DETAILED ACTION
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.
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) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder – “part,” in this case – 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 limitations are:
The “electromagnetic wave supply part” of claims 1 and 4.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The EM wave supply part (13) will be interpreted as comprising a microwave output part (17) and a resonator (18), in accordance with paragraph [0027] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The penultimate paragraph of claim 1 refers to “the gas discharge port,” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis, as the feature of a discharge port has not been previously recited. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will provisionally interpret the contested limitation as denoting the gas exhaust port, recited in the fifth paragraph of claim 1.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because each claim recites an equality containing a symbol which is undefined. In claim 5, it is the final symbol in the equality for determining the diameter of the dielectric; in claim 6, it is the final symbol in the equality for determining the length of the dielectric; in claim 7, it is the final symbol in the equality for determining length of the reflection antenna. Clarification as to the denotation of this symbol is required. To advance prosecution, the examiner will provisionally consider these equalities satisfied by the prior art, as the value of the final variable can be arbitrarily selected to satisfy the equality. Claim 8 is also rejected under 112(b) by virtue of its dependency upon claim 7.
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, 4-6, 9-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fong et al., US 5,902,404.
Claim 1: Fong discloses a remote plasma device, comprising:
A housing (28) made of metal (3, 65ff);
A dielectric (34) which fills the housing (4, 1-5);
A gas supply port (42) configured to supply a gas to the housing (Fig. 1);
A gas exhaust port (48) configured to discharge the gas from the housing (4, 66ff);
A gas line, formed in the dielectric, that connect the supply and exhaust ports;
A microwave output part (12) and a resonator (16), i.e., the “electromagnetic wave supply part,” disposed at the housing which supplies EM waves into the housing and generates plasma in the gas line (3, 54ff).
Claim 4: Fong provides a matching means to resonate the EM waves at a frequency supplied by the supply part (3, 59-65).
Claims 5-6: The variables of these equalities are undefined; as such, their values can be selected arbitrarily in order to satisfy each equality.
Claim 9: As shown by Figure 2, the gas line (48) is disposed as a central axis of the dielectric (34).
Claims 10, 12: Fong forms a slot (30) through the wall of the metal wall of the chamber, whereby the region with the slot formed therein may be construed as a “slot antenna.”
Claim 14: Fong’s apparatus supplies microwaves (Abstract).
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 of this title, 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 2-3, 7-8, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong.
Claims 2, 13, 15: The inner surface of Fong’s metal housing (28) may be construed as the metal reflection antenna formed at the dielectric. Necessarily, this is also parallel to the gas line.
Claim 3: As shown by Figure 2, it appears that Fong’s housing is cylindrical, but only an infinitesimal asymmetry is sufficient to induce the claimed “imperfect cylindrical shape.” A modification of such a trivial degree is within the scope of ordinary skill, since a mere change in the shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, MPEP 2144.04; 357 F.2nd 669; 149 USPQ 1966).
Claims 7-8: The rejection of claim 5, above, substantially addresses these limitations.
Claim 11: Fong does not configure resonator in a comb-shape but, as with the reasoning above, modifying the shape of a component through routine experimentation in order to optimize a critical parameter is within the scope of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, MPEP 2144.04; 357 F.2nd 669; 149 USPQ 1966).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong in view of Bhatnagar, US 6,029,602.
Fong is silent regarding the structures external to the boundary of the remote plasma device. In supplementation, Bhatnagar provides a remove microwave plasma generator upstream of a vacuum processing chamber, as shown by Figures 1 and 2. Figure 3, however, renders the content of the processing chamber itself, which includes a placing table (12) for bearing a substrate. It would have been obvious to supplement Fong’s apparatus with the feature of a processing chamber and placing table to achieve the predictable result of processing a substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights