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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, drawn to a plasma etching apparatus in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig 2B the drawings appear to demonstrate the first diameter “d1” as an inner diameter of the annular chamber port (250) whereas in Fig 2E the drawings appear to demonstrate the first diameter “d1” as an outer diameter of the annular chamber port (250). Consistent with the instant specification [0033] and [0034] and claim 12, the first diameter is the inner diameter of the annular chamber port (250) (note this is otherwise referred to as the diameter of the opening (251) in port (250)). Applicant is kindly requested to correct Fig 2E to reflect the diameter “d1” is measured the same way as shown in Fig 2B and as described in the instant specification. Additionally for Fig 2E, the drawing is identified as a cross-sectional view along line A-A of Fig 2C (see [0016]), in this drawing this line is labeled 2E-2E. Applicant should correct Fig 2C or specification to ensure the line label is consistent. Further for Fig 2E, the cross-sectional view along line 2E-2E (or A-A) cuts through annular chamber port (250) along a central region and therefore the portion of 250 shown along the longer sides of the window (252) and window-protective film (254) in Fig 2E should be not shown or clearly distinguished as being out of the same plane as the cross-sectional slices of the sides of the chamber port (250) and the cross-sectional slices of the window (252) and the window-protective film (254). The currently shown view appears to suggest the cross sectional view along line 2E-2E (or A-A) includes a cross-section of annular chamber port (250) on all sides of the window and window-protective film. Applicant is kindly requested to correct Fig 2E to provide clear distinction between structures in the plane of the cross-sectional view and portions of the same structure that are not in the same plane. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“chamber port assembly” in claim 1-2 (“assembly” is a generic placeholder and “configured to generate an electric field in response to receiving a voltage” is the functional language) interpreted as a chamber port, a data collection window, and a window-protective film [0006], [0033]; and equivalents 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.
Note that claim 3 and claims dependent therefrom and claim 8 and claims dependent therefrom include the term “chamber port assembly” but provide sufficient structure in the claim 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
In claim 1, the claim term “chamber port assembly” invokes an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The term is unclear as to specifically which structures are part of the “chamber port assembly” because as cited above some portion of the specification define the structure as: a data collection window having an electrically conductive transparent window-protective film formed thereon [0004], [0021], [0024] and other portions of the specification define the structure as: a chamber port, a data collection window, and a window-protective film [0006], [0033]. It is particularly unclear because claim 1 separately claims a chamber port (line 4) and recites that the chamber port assembly is disposed in the chamber port (line 6 – emphasis added). This renders the claim unclear as to whether the term “chamber port assembly” requires or does not require a chamber port. Note that the inclusion or omission of “chamber port” as a structure of the “chamber port assembly” does not alter the application of an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the chamber port is not sufficient structure to perform the recited function of “configured to generate an electric field in response to receiving a voltage”. The claim is further unclear as to whether applicant is using chamber port for more than one structure (e.g. an opening in the chamber side wall and also a flange, collar, or other insert or connector structure that may be fitted into an opening in the chamber side wall) due to claiming a chamber port separately but including a chamber port in the disclosure of the chamber port assembly and claiming a chamber port as a structure of the chamber port assembly in claim 3. The instant specification does not provide clarity as to whether structure 250 is integral with the chamber wall or is a different structure. Additionally, the same term “chamber port” cannot be used simultaneously in the claims to refer to two different structures (i.e. an opening in the wall and a flange, collar, or other connector structure inserted into the opening in the wall) because this renders the claim unclear as to when the term is being used for each structure. Therefore the claim is examined with an interpretation that “chamber port” is consistently referring to one structure. Regarding whether an interpretation that the term “chamber port assembly” is limited to the interpretation in which the chamber port assembly does not require a chamber port, while such an interpretation may be applied to claim 1, this interpretation becomes unclear in claim 3 which depends from claim 1 and recites “the chamber port assembly comprises: a chamber port”. Therefore the claim language of claim 1 is unclear because the chamber port assembly cannot both be disposed in the chamber port and comprise the chamber port (based on the interpretation required by invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of “chamber port”). For purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with portions of the instant specification cited above and instant claims 3 and 8, the chamber port assembly is interpreted as comprising a chamber port and that this is the same chamber port recited in line 4 of claim 1. Applicant is kindly requested to correct [0006], [0033] of the instant specification to ensure they also define the chamber port assembly as including a chamber port and to amend claim 1 to remove current references to chamber port and the chamber port assembly “disposed in the chamber port” from claim 1 or recite all the structures of the chamber port assembly in claim 1 and amend to clarify which structures are disposed in the chamber port.
Regarding claim 3, as explained above regarding claim 1, the chamber port assembly cannot both include the chamber port and be disposed in the chamber port. The use of “a chamber port” in line 3 of claim 3 is unclear as to whether it is referring to the same or a different chamber port. As explained above, consistent with the instant specification, the claim is interpreted as referring to the same structure and that the chamber port is part of the chamber port assembly as explained above. Applicant is kindly requested to amend claim 3 for clarity in a manner that is consistent with the amendments to claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “a rear side of the transparent data collection window” in line 2 of the claim. This limitation is unclear because “a rear side of the transparent data collection window” is already recited in claim 3 (line 4-5 and 7-8), from which claim 4 depends. It is unclear if the recitation of “a rear side of the transparent data collection window” is intended to refer to the same “rear side of the transparent data collection window” of claim 3 or to a different “rear side of the transparent data collection window”. Consistent with the instant specification and for purpose of examination on the merits, the claim 4 recitation of “a rear side of the transparent data collection window” in line 2 is interpreted inclusive or referring to the same “rear side of the transparent data collection window” of claim 3. Applicant is kindly requested to amend claim 4 to recite the rear side of the transparent data collection window.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant application, claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because the limitations of claim 4 merely restate the limitations of lines 4-5 and 7-8 of claim 3 from which claim 4 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2005-039119 of Takai, hereinafter Takai (citing machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Takai teaches a plasma etching system (Fig 1) comprising: a reaction chamber (2 Fig 1) configured to react plasma with a substrate to perform an etching process [0009], [0020-0021]; a chamber port (window frame 11b Fig 1 [0024] also note the opening in the chamber 2 sidewall may be considered a port if applicant argues that the chamber port is not part of the chamber port assembly as explained in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) providing visual access to an internal area of the reaction chamber [0024]; a chamber port assembly (a chamber port - frame 11a Fig 1 and [0024-0027], a data collection window - plate 11b or 103b Fig 1 and [0024-0027], and a window-protective film - 103 or 103a Fig 1 and [0024-0027]) disposed in the chamber port (Fig 1 and [0024-0027]), the chamber port assembly configured to generate an electric field in response to receiving a voltage ([0026] note the teaching of applying an electric charge of positive or negative is a teaching of applying a voltage).
Regarding claim 2, Takai teaches the electric field repels ions included in the plasma away from the chamber port assembly [0034-0036].
Regarding claim 3-4, Takai teaches the chamber port assembly comprises: a chamber port (frame 11a Fig 1 and [0024-0027]) defining a port opening (Fig 1, [0024-0027]); a transparent data collection window (plate 11b or 103b Fig 1 and [0024-0027]) disposed in the port opening (Fig 1), the transparent data collection window having a rear side facing the internal area of the reaction chamber and a front side opposite the rear side facing an exterior of the reaction chamber (Fig 1); and a window-protective film (103 or 103a Fig 1 and [0024-0027]) disposed on the rear side of the transparent data collection window (103 or 103a Fig 1 and [0024-0027]), the window-protective film comprising an electrically conductive transparent material configured to convey electromagnetic energy therethrough and to conduct electricity [0024-0027].
Regarding claim 6, Takai teaches a power supply (104 Fig 1) in signal communication with the window-protective film [0026], the power supply configured to deliver the voltage to the transparent data collection window [0026].
Regarding claim 7, Takai teaches the electrically conductive transparent material comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) [0027].
Regarding claim 8, Takai teaches a chamber port assembly (Fig 1) [0024-0027] comprising: a chamber port (frame 11a Fig 1 and [0024-0027]) defining a port opening (Fig 1, [0024-0027]); a transparent data collection window (plate 11b or 103b Fig 1 and [0024-0027]) disposed in the port opening (Fig 1); and a window-protective film (103 or 103a Fig 1 and [0024-0027]) disposed on the transparent data collection window (Fig 1 and [0024-0027]), the window-protective film comprising an electrically conductive transparent material configured to convey electromagnetic energy therethrough and to conduct electricity [0024-0027].
Regarding claim 9, Takai teaches the window-protective film produces an electric field in response to receiving a voltage ([0026] note the teaching of applying an electric charge of positive or negative is a teaching of applying a voltage).
Regarding claim 10, Takai teaches the electrically conductive transparent material comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) [0027].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Takai or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takai in view of US Patent 6,455,437 of Davidow et al., hereinafter Davidow.
Regarding claim 5, Takai appears to teach an optical emission spectroscopy (OES) tool (12, 13, 14, 15 Fig 1 [0025], [0043]) disposed adjacent the front side of the transparent data collection window (Fig 1) but fails to explicitly recite that this is an optical emission spectroscopy tool because Takai teaches it is for monitoring plasma light emission intensity and processing the plasma light emission intensity into a signal but does not explicitly teach if the signal is distinguished by wavelength or frequency. Examiner notes that the discussion of use for monitoring the plasma and the discussion of processing the signal [0025], [0043] appear to suggest that inherently the tool is an optical emission spectroscopy tool. However because Takai does not explicitly recite that the tool is an optical emission spectroscopy tool or otherwise indicate that the emission spectrum is monitored by wavelength or frequency, Davidow is alternatively provided to demonstrate it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to optical emission spectroscopy (OES) tool. In the same field of endeavor of a plasma etching system (Fig 1A and 1C) (col 4, ln 28-55), Davidow teaches using an optical emission spectroscopy tool (col 5, ln 1-25) including a detector 120 (Fig 1A) or a detector 120, fiber optic cable 132, and lens 130 (col 5, ln 1-25) disposed adjacent to the window (viewport 114) (note adjacent is inclusive of nearby) to monitor the emission of the plasma (col 4, ln 55 to col 5, ln 25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takai to include an optical emission spectroscopy (OES) tool in place of the emission detector taught by Takai because Davidow teaches that such a tool allows for monitoring the plasma state, detecting process events, and obtaining process chamber information (col 2, ln 1-30) and allows for the detection of particular chemical species (col 2, ln 30-38, col 2, ln 47-62).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0406571 of Choi et al., hereinafter Choi.
Regarding claim 11, Takai teaches the window may include silica glass [0024] but fails to teach quartz. In the same field of endeavor of a plasma processing system (abstract and Fig 1), Choi teaches that a transparent window (530 Fig 1, [0075]) includes a transparent conductive oxide such as indium tin oxide [0075] deposited on quartz [0075]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Takai to include the indium tin oxide film deposited on quartz because Choi demonstrates the layer may be deposited on quartz and still exposed to plasma (see plasma P in Fig 2). It is additionally noted that quartz is composed of silica.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai in view of JP 2007-294190 of Sato et al., hereinafter Sato (citing machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 12, Takai teaches the chamber port (11a Fig 1) has an annular-shaped port defining a first diameter of the port opening (Fig 1), and the transparent data collection window has a circular shape (103a or 11b Fig 1) defining a second diameter (Fig 1). Takai fails to explicitly teach the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter. Initially it is noted that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Takai that the diameter of the window (second diameter) is smaller than the diameter of the chamber port opening (first diameter) because the window must fit within the chamber port opening and having the two diameters be the same value may result in the window not fitting if the diameter of the window is machined on the larger end of the tolerance while the chamber port opening is machined with a diameter on the lower end of the tolerance. Further an exact same diameter would result in the window encountering friction with the opening of the port that may result in damage to the window upon insertion. Additionally a same diameter for both does not allow for differences in thermal expansion and contraction and therefore could result in the breakage of the window upon chamber temperature fluctuations. Further, in the same field of endeavor of a processing chamber with an optical window [0001], Sato demonstrates that the window (22 Fig 3) has a smaller dimension along the major plane of the window than the dimension along the same direction of the port (40 Fig 3) in which the window is positioned (see Fig 3 note the gap between the outer sides of 22 and the inner sides of 40). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takai to include the gap between the outer surfaces of the window and the facing surface of the port because Sato demonstrates this arrangement as an arrangement for securing the window and, as noted above, the arguments regarding the fit and thermal expansion of the structures. Note that because Takai teaches the round and annular shapes as recited, this difference in size results in the second diameter (diameter of the window) being smaller than the first diameter (diameter of port opening).
Regarding claim 13, Takai fails to teach the chamber port comprises an electrically conductive material and includes an electrically conductive electrode disposed on the chamber port, wherein the electrically conductive electrode establishes electrical conductivity between the window-protective film and a power supply configured to supply the voltage. In the same field of endeavor of a processing chamber with an optical window [0001], Sato teaches the chamber port comprises an electrically conductive material (40 and 81 Fig 3) and includes an electrically conductive electrode (30 Fig 1) disposed on the chamber port (Fig 1). Sato further teaches the electrically conductive electrode (30 Fig 1) establishes electrical conductivity between the window and a power supply configured to supply the voltage [0023-0024], [0034]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takai to include the conductive chamber port and electrode with configuration as taught by Sato because Sato teaches this allows for applying a bias to the window for control of ion flow near the window [0023-0024] which is the same purpose of Takai. Regarding electrical conductivity between the window protective film and the power supply, Takai has taught the film on the chamber facing surface (Takai Fig 1) and Sato has taught the applied power results in a charge build up (voltage) on the chamber facing surface [0023-0024] and therefore the combination results in voltage application to the window protective film.
Regarding claim 14, Takai teaches the window-protective film includes an electrically conductive electrode having a first portion disposed on the window-protective film (Takai Fig 1, see connection of wire to film 103 or 103b, note the wire runs from 104, but the portion directly contacting the film may be considered an electrode) and a second portion extending from the first portion (portion of wire after the end portion connecting to the film), the second portion configured to establish electrical conductivity with a power supply that generates the voltage [0026] and to deliver the voltage to the window-protective film via the first portion [0026]. Regarding the second portion being disposed on the transparent data collection window, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the positioning of the wire to extend through the window (103a or 11b Fig 1) rather than as shown through the chamber wall. It is noted that positioning the wire through the window allows for the wire to be removed when the transparent conductive film is removed (e.g. for replacement or repair). Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0272098 teaches a conductive port for electrical contact with a transparent conductive film on a window (see 24 and 22c Fig 3 and [0030]) and teaches a wire travelling through the glass plate (22a Fig 3). US 2015/0114559 teaches a plasma shielding structure for an optical window (Fig 2B). US 2023/0064390 teaches fluorine-doped tin oxide (FTO), aluminum-doped zinc oxide (AZO), and graphene as transparent conductive film alternatives to indium tin oxide (ITO) [0067].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights