DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker (7,811,941).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Becker teaches a plasma apparatus comprising:
- a plasma chamber, see Fig. 1 and related text (col 4, lines 33-65),
- a RF power supply, see 23 feeding power to 13,
- an electromagnet, see 13 per related text includes electromagnets
- a pulse generator configured to provide pulse current to the electromagnet, see col 10, lines 8-25 wherein it is described that a pulse generator is integrated into the power supply for pulsing the current of the magnetic field coil.
In regard to the specific control (current or polarity), the configuration of the pulse generator is intended use. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). In this case, the claimed pulse generator is taught and can be applied in any manner such as claimed, thereby meeting the claim requirements. Further, it is taught generally to control the direction of the magnetic field, see col 2, lines 43-51.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the use of any frequency is intended use, but in any case the teachings include a range encompassing at least 100Hz (col 10, lines 33-39).
Regarding claims 3 and 13-16, the use of the pulse current is intended use.
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 4-6, 9, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (7,811,941) in view of Anders (2011/0089024).
The teachings of Becker are described above, and include a pulse current, but does not teach a DC signal. Anders, however, teaches that for a pulse current used in a plasma processing system, it is known to use a direct current power [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the DC power of Anders as Becker is silent on the mode of power for the current pulses and Anders teaches such a system is useful. Anders also further teaches controlling the current direction to urge the direction of the plasma [0032] in such a system. The use of the DC pulse signal is again intended use as above.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Anders further teaches controlling a plasma with additional coils and the use of different current directions [0032], DC taught as above. The teachings do not include a difference in the size of the coils, however, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A selection of size/proportion is obvious without a showing of criticality, and the instant specification does not support criticality within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, per the combined art as addressed per claims 4-6, the teachings include multiple coils and the size difference is an obvious modification. The actual directions of the pulses is intended use of the apparatus and not limiting.
Regarding claim 18, the teachings of the DC pulse is taught as per Anders and the use of the particular signals is again intended use.
Regarding claim 19, as per claim 29, Anders teaches a time controller.
Regarding claim 20, all elements of the claim are taught per claims 1 and 11 above, except for the stage and distribution plate – the DC power supply and timing controller are taught per Anders (see claims 4 and 19 above). The stage 11 is taught per Fig. 1 of Becker. Becker teaches a gas supply 19, while not explicitly teaching a shower plate, Examiner takes Official Notice that such a configuration for providing process gas is pervasive in the art and would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 21, the arguments are applied as claim 2 above.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (7,811,941) and Anders (2011/0089024) in view of Watanabe (2001/0008173).
The teachings of Becker and Anders are above, initially the Office holds that the distribution plate is obvious, but wherein claim 22 requires a modification of the plate, the teachings of Watanabe are further applied.
Watanabe teaches that it is useful to have a distribution plate in a plasma system in order to flow gases into the chamber, see plate 12 per Fig. 1 and [0013, 26-27]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the distribution plate of Watanabe in the system of Becker as an effective manner of flowing gases into the plasma chamber. Claim 21 is rejected in the same manner as above, and regarding claim 22, Watanabe further teaches magnets in the distribution plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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. While magnetic shielding is generally known in the art, to include such a shield in the distribution plate with the magnet in the system of claim 20 is not obvious.
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. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. 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
Prosecution Insights