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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 24, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakemi et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,160,350) in view of Furubayshi et al. (JP 2020-037717).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Sakemi et al. teach a film forming apparatus for forming a film
forming material on an object using an RPD method, the film forming apparatus comprising: a
chamber; a plasma gun that generates a plasma in the chamber; an anode on which the film
forming material is allowed to be disposed in the chamber and that guides the plasma; and a
magnetic field generating unit that generates a magnetic field in the chamber, wherein the plasma gun includes a steering coil and an electrode, the magnetic field generating unit includes a ring hearth that generates a first magnetic field, the steering coil that generates a second magnetic field, and the electrode that generates a third magnetic field, the magnetic field generating unit is configured to set and maintain a zero magnetic field position at a predetermined position such that the plasma is incident on a surface of the film forming material with a directional component in a first direction in which the object and the film forming material face each other, the zero magnetic field position being a position at which a combination of the first magnetic field, the second magnetic field and the third magnetic field in the chamber becomes zero. (Figs. 2, 3, 6, 7(a)-7(d); Column 2 lines 47-67; Column 5 lines 1-24)
PNG
media_image1.png
692
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
298
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
364
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a
device does." He-wlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F2d 1464, 1469,, 15 l.JSPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir, 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.
l 987)
The difference between Sakemi et al. and claim 1 is that the anode includes a tubular container with a through-hole formed therein, the ring hearth disposed around the tubular container, the through-hole filled with the film forming material, and the tubular container extends in the first direction.
Regarding the anode including a tubular container with a through-hole formed therein, the ring hearth disposed around the tubular container, the through-hole filled with the film forming material, and the tubular container extends in the first direction (Claim 1), Furubayshi et al. teach the anode including a tubular container with a through-hole formed therein, the ring hearth disposed around the tubular container, the through-hole filled with the film forming material, and the tubular container extends in the first direction. (See Fig. 1 and Compare to Applicant’s Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image4.png
683
1303
media_image4.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets the
zero magnetic field position such that the plasma is incident on an entire surface of the film
forming material.
Regarding claim 2, Sakemi et al. teach wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets the
zero magnetic field position such that the plasma is incident on an entire surface of the film
forming material. (Figs. 3, 6, 7(a)-7(d))
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the ring hearth is an auxiliary anode having
an electromagnet for inducing a plasma, and is disposed around a container of the anode that
holds the film forming material.
Regarding claim 4, Sakemi et la. teach wherein the ring hearth is an auxiliary anode
having an electromagnet for inducing a plasma, and is disposed around a container of the anode
that holds the film forming material. (See Figs. 4, 6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the ring hearth includes an annular coil, an
annular permanent magnet portion, and an annular container, the annular coil and the annular
permanent magnet portion are accommodated in the annular container, and the annular
permanent magnet portion and the annular coil are installed in this order in a negative Z direction
when viewed from a transport mechanism, or the annular coil and the annular permanent magnet
portion are installed in this order in the negative Z direction.
Regarding claim 5, Sakemi et al. teach wherein the ring hearth includes an annular coil,
an annular permanent magnet portion, and an annular container, the annular coil and the annular
permanent magnet portion are accommodated in the annular container, and the annular
permanent magnet portion and the annular coil are installed in this order in a negative Z direction
when viewed from a transport mechanism, or the annular coil and the annular permanent magnet
portion are installed in this order in the negative Z direction. (Figs. 4, 6, 7(a)-7(d))
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the ring hearth controls a direction of the
plasma incident on the film forming material or a direction of the plasma incident on the anode
according to a magnitude of a current flowing through the annular coil.
Regarding claim 6, Sakemi et al. teach the ring hearth controls a direction of the plasma
incident on the film forming material or a direction of the plasma incident on the anode
according to a magnitude of a current flowing through the annular coil. (Figs. 4, 6 - adjustable
coil power source 38b, 7(a)-7(d))
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is a gas supply unit that supplies a carrier gas and an
oxygen gas at flow rates based on a control signal from a control unit into the chamber.
Regarding claim 7, Furubayshi et al. teach a gas supply unit that supplies a carrier gas
and an oxygen gas at flow rates based on a control signal from a control unit into the chamber.
(See Abstract)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas supply unit is disposed outside the
chamber, and supplies a raw material gas into the chamber through a gas supply port provided in
a side wall of a film forming chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Furubayshi et al. teach wherein the gas supply unit is disposed outside
the chamber, and supplies a raw material gas into the chamber through a gas supply port
provided in a side wall of a film forming chamber. (See Figs. 1, 2 - 41)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets the
zero magnetic field position at a position that is equal to or greater than a width dimension of the
film forming material with respect to the surface of the film forming material in the first
direction.
Regarding claim 10, Sakemi et al. teach wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets
the zero magnetic field position at a position that is equal to or greater than a width dimension of
the film forming material with respect to the surface of the film forming material in the first
direction. (Fig. 7(a))
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets the
zero magnetic field position at a position inside an inner periphery of a ring hearth on a plasma
gun side with respect to a center axis of the film forming material in a second direction in which
a center axis of the plasma gun extends.
Regarding claim 11, Sakemi et al. teach wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets
the zero magnetic field position at a position inside an inner periphery of a ring hearth on a
plasma gun side with respect to a center axis of the film forming material in a second direction in
which a center axis of the plasma gun extends. (Figs. 7(a)-(d))
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets the
zero magnetic field position at a position inside an inner periphery of the anode on a side
opposite to the plasma gun with respect to a center axis of the film forming material in a second
direction in which a center axis of the plasma gun extends.
Regarding claim 12, Sakemi et al. teach wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets
the zero magnetic field position at a position inside an inner periphery of the anode on a side
opposite to the plasma gun with respect to a center axis of the film forming material in a second
direction in which a center axis of the plasma gun extends. (Figs. 7(d), 7(c))
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets the
zero magnetic field position at a position where a distance from the surface of the film forming
material in the first direction is 65 mm to 105 mm.
Regarding claim 13, Since Sakemi et al. teach the control of the coil power source and
the same structural features of the apparatus the location of the distance can be set for best results
via routine optimization. (Column 3 lines 3 3-43 - An annular permanent magnet 3 Sb and an
electromagnetic coil 3 6b are arranged within the auxiliary hearth 3 1 b. The electromagnetic coil
3 6b is energized by a hearth coil power source 3 8b. In this case, arrangement is made such that
the direction of a center-side magnetic field of the electromagnetic coil 36b being excited is
coincident with that of a center-side magnetic field generated by the annular permanent magnet
3 Sb. The hearth coil power source 38b is a voltage- variable type power source so that an electric current to be supplied to the electromagnetic coil 36b can be varied by changing the voltage.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit sets the
zero magnetic field position at a position where a distance from a center axis of the film forming
material toward a plasma gun side is 20 mm to 55 mm in a second direction in which a center
axis of the plasma gun extends.
Regarding claim 14, Since Sakemi et al. teach the same structural characteristics and
magnetic control one of ordinary skill in the art would select the distance as claimed through
routine optimization for best results.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit is capable
of adjusting a magnetic field on a plasma gun side.
Regarding claim 16, Sakemi et al. teach wherein the magnetic field generating unit is
capable of adjusting a magnetic field on a plasma gun side. (Fig. 6 - 23b)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit includes a
ring hearth, a steering coil of the plasma gun, and an electrode of the plasma gun; and the
magnetic field generating unit generates a magnetic field for adjusting a distribution of the
plasma by combining a magnetic field generated by the ring hearth, a magnetic field generated
by the steering coil and a magnetic field generated by the electrode.
Regarding claim 17, Sakemi et al. teach wherein the magnetic field generating unit
includes a ring hearth (31 b ), a steering coil of the plasma gun (24a, 24b ), and an electrode of the plasma gun (14b ); and the magnetic field generating unit generates a magnetic field for ad adjusting a distribution of the plasma by combining a magnetic field generated by the ring hearth, a magnetic field generated by the steering coil and a magnetic field generated by the electrode. (Fig. 6 - using resistors and variable power sources.)
It should be noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a
device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F2d 1464, 1469,, 15 l.JSPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat App. & Inter
1987)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit is configured to set and maintain the zero magnetic field position at a position that is at or below a center axis of the plasma gun with respect to the surface of the film forming material in the first direction.
Regarding claim 19, Furubayshi et al. teach wherein the magnetic field generating unit is configured to set and maintain the zero magnetic field position at a position that is at or below a center axis of the plasma gun with respect to the surface of the film forming material in the first direction. (See Figs. 2, 3)
PNG
media_image5.png
356
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The motivation for utilizing the features of Furubayshi et al. is that it allows for
producing a uniform oxide film. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Sakemi et al. by utilizing the features of Furubayshi et al.
because it allows for producing a uniform oxide film.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakemi et al.
(U.S. Pat. 6,160,350) in view of Kitami et al. (10-2023-0129601 ).
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field generating unit further
includes a control unit, and the control unit maintains the magnetic field in the chamber such that
the zero magnetic field position is located at a predetermined position by maintaining values of
currents supplied to a coil of the ring hearth, the steering coil, and a coil of the electrode at
constant values.
Kitami et al. teach a control unit 50 to control the potential of the hearth to be maintained
at constant. (See Machine Translation; Figs. 2, 4 - the main hearth 17 is maintained at
a constant potential with respect to the ground potential of the vacuum chamber 10)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kitami et al. is that it allows for controlling
the plasma such as attraction of the plasma to the hearth.
It would be obvious to modify Sakemi et al. by controlling the potentials of the various
structures to be constant using a control unit as suggested by Kitami et al. because it allows for
control of the plasma such as attraction of the plasma to the hearth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach the magnetic field generating unit is configured to set and maintain a zero magnetic field position at a predetermined position such that the plasma is incident on a surface of the film forming material with a directional component in a first direction in which the object and the film forming material face each other, the zero magnetic field position being a position at which a combination of the first magnetic field, the second magnetic field and the third magnetic field in the chamber becomes zero, it is argued that Sakemi et al. teach a magnetic field generating unit is configured to set and maintain a zero magnetic field position at a predetermined position such that the plasma is incident on a surface of the film forming material with a directional component in a first direction in which the object and the film forming material face each other, the zero magnetic field position being a position at which a combination of the first magnetic field, the second magnetic field and the third magnetic field in the chamber becomes zero.
PNG
media_image2.png
298
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
364
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(See Sakemi et al. discussed above; Figs. 2, 3 above)
It should be noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a
device does." He-wlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F2d 1464, 1469,, 15 l.JSPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir, 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.
l 987)
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach the anode including a tubular container with a through-hole formed therein, the ring hearth disposed around the tubular container, the through-hole filled with the film forming material, and the tubular container extends in the first direction, it is argued that Furubayshi et al. teach the anode including a tubular container with a through-hole formed therein, the ring hearth disposed around the tubular container, the through-hole filled with the film forming material, and the tubular container extends in the first direction. (See Fig. 1 and Compare to Applicant’s Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image4.png
683
1303
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
March 6, 2026