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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the applicant's amendment submitted on 08/26/2026. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation recites “a first isolation component coupled between a first end of the first tube and a first end of the second tube, a second isolation component coupled between a second end of the first tube and a second end of the second tube” and the limitation recites “a first terminal of a first capacitive element coupled to the first end of the first tube and a second terminal of the capacitive element is coupled to the first end of second tube” in claims 1 and 11; and the limitation recites “a first magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the first isolation component; a second magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the second isolation component; a third magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the first isolation component; and a fourth magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the second isolation component, wherein the first magnetic core, the second magnetic core, the third magnetic core and the fourth magnetic core are separate and distinct from one another” in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). There are not a first end of the first tube and the second tube, and a second end of the first tube and the second shown in the drawings. And they are confusing. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12725761 B2 (as previously application no. 18896265). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the two sets of claims are only minor structural variations that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of person of ordinary skill are taken into consideration. The claim limitations of the U.S. Patent No. 12725761 B2 clearly anticipated the claim limitations of the pending application. They are containing the same essential limitations, and they are both containing same structure configured to do the same function.
Regarding claims 1-10, the limitations of the applicant’s claims are obvious variations of the mapped claims above. While the pending claim 1 uses different vernacular than the patented claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12725761 B2, and also the depending claims are similar. For example, the pending claim 1 recites “wherein the second tube and the first tube together have a circular or oval shape in a cross-sectional view.” One of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that the claims are directed to substantially the same invention, and their structures are the same with the patented claims. The principle difference is that the patented claim is broader in scope than the patented claim. It is generally understood that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. Alternatively, the elimination of an element and its function is generally held to be within the skill of the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the claims 1-10 of pending application has the same structures and performed the same function as claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12725761 B2.
The examiner also notes that an apparatus claim is treated for its structures rather than its functions. (See In re Schreiber - MPEP 2114 [r-1]). Therefore, the apparatus claims 1-10 of the pending application with the same structure is identical to the copending claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12725761 B2, and it is capable of performing the same function; therefore, it meets the limitation of the claims.
Claims 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12725761 B2 in view of Choi (U.S Publication No. 20140346952 A1, hereinafter referred as Choi ‘952).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 12725761 B2 discloses all the limitations of claim 11, except for specifying that a first magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the first isolation component; a second magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the second isolation component; a third magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the first isolation component; and a fourth magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the second isolation component, wherein the first magnetic core, the second magnetic core, the third magnetic core and the fourth magnetic core are separate and distinct from one another.
However Choi ‘952 further discloses the remote plasma generator may include: a generator body having a plasma discharge space; a transformer having a magnetic core and a primary wire wound to the magnetic core which are installed in the generator body so as to supply electromotive force for forming plasma to the plasma discharge space of the generator body; and a power supply source supplying driving power to the primary wire of the transformer. The remote plasma generator 60 includes a generator body 61 having a toroidal shape plasma discharge space. A transformer 75 having a magnetic core 76 and a primary wire 77 wound thereto so as to supply electromotive force for forming the plasma in the plasma discharge space is mounted on the generator body 61. The primary wire 7 is connected to a power supply source 68. Referring to FIGS. 6 and 7, a magnetic core 76 and a transformer 75 having a primary wire 77 wound thereto are mounted on remote plasma generators 60a and 60b, which may be adopted in the remote plasma system of the present invention, so as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma in the plasma discharge space of the generator body 61, see fig. 6-9, paragraph [0016], [0039] and [0055]-[0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the remote plasma system as taught by Choi ‘952 having a first magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the first isolation component; a second magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the second isolation component; a third magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the first isolation component; and a fourth magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the second isolation component, so as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma in the plasma discharge space of the generator body (see paragraph [0055] and [0056]), and , wherein the first magnetic core, the second magnetic core, the third magnetic core and the fourth magnetic core are separate and distinct from one another, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Claims 12-20 are depending on claim 11, and are similar to claims 2-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12725761 B2, and are rejected for the same reasons above.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (U.S Publication No. 20140346952 A1, hereinafter referred as Choi ‘952).
Regarding claim 1, Choi ‘952 discloses a remote plasma system (which is a remote plasma 60, see fig. 1-9) comprising:
a first tube; a second tube (via a generator body 61, see fig. 4);
a first isolation component coupled between a first end of the first tube and a first end of the second tube, a second isolation component coupled between a second end of the first tube and a second end of the second tube (which is the generator body 61 includes one or more electrical insulation regions 62, which provides electrical discontinuity, in order to prevent eddy current from being generated when the generator body 61 includes the metallic materials, see fig. 4, paragraph [0050]); wherein the second tube and the first tube together have a circular or oval shape in cross-section view (which is a generator body 61 having a toroidal shape plasma discharge space, see fig. 4, paragraph [0039]).
Choi ‘952 does not explicitly disclose a first terminal of a first capacitive element coupled to the first end of the first tube and a second terminal of the capacitive element coupled to the first end of the second tube.
However, Choi ‘952 further discloses in addition, remote plasma generators 60a and 60b may further include capacitively coupled electrodes 80 and 81 that are installed in the generator body 61 so as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma to the plasma discharge space of the generator body 61 and operates by receiving driving power from the power supply source 67 (which is merely a variation of the feature of Choi considering that capacitively coupled electrodes 80, 81 supplying electromotive force for forming plasma to a plasma discharge space of the generator body 61, see fig. 6 and 7, paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the remote plasma system as taught by Choi ‘952 having a first terminal of a first capacitive element coupled to the first end of the first tube and a second terminal of the capacitive element coupled to the first end of the second tube as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma to the plasma discharge space of the generator body and operates by receiving driving power from the power supply source (see paragraph [0055]), which is also considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Regarding claim 11, Choi ‘952 discloses a remote plasma system (which is a remote plasma 60, see fig. 1-9) comprising:
a first tube; a second tube (via a generator body 61, see fig. 4);
a first isolation component coupled between a first end of the first tube and a first end of the second tube, a second isolation component coupled between a second end of the first tube and a second end of the second tube (which is the generator body 61 includes one or more electrical insulation regions 62, which provides electrical discontinuity, in order to prevent eddy current from being generated when the generator body 61 includes the metallic materials, see fig. 4, paragraph [0050]).
Choi ‘952 does not explicitly disclose a first terminal of a first capacitive element coupled to the first end of the first tube and a second terminal of the capacitive element is coupled to the first end of the second tube.
However, Choi ‘952 further discloses in addition, remote plasma generators 60a and 60b may further include capacitively coupled electrodes 80 and 81 that are installed in the generator body 61 so as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma to the plasma discharge space of the generator body 61 and operates by receiving driving power from the power supply source 67 (which is merely a variation of the feature of Choi considering that capacitively coupled electrodes 80, 81 supplying electromotive force for forming plasma to a plasma discharge space of the generator body 61, see fig. 6 and 7, paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the remote plasma system as taught by Choi ‘952 having a first terminal of a first capacitive element coupled to the first end of the first tube and a second terminal of the capacitive element is coupled to the first end of the second tube as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma to the plasma discharge space of the generator body and operates by receiving driving power from the power supply source (see paragraph [0055]), which is also considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Choi ‘952 does not explicitly disclose a first magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the first isolation component; a second magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the second isolation component; a third magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the first isolation component; and a fourth magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the second isolation component, wherein the first magnetic core, the second magnetic core, the third magnetic core and the fourth magnetic core are separate and distinct from one another.
However Choi ‘952 further discloses the remote plasma generator may include: a generator body having a plasma discharge space; a transformer having a magnetic core and a primary wire wound to the magnetic core which are installed in the generator body so as to supply electromotive force for forming plasma to the plasma discharge space of the generator body; and a power supply source supplying driving power to the primary wire of the transformer. The remote plasma generator 60 includes a generator body 61 having a toroidal shape plasma discharge space. A transformer 75 having a magnetic core 76 and a primary wire 77 wound thereto so as to supply electromotive force for forming the plasma in the plasma discharge space is mounted on the generator body 61. The primary wire 7 is connected to a power supply source 68 (see paragraph [0039]). Referring to FIGS. 6 and 7, a magnetic core 76 and a transformer 75 having a primary wire 77 wound thereto are mounted on remote plasma generators 60a and 60b, which may be adopted in the remote plasma system of the present invention, so as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma in the plasma discharge space of the generator body 61, see fig. 6-9, paragraph [0016], [0039] and [0055]-[0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the remote plasma system as taught by Choi ‘952 having a first magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the first isolation component; a second magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the second isolation component; a third magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the first isolation component; and a fourth magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the second isolation component, so as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma in the plasma discharge space of the generator body (see paragraph [0055] and [0056]), and wherein the first magnetic core, the second magnetic core, the third magnetic core and the fourth magnetic core are separate and distinct from one another, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (U.S Publication No. 20140346952 A1, hereinafter referred as Choi ‘952) in view of Choi (KR 20200148469 A, hereinafter referred as Choi ‘469).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Choi ‘952 discloses all the limitations of the remote plasma system of claims 1 and 11, except for specifying that further comprising: a first coolant loop disposed around the first tube; and a second coolant loop disposed around the second tube.
Choi ‘469 discloses as illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 7, a plasma reaction device (100) according to some embodiments of the present invention comprises the above-described vessel (10) of the present invention, and further comprises a first cooling jacket (20) installed at the front of the vessel (10) to cool one side of the vessel (10) and formed with at least a portion having a shape corresponding to one side of the vessel (10), and a second cooling jacket (30) installed at the rear of the vessel (10) to cool the other side of the vessel (10) and formed with at least a portion having a shape corresponding to the other side of the vessel (10); wherein a first cooling jacket (20) installed on one surface of a container (10), and a second cooling jacket (30) installed at the rear of the container (10), for cooling the container (10), (see fig. 6 and 7, paragraph [0056]-[0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the remote plasma system as taught by Choi ‘952 with the remote plasma system as taught by Choi ‘469 having a first coolant loop disposed around the first tube and a second coolant loop disposed around the second tube, by using two cooling jackets that can serve as additional primary windings of two or more turns in addition to one turn of the primary winding, the cooling performance and plasma efficiency can be greatly improved by using a total of three turns of induced electromotive force (see paragraph [0062] by Choi ‘469).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant did not response to the drawing objections and double patenting in the previous office action. The examiner still maintains the rejections.
Second, in response to applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10 of the Remarks, particular in that “Choi does not disclose a remote plasma system including a first tube, and a second tube, where the second tube and the first tube together have a circular or oval shape in a cross-sectional view, as is required by Applicant's claims 1-10.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
The applicant is advised that in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the interferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968). In this case, the examiner submits as stated in the office action above that Choi discloses “wherein the second tube and the first tube together have a circular or oval shape in cross-section view (which is a generator body 61 having a toroidal shape plasma discharge space, see fig. 4, paragraph [0039]).” And a toroidal shape means having the form of a torus—a three-dimensional, ring-like or doughnut-shaped geometric surface (according to the definition in Merriam-Webster dictionary).
Applicant is also reminded that claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1974). Things clearly shown in reference patent drawing qualify as prior art features, even though unexplained by the specification. In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25, 645 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the pending claims must be "given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969). The claims are interpreted in light of the specification; limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,26 USPQe2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The specification of the application stated that “the tubular plasma tube may have circular, rectangular, or other suitable cross section” (see paragraph [0051], lines 16-17). Therefore, the examiner interprets the claim in light of specification as “wherein the second tube and the first tube together have a circular or oval shape in cross-section view (which is a generator body 61 having a toroidal shape plasma discharge space (which is ring-like or doughnut-shaped geometric surface), see fig. 4, paragraph [0039]).”
Third, in response to applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13 of the Remarks, particular in that “Choi ‘952 does not disclose wherein the first magnetic core, the second magnetic core, the third magnetic core and the fourth magnetic core are separate and distinct from one another.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
The applicant is advised that in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the interferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968). In this case, the examiner submits as stated in the office action above that Choi ‘952 further discloses the remote plasma generator may include: a generator body having a plasma discharge space; a transformer having a magnetic core and a primary wire wound to the magnetic core which are installed in the generator body so as to supply electromotive force for forming plasma to the plasma discharge space of the generator body; and a power supply source supplying driving power to the primary wire of the transformer. The remote plasma generator 60 includes a generator body 61 having a toroidal shape plasma discharge space. A transformer 75 having a magnetic core 76 and a primary wire 77 wound thereto so as to supply electromotive force for forming the plasma in the plasma discharge space is mounted on the generator body 61. The primary wire 7 is connected to a power supply source 68 (see paragraph [0039]). Referring to FIGS. 6 and 7, a magnetic core 76 and a transformer 75 having a primary wire 77 wound thereto are mounted on remote plasma generators 60a and 60b, which may be adopted in the remote plasma system of the present invention, so as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma in the plasma discharge space of the generator body 61, see fig. 6-9, paragraph [0016], [0039] and [0055]-[0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the remote plasma system as taught by Choi ‘952 having a first magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the first isolation component; a second magnetic core surrounding a portion of the first tube proximate the second isolation component; a third magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the first isolation component; and a fourth magnetic core surrounding a portion of the second tube proximate the second isolation component, so as to supply the electromotive force for forming plasma in the plasma discharge space of the generator body (see paragraph [0055] and [0056]), and wherein the first magnetic core, the second magnetic core, the third magnetic core and the fourth magnetic core are separate and distinct from one another, which is also considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Applicant's arguments do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
For the reason stated as stated above, the examiner still maintains the rejections and makes this office action as final.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17 and 19-20 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. Also, the drawing objection and the double patenting above should be fixed in order to place the application in allowance condition.
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 THAI N PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/Thai Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 09/25/2026
