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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Responsive to communication filed 07/28//2026
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 13 and 15-20 have been withdrawn
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A1 and B1, drawn to claims 1-12 and 14 in the reply filed on 07/28/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as
being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election
was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2026.
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.
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) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (WO 2020059174), utilizing US 20210202213 as the official English translation, in view of Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980).
Regarding Claim 1:
Takeda teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process vessel (process vessel 202) accommodating therein a process chamber where a substrate (wafer 200) is processed; a gas supplier (first gas dispersion unit 235a and second gas dispersion unit 235b) through which a gas is supplied into the process chamber; and a first plasma generator (second plasma generator 270b) configured to generate a plasma of the gas in the process chamber and comprising: an insulator (insulator 271) provided so as to protrude into the process chamber; a coil (U-shaped coil electrode 253b) of a planar shape arranged in the insulator [Fig. 5 & 0035].
Takeda does not specifically disclose an adjuster capable of adjusting a gap distance between the coil and the insulator.
Nishimura teaches an adjuster (actuator 148) capable of adjusting a gap distance between the coil and the insulator (actuator 148 moves antennas 142A and 142B) [Nishimura - Fig. 14A, 14B & 0102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the coil of Takeda to comprise an actuator, as in Nishimura, to spatially control plasma potential and provide capabilities to adjust resonant frequencies without needing to physically change the length of a coil [Nishimura - 0085, 0097].
Regarding Claim 2:
The limitations of claim 2 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that Nishimura discloses that the distance between a coil and a dielectric and the distance between a coil and a plasma can be changed to directly affect plasma potential [Nishimura - Fig. 14A, 14B & 0085, 0119-0122].
Regarding Claim 3:
The limitations of claim 3 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that Nishimura discloses that the distance between a coil and a dielectric and the distance between a coil and a plasma can be changed to directly affect plasma potential [Nishimura - Fig. 14A, 14B & 0085, 0119-0122].
Regarding Claim 4:
The limitations of claim 4 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that Nishimura discloses that the distance between a coil and a dielectric and the distance between a coil and a plasma can be changed to directly affect plasma potential [Nishimura - Fig. 14A, 14B & 0085, 0119-0122].
Regarding Claim 5:
The limitations of claim 5 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that Nishimura discloses that the distance between a coil and a dielectric and the distance between a coil and a plasma can be changed to directly affect plasma potential [Nishimura - Fig. 14A, 14B & 0085, 0119-0122].
Regarding Claim 6:
The limitations of claim 6 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that Nishimura discloses that the distance between a coil and a dielectric and the distance between a coil and a plasma can be changed to directly affect plasma potential [Nishimura - Fig. 14A, 14B & 0085, 0119-0122].
Regarding Claim 7:
The limitations of claim 7 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that Nishimura discloses that the distance between a coil and a dielectric and the distance between a coil and a plasma can be changed to directly affect plasma potential [Nishimura - Fig. 14A, 14B & 0085, 0119-0122].
Regarding Claim 8:
Takeda does not specifically disclose wherein the gap distance is equal to a distance between the coil and an inner wall at a bottom portion of the insulator along a vertical direction.
Nishimura teaches wherein the gap distance is equal to a distance between the coil and an inner wall at a bottom portion of the insulator along a vertical direction (as evidenced by Fig. 14A and 14B, there is a gap between the dielectric member 104 and the antenna 144A) [Nishimura - Fig. 14A, 14B & 0102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the coil of Takeda to comprise an actuator, as in Nishimura, to spatially control plasma potential and provide capabilities to adjust resonant frequencies without needing to physically change the length of a coil [Nishimura - 0085, 0097].
Regarding Claim 9:
Takeda does not specifically disclose wherein the adjuster is provided with a mover configured to move the coil vertically.
Nishimura teaches wherein the adjuster is provided with a mover configured to move the coil vertically (actuator 148 moves antennas 142A and 142B) [Nishimura - Fig. 14A, 14B & 0102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the coil of Takeda to comprise an actuator, as in Nishimura, to spatially control plasma potential and provide capabilities to adjust resonant frequencies without needing to physically change the length of a coil [Nishimura - 0085, 0097].
Regarding Claim 11:
Takeda teaches wherein the insulator is of a hemispherical shape provided so as to protrude into the process chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the insulator 271 is of a hemispherical shape and protrudes into the chamber) [Fig. 5 & 0035].
Regarding Claim 12:
Takeda teaches wherein the first plasma generator is shielded by an electromagnetic wave shield (electromagnetic wave shield 254b) of a cylindrical shape or of a rectangular parallelepiped shape (electromagnetic wave shield 254b is formed of a conductive metal plate and can be cylindrical or rectangular parallelepiped) [Fig. 1 & 0035].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (WO 2020059174), utilizing US 20210202213 as the official English translation, in view of Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980), as applied to claims 1-9 and 11-12 above, and further in view of Maher et al. (US 4715921).
The limitations of claims 1-9 and 11-12 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Takeda does not specifically disclose wherein the mover comprises a micrometer, and the coil is capable of being moved vertically by rotating the micrometer.
While Maher does not explicitly disclose "wherein the mover comprises a micrometer, and the coil is capable of being moved vertically by rotating the micrometer," Maher does disclose that micrometers and actuators are art recognized equivalents for the same purpose [Maher - Col. 8 lines 25-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adjuster of modified Takeda to be substituted for a micrometer similar to Maher since this modification would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, Maher specifically teaches wherein actuators and micrometers are useable for electrode movement and teaches where micrometers are advantageously used in place of actuators. [Maher - Col. 8 lines 25-29]. Additionally, the courts have held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is supportive of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Conclusion
The applicant is asked to consider Takeda et al. (US 20230197408) which seems to contain substantially similar structures to the claimed invention and was allowed for structures that also seem to be present in the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Lo et al. (US 9607809) and Kim (US 20070221622) teach coil structures [Lo – Fig. 2; Kim – Fig. 6].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights