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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/05/26. Examiner acknowledged that claims 1 is amended. Currently, claims 1-9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues (p.7 of the Remarks) that Kaneko does not teach the controller 100 to determine the frequency of the output wave based on the reflected wave group as required by claim 1.
Examiner disagrees because [0142] of Kaneko teaches “controller 100 calculates an absorption frequency that is a frequency at which the reflection coefficient Γ(f) becomes a minimum point. The controller 100 may determine whether or not maintenance is necessary or may change the power supply frequency of the microwave output device 16 on the basis of a variation of the absorption frequency.” It is clear from here the controller determines/changes the frequency based on the absorption/reflected frequency. Thus, Kaneko teaches the limitation as claimed. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 over Kaneko is maintained.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as they depend on the rejected claim above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US 2018/0151332).
Regarding Claim 1, Kaneko teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (Fig. 1: 12); microwave output device (Fig. 1; 16) configured to output microwaves provided into the chamber via a waveguide (Fig. 1: 21) and an antenna (Fig. 1; 18); and a controller (Fig. 1: 100) configured to control an operation of the microwave output device; wherein the microwaves outputted by the microwave output device include an output wave that transmits a power (Fig. 8) used for plasma generation, and a demodulator (Fig. 1: 29) configured to receive, via the waveguide. the controller is configured to determine a frequency of the output wave (Fig. 15: S40) based on the reflected wave group (Fig. 15: S37), and control (Fig. 15: S42) the microwave output device to output the output wave of the frequency.
Kaneko does not explicitly teach a broadband sweep wave group used for detection of a plasma state in the chamber and the microwave output device includes a modulator configured to modulate the microwaves and transmit the modulated microwaves to the waveguide; demodulate a reflected wave group obtained by the broadband sweep wave group being reflected by plasma in the chamber, the broadband sweep wave group being included in the microwaves transmitted to the waveguide by the modulator and provided into the chamber via the antenna. However, [0101] teaches “a frequency sweep controller 325”; [0112] “FIG. 8F illustrates frequency dependency of a power spectrum of the reflected wave obtained by the demodulation unit 29, and is a graph of reflected wave power Pra obtained by the sweep averaging”; [0059] “microwave output device 16 can generate a microwave having power corresponding to setting power while performing frequency modulation in a setting frequency range”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kaneko in order to detect plasma state through the use of sweeping average and adjust the output frequence since this process can output a predetermined power to the power control unit [0132]. Therefore, the subject matter would have been obvious in view of Kaneko.
Regarding Claim 6, Kaneko teaches the plasma processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to obtain a frequency spectrum of the reflected wave group, and control the microwave output device to determine the frequency of the output wave such that a difference between the frequency spectrum and a reference frequency spectrum obtained in advance is reduced (Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 7, Kaneko teaches the plasma processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power of the output wave is 5000 W or less, and the frequency of the output wave is 2400 to 2500 MHz ([0059] “ microwave in a range of 0 W to 5000 W, can adjust the frequency of the microwave in a range of 2400 MHz to 2500 MHz”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/Henry Luong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844