DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi (JP11/111494) in view of Toshiyasu (JP2009021256) (machine trans).
Negishi teaches a plasma process apparatus comprising:
- a chamber, see Fig. 1 and related text,
- a coaxial waveguide with outer and inner conductors – see 4 of Fig. 2, as per [0020] – the UHF band power is introduced through the line 4,
- an introducer to introduce electromagnetic waves from the waveguide into the chamber – see such as per Fig. 4, 21,
- a showerhead connected to the flow path – see showerhead 19 [0018],
- a conductor part made of metal that extends in a direction crossing the waveguide, see metal wire 23 [0020], and
- one or more filters, see 22, that surrounds the wire (conductive part), but the teachings do not include specifically the third end connected to the outer conductor and the fourth end connected to the corresponding conductor port.
Toshiyasu teaches that in a system with a transmission line and filter it is operable to connect one portion to a fixed end and another is a short circuit [0042-43]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to arrange the connections of the filter of Negishi in the manner taught by Toshiyasu as the teachings are silent on the specific arrangement but Toshiyasu teaches an operable manner of connection wherein electromagnetic waves are provided (to a chamber).
Regarding claim 12, the waveguide has a downstream portion as depicted. In regard to the length, there is no specific teaching, but per MPEP 2144.04 VI. A. it is obvious to adjust a size of a component wherein there is no showing of criticality of the dimension. To make the downstream portion at least 30 mm would have been obvious and is not depicted as critical.
Regarding claim 14, the system includes a substrate supporter (see Fig. 1 supporting substrate 10) that shares an axis with the waveguide (see Fig. 4) and the showerhead as noted is above the support.
Regarding claim 15, the teachings include an RF power supply, 6, [0014]. The teachings are silent on the length of the filters, but wherein the filters are taught the specific selection of a filter is obvious optimization without a showing of criticality within the scope of the claims as presented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-11, 13 and 16-18 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. Regarding claim 2 (and claims 3-11 and 16-18 that depend thereupon), there is no particular reason in the prior art of record or other known prior art to provide multiple notch filters as claimed. The filter of the prior is provided to suppress abnormal discharge so there is no reason to duplicate based on the prior art structure. Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach a dielectric part nor would there be any reason to add such a part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712