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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on June 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 19 and 20 are allowable. Claims 11-18, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions Groups, as set forth in the Office action mailed on May 27, 2026, is hereby withdrawn and claims 11-18 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-10, 17, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10, 17, and 18:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first baffle plate" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second baffle plate" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17 and 18, require “The plasma processing method according to claim 1”. Claim 1 is “A plasma processing apparatus”. It is not clear if claims 17 and 18 are method claims or if they are apparatus claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16, 19 and 20 are allowed.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The plasma processing method as claimed in claim 11 was not found in or suggested by the art, specifically: generating plasma in a chamber of a plasma processing apparatus; supplying an electric bias energy having a waveform cycle to a substrate support disposed in the chamber; and applying a voltage to each of a first baffle plate and a second baffle plate disposed in the chamber, wherein the first baffle plate is disposed between a processing space in the chamber in which a substrate disposed on the substrate support is processed and the second baffle plate, the second baffle plate is disposed between an exhaust space in the chamber to which an exhaust system is connected and the first baffle plate, and in at least a partial period in the waveform cycle, a value of the voltage that is applied to the second baffle plate is higher than a value of the voltage that is applied to the first baffle plate. More specifically, supplying an electric bias energy having a waveform cycle to a substrate support disposed in the chamber; and applying a voltage to each of a first baffle plate and a second baffle plate disposed in the chamber, wherein the first baffle plate is disposed between a processing space in the chamber in which a substrate disposed on the substrate support is processed and the second baffle plate, the second baffle plate is disposed between an exhaust space in the chamber to which an exhaust system is connected and the first baffle plate, and in at least a partial period in the waveform cycle, a value of the voltage that is applied to the second baffle plate is higher than a value of the voltage that is applied to the first baffle plate was not found in or suggested by the art.
The plasma processing apparatus as claimed in claim 19 was not found in or suggested by the art, specifically: a chamber including: a processing space; and an exhaust space; a substrate support provided in the chamber, the substrate support being configured to receive a substrate to be processed; a plasma generator configured to generate plasma from a gas in the chamber; a bias power supply configured to periodically supply an electric bias energy having a waveform cycle to the substrate support; a first baffle plate disposed at least partially in the processing space; a second baffle plate disposed at least partially in the exhaust space; a first power supply electrically connected to the first baffle plate; and a second power supply electrically connected to the second baffle plate, wherein each the first baffle plate and the second baffle plate are provided with a plurality of through-holes, and in at least a partial period in the waveform cycle, a value of a voltage that is applied to the second baffle plate by the second power supply is higher than a value of a voltage that is applied to the first baffle plate by the first power supply. More specifically, a bias power supply configured to periodically supply an electric bias energy having a waveform cycle to the substrate support; a first baffle plate disposed at least partially in the processing space; a second baffle plate disposed at least partially in the exhaust space; a first power supply electrically connected to the first baffle plate; and a second power supply electrically connected to the second baffle plate, wherein each the first baffle plate and the second baffle plate are provided with a plurality of through-holes, and in at least a partial period in the waveform cycle, a value of a voltage that is applied to the second baffle plate by the second power supply is higher than a value of a voltage that is applied to the first baffle plate by the first power supply was not found in or suggested by the art.
The Examiner agrees with the conclusions of the: Japanese Patent Office in the allowance of the related application JP 2022043524; Korean Patent Office in the allowance of the related application KR 20247034033; and International Searching Authority Written Opinion that the related application PCT/JP2023/008388 is novel and includes an inventive step. These conclusions are incorporated herein by reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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