0DETAILED 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 25 recites “the one or more radiofrequency generators microwave generators;” should be “the one or more radiofrequency are generators microwave generators.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Parasitic deposition shielding element (any structure that shield, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0018]) in at least claim 20.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Internal frame element (unsure of structure) in at least claims 23, 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 22, 26, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “preferably” in claims 21, 22, 26, 27, and 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the limitation is optional or required in the claims, respectively. Examiner will interpret as optional, in each instance. Appropriate clarification is requested in each instance.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 26-27 recite the limitation "wherein the ratio of radio wave generators (waveguides) to linear plasma source is… " in the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “The ratio” was not introduced in claim 18, nor was the implied “waveguides” introduced in claim 18. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “optionally” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optionally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the limitation is optional or required in the claims, respectively. Examiner will interpret as optional. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim limitation “parasitic deposition shielding element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150197851 to Yoon in view of US 20140042902 to Fujita.
Claim 18: Yoon discloses an apparatus for plasma enhanced chemical vapour deposition, comprising: a) a reaction chamber (100/200, Fig. 2-3); b) at least one linear plasma source assembly (600 [plasma generation unit]) comprising (i) at least one linear antenna (600c [U-shaped plasma antenna] which is linear in a u-shape), excited by radiofrequency power (para. [0052]);
wherein the reaction chamber (100/200) is configured with at least one movable wall (120 [upper chamber outer housing]), the wall (120) being configured to be movable between a first operational location (A) (Fig. 2) and a second non-operational location (B) (Fig. 3); and the at least one linear plasma source assembly (600) are attached to at least one movable wall (120) and are configured to allow the at least one radiofrequency generator to deliver radio wave radiation to the at least one linear plasma source assembly (para. [0052]).
However Yoon does not disclose and (ii) at least one coaxial dielectric tube positioned around the linear antenna; and c) at least one radiofrequency generator; and at least one radiofrequency generator attached to the wall.
Fujjita discloses and (ii) at least one coaxial dielectric tube (42 [antenna cover], Fig. 1, para. [0037]) positioned around the linear antenna (26 [antenna]); and c) at least one radiofrequency generator (30 [PFG power supply], Fig. 1); and the at least one radiofrequency generator (30) attached to the wall (wall of 12 [plasma generating chamber], para. [0033]); for the purpose of preventing contamination in which metal particles constituting the antenna are discharged from the antenna in sputtering by the plasma, to contaminate the plasma (para. [0037]) and/or an outflow current is maintained equal to a feedback current of the power supply (para. [0013]).
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 as taught by Fujita with motivation to prevent contamination in which metal particles constituting the antenna are discharged from the antenna in sputtering by the plasma, to contaminate the plasma and/or an outflow current is maintained equal to a feedback current of the power supply.
Claim 30: The apparatus of Yoon in view of Fujita discloses a method for deposition coating onto a substrate using an apparatus according to claim 18 (para. [0003-0007]).
Claim(s) 19-29, 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Fujita as applied to claims 18, 30 above, and further in view of DE 102015119335 to Wehner.
Claims 19-27: The apparatus of Yoon in view of Fujita does not disclose (claim 19) wherein the apparatus additionally comprises at least one radio wave waveguide attached to the at least one moveable wall; (claim 20) wherein the apparatus additionally comprises at least one parasitic deposition shielding element attached to the at least one movable wall; (claim 21) wherein the apparatus additionally comprises at least one gas supply means attached to the at least one movable wall, preferably wherein the gas supply means comprises a plurality of nozzles;
(claim 22) wherein the apparatus additionally comprises at least one gas exhaust conduit attached to the at least one movable wall, preferably wherein the at least one gas exhaust conduit comprise a plurality of nozzles; (claim 23) wherein the apparatus additionally comprises at least one internal frame element reversibly attached to the at least one movable wall, wherein: the at least one linear plasma source assembly is attached to the at least one movable wall by means of the at least one internal frame element;
(claim 24) wherein: the at least one radio wave waveguide is attached to the at least one moveable wall by means of the at least one internal frame element; and/or the at least one gas supply conduit is attached to the at least one moveable wall by means of the at least one internal frame element; and/or the at least one gas exhaust conduit is attached to the at least one moveable wall by means of the at least one internal frame element;
(claim 25) wherein the antenna is a microwave antenna, the one or more radiofrequency generators microwave generators, the radio wave guide is a microwave guide, and the radio wave radiation is microwave radiation; (claim 26) wherein the ratio of radio wave generators to linear plasma source is 1:1 or 2:1, preferably 1:1; (claim 27) wherein the ratio of waveguides to linear plasma source is 1:1 or 1:2, preferably 1:1.
However Wehner teaches a movable wall (112w [wall element], Fig. 11A-11B) which can have many chamber components attached to it (para. [0161], including a heat source, shields, etching or plasma source, material vapor source, inert gas source, heat radiation sink, etc (para. [0155]) for the purpose of providing a mobile service device which can be docked to the chamber arrangement and accommodate a processing unit directly from the chamber arrangement, thus eliminating the need for additional technology, saving costs, personnel, and effort (para. [0007]).
It is noted that though not all the exact chamber components are mentioned, it is obvious that they are considered in that numerous processing units are considered (para. [0154-0180]). The courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C). Regarding the ratio, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
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 concept of attaching the various chamber components to a movable wall as taught by Wehner with motivation to provide a mobile service device which can be docked to the chamber arrangement and accommodate a processing unit directly from the chamber arrangement, thus eliminating the need for additional technology, saving costs, personnel, and effort.
Claims 28-29: The apparatus of Yoon in view of Fujita does not explicitly disclose (claim 28) wherein a first radio wave generator is configured to allow radio wave radiation to be delivered to a first, proximal end of the linear radio wave antenna and wherein a second radio wave generator is configured to allow radio wave radiation to be delivered to a second, distal end of the linear antenna via the radio wave waveguide; (claim 29) wherein the at least one linear plasma source assembly, the at least one radiofrequency generator and the at least one radio wave waveguide attached to the at least one moveable wall are configured: (i) to allow the at least one radiofrequency generator to deliver radio wave radiation to a first, proximal end of the linear radio wave antenna; and (ii) to allow the at least one radiofrequency generator to deliver radio wave radiation to a second, proximal end of the linear radio wave antenna.
However the limitations are drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, and a duplication of parts, as the apparatus of Yoon in view of Fujita and Wehner disclose components above. The courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B). The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claims 32-33: The apparatus of Yoon in view of Fujita does not explicitly disclose (claim 32) a method for cleaning an apparatus according to claim 18, comprising the steps of: ensuring the pressure within the reaction chamber is approximately equal to the pressure outside the reaction chamber;
moving the movable wall from the first operational position to the second non-operational position; cleaning parasitically deposed material from at least one linear plasma source assembly;
optionally cleaning parasitically deposed material from: (i) the radio wave waveguide(s), (ii) the parasitic deposition shielding element(s), (iii) the gas supply conduit(s), (iv) the gas exhaust conduit(s) (and/or v) the internal frame element(s), where these elements are both present and attached to the moveable wall; and
moving the movable wall from the second non-operational position to the first operational position; (claim 33) comprising the additional steps of: detaching the at least one linear plasma source from the apparatus before cleaning parasitically deposed material from at least one linear plasma source assembly; and
reattaching the at least one linear plasma source to the apparatus after cleaning parasitically deposed material from at least one linear plasma source assembly.
However Wenher teaches the components can be moved out of the reaction chamber (100a) after processing, via moving the wall element (112w, Fig. 11A-11B) that they are attached to, then performing various servicing of the chamber (100a) which is obvious to include cleaning particulates from the chamber components (which are detachable, para. [0010]) and inside the reaction chamber (100a), etc, then reattaching any already cleaned chamber components and then moving the wall element back to the chamber (para. [0009-0217]), for the purpose of providing a mobile service device which can be docked to the chamber arrangement and accommodate a processing unit directly from the chamber arrangement, thus eliminating the need for additional technology, saving costs, personnel, and effort (para. [0007]).
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 concept limitations above as taught by Wehner with motivation to provide a mobile service device which can be docked to the chamber arrangement and accommodate a processing unit directly from the chamber arrangement, thus eliminating the need for additional technology, saving costs, personnel, and effort.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Fujita as applied to claims 18, 30 above, and further in view of US 20210206647 to Williams.
Claim 31: The apparatus of Yoon in view of Fujita does not disclose wherein the method is for deposition coating onto a microwave absorbing substrate, preferably a metallic substrate.
Williams discloses a method is for deposition coating onto a microwave absorbing substrate, preferably a metallic substrate (para. [0005, 0024]), for the purpose of growing specific films that are substantially crack free over at least the central area (para. [0024]).
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 as taught by Williams with motivation to grow specific films that are substantially crack free over at least the central area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250179643 discloses a linear plasma source (7a, Fig. 4) with first end and a second end comprising an antenna (7) and a co-axial shielding element (8), by same assignee. US 20230067579 discloses lid system (161, Fig. 2-3) in an open position (Fig. 3), supported by the hinge joint (165, para. [0160]). The movable lid system (161) facilitates servicing of the apparatus (100); the first plasma generator (175, Fig. 1) on the top side of the inner chamber (130) or in the reaction chamber top part (131, para. [0146]).
US 20220359170 discloses a reaction chamber (50, Fig. 2-3) can be moved from a first position for substrate processing to a second position for substrate loading by the actuator (53) and as allowed/permitted by a contracting/restricting movement of the exhaust line (30) due to the part (35) (para. [0069]). US 20150214014 discloses a rotating lifter (a moving unit) (210, Fig. 4-10), where a discharge block unit (220), sample stage unit (240), are fixed to a movable part of the rotating lifter (210), and multiple chamber components can be readily removed and replaced (para. [0055-0062]).
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
Prosecution Insights