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 (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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito et al, CN101740303 A.
Saito et al teaches regarding claim 1, a plasma processing apparatus 45 comprising: a chamber 22 that has an opening (top edge); a stage 27 that is provided in the chamber 22 and on which a workpiece G is to be placed; a dielectric member 3 that closes the opening; and a plasma generation unit 5 that is provided on a side opposite to the chamber 22 across the dielectric member 3, and generates a plasma in the chamber 22, wherein the plasma generation unit includes: a first coil 120 that includes a plurality of first conductors 101 that are connected in parallel to each other (Figure 19); and a first distribution portion 123 that distributes, to each of the first conductors 101, first high frequency power 6 to be supplied to the first coil 120, the first distribution portion includes: a first input portion 123c to which the first high frequency power is input; a first branch portion 123B at which the first high frequency power input to the first input portion is divided and delivered into a plurality of first branch lines (Figure 19); and a plurality of second branch portions 123a at each of which a corresponding one of the first branch lines branches out into a plurality of second branch lines, each of the second branch lines is connected to one of first application portions that are included in the first conductors (Figure 19), the first branch lines have a substantially equal length, and the second branch lines have a substantially equal length (Figure 19).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takeda et al, US 2024/0014008 A1, in view of Saito et al, CN101740303 A.
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Takeda et al teaches a plasma processing apparatus 10 comprising: a chamber 11 that has an opening 11a; a stage 12 that is provided in the chamber 11 and on which a workpiece is to be placed; a dielectric member 13 that closes the opening 11a; and a plasma generation unit 16 that is provided on a side opposite to the chamber 11 across the dielectric member 13, and generates a plasma in the chamber 11, wherein the plasma generation unit includes: a first coil 18a that includes a plurality of first conductors 18a that are connected in parallel to each other (Figure 2); and a first distribution portion 22 that distributes, to each of the first conductors 18, first high frequency power 19 to be supplied to the first coil 18,
Takeda et al differs from the present invention in that Takeda et al does not teach that the first distribution portion includes: a first input portion to which the first high frequency power is input; a first branch portion at which the first high frequency power input to the first input portion is divided and delivered into a plurality of first branch lines; and a plurality of second branch portions at each of which a corresponding one of the first branch lines branches out into a plurality of second branch lines, each of the second branch lines is connected to one of first application portions that are included in the first conductors, the first branch lines have a substantially equal length, and the second branch lines have a substantially equal length.
Saito et al teaches that the first distribution portion includes: a first input portion 123c to which the first high frequency power is input; a first branch portion 123B at which the first high frequency power input to the first input portion is divided and delivered into a plurality of first branch lines (Figure 19); and a plurality of second branch portions 123a at each of which a corresponding one of the first branch lines branches out into a plurality of second branch lines, each of the second branch lines is connected to one of first application portions that are included in the first conductors (Figure 19), the first branch lines have a substantially equal length, and the second branch lines have a substantially equal length (Figure 19).
The motivation for replacing the first distribution portion of Takeda et al with the first distribution portion of Saito et al is to provide an alternate and equivalent distribution portion as taught by Saito et al. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replacing the first distribution portion of Takeda et al with the first distribution portion of Saito et al.
Regarding claim 2, Takeda et al teaches that each of the plurality of first conductors has a spiral shape that extends from the first application portion that is provided at a center side of the dielectric member to a first ground portion that is provided at an outer periphery side of the dielectric member, and is placed in a rotationally symmetric manner about the center of the dielectric member, the first input portion is provided at the outer periphery side of the dielectric member relative to the first branch portion, and the first branch portion is provided at the center side of the dielectric member relative to the second branch portions. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 3, Takeda et al teaches that the first branch portion is provided at the outer periphery side of the dielectric member relative to the center of the dielectric member. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 4, combination of Takeda et al and Saito et al as discussed above teach the plasma generation unit 16 of Takeda et al further includes: a second coil 17 that is provided at a center side of the dielectric member 13 relative to the first application portions of the first coil 18, and includes a plurality of second conductors 17a that are connected in parallel to each other (Figure 2); and the distribution portion of Saito et al teaches a distribution portion that can replace the second distribution system of Takeda et al such that a second distribution portion 123 that distributes, to each of the second conductors 17a, second high frequency power 23 to be supplied to the second coil 17, the second distribution portion includes: a second input portion 123c to which the second high frequency power is input; and a third branch portion 123b at which the second high frequency power input to the second input portion is divided and delivered into a plurality of third branch lines, each of the third branch lines is connected to one of second application portions 17b that are included in the second conductors 17a, and the third branch lines have a substantially equal length. (Figure 19 of Saito, Figure 2 of Takeda et al.
Regarding claim 5, Takeda et al teaches that the third branch portion is provided at an outer periphery side of the dielectric member relative to the center of the dielectric member. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 6, Takeda et al teaches that the third branch portion is provided at the center side of the dielectric member relative to the first application portions of the first coil. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 7, Takeda et al teaches that a distance between the third branch portion and the dielectric member is smaller than a distance between the first branch portion and the dielectric member. (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 8, Takeda et al teaches that the plasma generation unit includes: a first application line that connects the first input portion and the first branch portion; and a second application line that connects the second input portion and the third branch portion, and the first application line and the second application line are provided such that the first application line and the second application line do not overlap each other when viewed in a plan view. (Figure 2)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 102 or 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g)) The following references could be used to reject the claims under 103: US 20240014009 A1, US 20230170186 A1, KR 101163352 B1, KR 101163352 B1, KR 2010050399 A, or KR 20050026679 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, 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.
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights