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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I and species Fig. 5c in the reply filed on 4/17/26 is acknowledged. Claims 14, 19, 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/17/26.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-14-16, 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12094735. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the said claims of ‘735 anticipate and read on the subject matter of said claims of the instant application. For instance, claim 1 of the instant application requires at least one first electrode, while claim 1 of ‘735 provides a plurality of first electrodes.
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(s) 1-5, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ko (US 20090137128).
Regarding claim 1. Ko teaches in the drawings a substrate processing apparatus (plasma/substrate processing apparatus [abstract, 5-7, 20] fig. 1), comprising: a reaction tube (reaction tube 2 [67]) in which a substrate is processed (abstract, [5-19]); and a plurality of electrodes (6a-h, 7a-h electrode stripe portions [67 74]) including at least one first electrode (one of electrode strips 6a-h which fig. 1) to which a predetermined potential is applied (applied w RF from 5, fig. 1) and at least one second electrode (one of electrode strips 7a-h) to which a reference potential is applied (referenced to ground potential, fig. 1), wherein two or more of the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode are arranged side-by-side in a cross sectional view perpendicular to a vertical direction of the reaction tube (if we take lateral cutouts/x-sections from the thin boxed areas annotated below in Fig. 1, these lateral x-sections are normal to the vertical direction of the apparatus, and view these cutouts top-down, x-sections from the thin upper boxed area shows at least 3 of 1st electrode strips adjacent/side by side, and cutouts from the lower boxed area shows at least 2 of 2nd electrode strips adjacent, since in both boxed areas, there is only space/no other electrode type, between the adjacent same electrode strips, shown clearly in fig. 1, eg adjacent 6’s at the upper box x-sections with no strips of 7 in between and vice versa for the lower boxed area x-sections).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Ko teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein an interval between the at least one second electrode and the at least one first electrode (interval/gap/spacing between adjacent 7 and adjacent 6’s in circum direction, which is double the interval
between one 6 and one 7, fig. 3) is equal to an interval between two or more continuously arranged electrodes of the at least one first electrode (fig. 3, is equal to interval between two 6’s continuously
connected is also a double interval/spacing/gap distance in circumferential direction).
Regarding claim 3. Ko teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrodes is installed on an outer periphery of the reaction tube (fig. 2, 3 showing all the 6,
7 on the outer sides of tube).
Regarding claim 4. Ko teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrodes is arranged in an order of one of the at least one second electrode, another one of the at least one second electrode, and one of the at least one first electrode (fig. 3 an order of of 6, 6, 7
exists in the circumferential direction, although not consecutively).
Regarding claim 5. Ko teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein a surface area of the at least one first electrode is two times or more than a surface area of the at least one second electrode (based at least fig. 1 the rectangular strip portion of 6 and 7 are approximately
equal, therefore the surface area of two of the first electrode strips 6 combined is approx. double that just
one strip of 7; furthermore, the combined strip areas of 6 are also at least 4 times a half area, considered
the area, of 7; additionally, various other permutations of area ratios are possible of meeting the limitation,
according to mathematics, given that area of both 6 and 7 are >0).
Regarding claim 15. Ko teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to form plasma in the reaction tube [74-76].
Regarding claim 16. Ko teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 15, further comprising a gas supplier (13 [68]) configured to supply gas to the reaction tube (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17. Ko teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 16, wherein the gas is activated by the plasma ([5-17, 73-76 56-60]).
Regarding claim 18. Ko teaches a plurality of electrodes, comprising: at least one first electrode to which a predetermined potential is applied and at least one second electrode to which a reference potential is applied, wherein two or more of the at least one first electrode or the at least one second electrode are arranged side-by-side in a cross sectional view perpendicular to a vertical direction of a reaction tube (see claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US 20090137128) in view of Hasebe (US 20150107517).
Regarding claim 6. Ko teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 1, further
comprising an electrode fixing portions configured to fix different groups or pieces of the plurality of
electrodes (both 6 and 7 appear to have separate fixing elements, such as a vertical portion for each of 6,
7, fig. 1 or individual nails that fix each piece to reactor tube, fig. 3) but does not teach a singular portion
that fixes all of the electrodes, however Hasebe teaches a jig insulation protection cover 146 [42] that
holds all the electrodes 143a b fig. 2 and it would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to
modify Ko in order to prevent short circuiting or unwanted discharges (since it is an enclosed insulator
housing for electrodes), which can reduce plasma efficiency and prevent safety hazards, and also fully
fix/secure the electrodes in a enclosure to provide structural stability, fig. 2.
Regarding claim 8. Ko in view of Hasebe, teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the electrode fixing portion is a quartz cover made of quartz (Hasebe [42]).
Regarding claim 9. Ko in view of Hasebe, teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the electrode fixing portion is disposed on an outer periphery of the reaction tube other than positions at which a gas supplier and a gas exhauster installed in the reaction tube are installed (via the Hasebe structure, e.g. wherein the electrode fixing jig is disposed on an outer periphery of the reaction tube (fig. 2) other than positions at which a gas supply part and a gas exhaust part installed in the reaction tube are installed (e.g. not at locations of a gas supply part 123a and exhaust passage 130 in 101; it is noted 146 covers areas 143a b which do not have any gas supply pipe inside 101).
Regarding claim 10. Ko in view of Hasebe, teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 6, further comprising a heating device (heater 4 [73]) installed outside the electrode fixing portion and configured to heat the substrate (via Hasebe modification, who has a very similar cyl heater 133 [45]
installed outside the electrode fixing jig (fig.1) and configured to heat the reaction tube ([0045] fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11. Ko in view of Hasebe, teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 10, wherein the plurality of electrodes is installed between the reaction tube and the heating device (fig. 3, showing 6, 7 between tube and 4).
Regarding claim 12. Ko in view of Hasebe, teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 10, wherein the plurality of electrodes is installed between the electrode fixing portion and the heating device (based on hasebe, the insulator jig has thin portion between electrode and tube, hence in
Ko, since heater is outer most, the electrode would be between 4 and this thin sliver of 146, Hasebe fig.
2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US 20090137128) in view of Hasebe (US 20150107517) and Ko2 (JP 2007324477).
Regarding claim 7. Ko in view of Hasebe, teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 6, but does not teach further comprising a spacer configured to separate the plurality of
electrodes from a surface of the electrode fixing portion by a predetermined distance, however Ko2
teaches in fig. 3, 7 a spacer/det fix 59 [0038] configured to separate the at least two electrodes 49/50/57
from a surface of the electrode fixing jig 48 by a predetermined distance/gap [0050], it would be obvious
to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Ko in order to provide clearance for thermal
expansion of electrodes [0054 56] and prevent apparatus parts cracking from expansion of the
electrodes; but does not teach wherein the plurality of electrodes includes a bent portion, and the spacer
is configured to make contact with a valley of the bent portion however Hasebe and Ko2 teach at least
two electrodes include a bent portion (Hasebe fig. 5, Ko2 fig. 7), and the spacer is configured to make
contact with a valley of the bent portion (it is noted the claim does not say contacting the vertex of the
bend but a valley, which includes the side areas regions/cliffs around the gorge, Ko2 fig. 7 showing 59
touching areas very near the gorge/vertex; similar if Hasebe fig. 5 has the spacers like Ko2 fig. 3 along
the length including the centerpart, the spacer would at least touch or be very near the center vertex in
fig. 5) it would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Ko in order to provide an
electrode configuration that provides the predictable result of generating plasma in a tube reactor while
also being fixed in a well secured position via brackets and flanges as shown in Ko2 fig. 5.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US 20090137128) in view of Kao (US 20050205110).
Regarding claim 13. Ko teaches the substrate processing apparatus according to Claim 1, but
does not teach wherein the plurality of electrodes is made of a nickel alloy material to which aluminum is
added however Kao teaches in [0076] a plasma electrode 410 made of alloys of various Al, Ni and Ni
coated Al materials; it would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Ko in order
to use electrode materials that are compatible with plasma processing [0076].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights