an infrared heating unit (Fig. 1, item 84) at a top of a chamber (Fig. 1, item 82) configured to transmit the heat source toward the ion blocker.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Gray infrared heating unit as the use of a known technique to improve a similar apparatus in the same way. Tahara teaches a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by providing heating energy directed toward an ion blocker. Gray teaches an infrared heating unit that heats the channel plate (compare to Tahara’s ion blocker) to a desired operating temperature. One could have applied the same infrared heating from Gray into Tahara to heat the Tahara channel plate to a desired operating temperature to predictably control the pressure and plasma in the similar Tahara device.
As to claim 14, Tahara teaches an ion blocker with through holes penetrating the top and bottom surfaces of the ion blocker (140). As to claims 15 and 16, Tahara teaches a plurality of spaced ion blockers with non-overlapping passages (see Fig. 2). As to claim 17, Tahara teaches an ion blocker with through holes penetrating the top and bottom surfaces of the ion blocker (140) that creates a mesh structure. As to claim 19, Gray provides an infrared light. See the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 20, Tahara provides a substrate treating apparatus. Tahara provides a chamber having an inner space with an ion blocker (Fig. 1, item 140) dividing the inner space into a first space at a bottom side (within 102) and a second space at a top side (within 104/105). Tahara provides a support unit (106) configured to support a substrate at the first space (within 102) and a heating unit (114 and 112) configured to transmit a heat source to a substrate supported on the support unit. Tahara provides a gas supply unit (620) configured to supply a gas to the second space where it can be excited. Tahara provides a plasma source configured to generate a plasma at the inner space ([0046]) using a coil (116) surrounding an outer wall of the chamber (105) configured to apply high frequency power ([0070]). Tahara’s ion blocker is made of a dielectric substrate ([0052]) and inherently has the capability to capture an ion or radical when fluid passes through the passages (142a and 144a).
Tahara is silent to a heating unit at the top end of the chamber configured to transmit a heat source toward the ion blocker and substrate.
Gray teaches an infrared heating unit (Fig. 1, item 84) at a top of a chamber (Fig. 1, item 82) configured to transmit the heat source toward the ion blocker.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Gray infrared heating unit as the use of a known technique to improve a similar apparatus in the same way. Tahara teaches a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by providing heating energy directed toward an ion blocker. Gray teaches an infrared heating unit that heats the channel plate (compare to Tahara’s ion blocker) to a desired operating temperature. One could have applied the same infrared heating from Gray into Tahara to heat the Tahara channel plate to a desired operating temperature to predictably control the pressure and plasma in the similar Tahara device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, and 12 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Even in the rejection above, one would not have found it obvious to fabricate an electrode plate from a material including ITO (indium tin oxide) (claim 9), a drive capable of driving the ion blocker along a guide rail to change its position (claim 10), or the substrate treating apparatus configured to adjust an interval between the plurality of ion blockers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new scope of the claims and the new rejections made to address the new scope.
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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights