CTNF 18/690,502 CTNF 89509 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: Rotation drive mechanism (actuator, para. [0032]) in at least claims 2, 6, 7. Measurement unit (circularly polarized wave detector, electric field probes, para. [0043]) in at least claims 3-5, 6-8. Control unit (controller, para. [0044]) in at least claims 4, 7. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100043976 to Watanabe in view of US 20140008326 to Toyoda and further in view of US 20160141151 to Tamura . Claims 1-3, 6: Watanabe discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container (16 [vacuum container], Fig. 1) having a substantially cylindrical shape to which a RF power of microwave is supplied through a matching device (3 [matching box], para. [0029-0031]); and a rectangular waveguide (2 [rectangular wave guide]); and, a circular waveguide (4/23 [circular wave guide]) and a phase difference plate (24 [dielectric plate]) disposed in the circular waveguide (4/23). However Watanabe does not disclose the plate is a 180° phase difference plate, and then a 90° phase difference plate each disposed in the circular waveguide; (claim 2) a rotation drive mechanism connected to the 180° phase difference plate; (claim 3) further comprising: a measurement unit located below the 180° phase difference plate and configured to measure an electric field in a circumferential direction in the circular waveguide difference plate. Toyoda teaches (claim 1) a phase difference plate (131 [rotor], Fig. 19-22B), which can cyclically face a microwave propagating through the waveguide, and shift the microwave to a different degree phase difference which reads on 180-degree phase difference plate (para. [0122]); (claim 2) a rotation drive mechanism (132 [driving portion], Fig. 20-22) connected to the 180° phase difference plate (131, para. [0121]); for the purpose of achieving transmission or reflection of a microwave to thereby conduct a homogenous process on a workpiece (para. [0123-0124]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the option of choosing a phase difference of a plate and the rotation drive mechanism as taught by Toyoda with motivation to achieve transmission or reflection of a microwave to thereby conduct a homogenous process on a workpiece. Regarding a 90-degree phase difference plate, Tamura (claim 1) discloses a phase difference plate (201 [circularly polarized wave generator], Fig. 1-4) that have a 90-degree or other degree placement, (claims 3, 6) further comprising: a measurement unit (206 [circularly polarized wave detector], Fig. 4) located below the phase difference plate (201, para. [0078]) and configured to measure an electric field in a circumferential direction in the circular waveguide difference plate (para. [0079-0080], and at least para. [0072] where the unit heights can be adjusted); for the purpose of performing detection of the electric field strength and quantification of the circularly polarized wave (para. [0080]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Tamura with motivation to perform detection of the electric field strength and quantification of the circularly polarized wave. Claims 4, 7: The apparatus of Watanabe in view of Toyoda, Tamura does not disclose further comprising: a control unit configured to adjust an angle of the 180° phase difference plate in a manner of minimizing a circumferential variation of the electric field measured by the measurement unit. However Tamura teaches a controller (Fig. 11) which adjusts an operation of the circularly polarized wave adjuster according to an output from the circularly polarized wave detector (para. [0106]), for the purpose of adjusting a length of a dielectric stub to protrude into the circular waveguide (para. [0017]). Additionally, Toyoda teaches a controller (61, Fig. 20) which executes the command to control the phase shifting device (25D, para. [0088]) for the purpose of performing desired processing by the plasma processing apparatus (para. [0088]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Tamura with motivation to adjust a length of a dielectric stub to protrude into the circular waveguide, and/or as taught by Toyoda with motivation to perform desired processing by the plasma processing apparatus. Claims 5, 8: The apparatus of Watanabe in view of Toyoda, Tamura does not disclose a plasma processing method using the plasma processing apparatus according to claim 3, the plasma processing method comprising: adjusting an angle of the 180° phase difference plate in a manner of minimizing a circumferential variation of the electric field measured by the measurement unit. However Tamura teaches a controller (Fig. 11) which adjusts an operation of the circularly polarized wave adjuster according to an output from the circularly polarized wave detector (para. [0106]), for the purpose of adjusting a length of a dielectric stub to protrude into the circular waveguide (para. [0017]). Additionally, Toyoda teaches a controller (61, Fig. 20) which executes the command to control the phase shifting device (25D, para. [0088]) for the purpose of performing desired processing by the plasma processing apparatus (para. [0088]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Tamura with motivation to adjust a length of a dielectric stub to protrude into the circular waveguide, and/or as taught by Toyoda with motivation to perform desired processing by the plasma processing apparatus . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250364209 discloses a circularly polarized wave corrector (105, Fig. 3B) attached to the circular waveguide portion (202) and the insertion amounts (DX, DY) thereof are respectively controlled to adjust the electric field circularity of the circularly polarized wave (para. [0048]) by at least one inventor. US 20250118537 discloses reflected wave generators (0202(a) to (c), Fig. 2) are formed inside a waveguide (0201) that is connected to the circular waveguide (0107) and provided on a load side of the circularly polarized wave generator (0108, para. [0090]) by same assignee . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm. 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 5712725166. 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. /Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/690,502 Page 2 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/690,502 Page 3 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/690,502 Page 4 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/690,502 Page 5 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/690,502 Page 7 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/690,502 Page 8 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/690,502 Page 9 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/690,502 Page 10 Art Unit: 1718
Prosecution Insights