DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (03/22/2021), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In a response to an election requirement dated 10/20/2023, the Applicant elected claims 1 and 4-8. Claims 2-3 were withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 4-8 were examined in a Non-Final office action on 2/8/2024. A Final office action in response to Applicant’s submission of 08/06/2024 was mailed on 9/5/2024. Claims 1 and 4-8 were examined.
A second Non-Final in response to Applicants request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was mailed on 6/12/2025. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2025 was entered. Claims 1 and 408 were examined. This office action is in response to applicant’s submission of 9/11/2025. Claims were amended so that claims 1 and 4-8 are being examined.
Response to Arguments and amendments
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The arguments are related to latest amendments which are not clearly understood. It is further noted that the latest amendments do not change the scope of the claims which continue to recite adjusting second matching device to high impedance value to suppress interference from the first power supply in order to suppress instability.
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 and 4-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim1 recites the following:
“wherein the second matching device comprises an inductance coil configured to have a changeable inductance value to provide a plurality of preset impedance values including comprising first preset low impedance value and a second preset high impedance value which is two times the first preset low impedance value”
This limitation is unclear and does not appear to be supported by the original specification. Specially, the use of changeable inductance value, preset low impedance and preset high impedance is unclear. The term “ow impedance” is cited but not used in the claim.
Regarding the recitation of “high impedance and low impedance”, it is noted that these terms are vague and indefinite.
The claim further recites the following
“the processor is further configured to set the second matching device to the second preset high impedance value to cause an impedance of the second transmission path to be an impedance at which a reflected power from the first radio frequency power into the second transmission path is suppressed to prevent the second radio frequency power on the second transmission path from exceeding an impedance matching condition of the second radio frequency power so that the impedance matching condition is not detected by the second matching device, to prevent an instable impedance condition of the second transmission path”
In this instance the term impedance matching condition is compared and treated like a numerical quantity. The specification however, does not disclose this.
Claim 6 recites similar limitation and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
For the examination of the claims, it is understood that the second matching device is held constant at a high impedance (whatever that means) at predetermined value to prevent coupling (as discussed above) while the first is allowed to match.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as best understood as being unpatentable over Aramaki et al (US 20160351404) in view of Shao et al (US 20220270858), Hiroshi Ogawa (US 20060220574) and Dhindsa et al (US 7758764).
Aramaki et al disclose a processing chamber in which a sample is plasma-processed (Fig 1);
a sample stage that includes a first electrode and a second electrode disposed outside the first electrode and on which the sample is placed (Fig 1 and at least abstract);
a first radio frequency power supply (124) configured to supply first radio frequency power to the first electrode (111) via a first matching device (129) and a first transmission path (between 111 and 124);
a second radio frequency power supply (127) configured to supply second radio frequency power to the second electrode via a second matching device (128) and a second transmission path (between 132 and 127),
Aramaki et al disclose a control device (Para 16) but do not disclose controlling the first radio frequency power supply to supply the first radio frequency power to the sample stage when a preset value of the second matching device is a predetermined value.
Shao et al disclose a plasma processing chamber using plurality of RF power supplies and disclose a control device for controlling power supplies and matching networks to improve plasma stability (Para 0018) and for that purpose disclose control of the first radio frequency power supply to supply the first radio frequency power to the sample stage when a second matching device is a held at a fixed predetermined value (para 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust power to first electrode while keeping second matching box at a fixed predetermined value.
Regarding having variable inductance to provide preset high inductance value, it is noted that matching box provides variable capacitance and/or variable inductance as disclosed in Hiroshi Ogawa (Fig 9).
Regarding the impedance being high as taught in Aramaki et al there is a coupling of RF power from first electrode to second electrode (As shown in Fig 3) which allows first RF power to leak to second RF power. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that high impedance to first RF on second power path would reduce or prevent such coupling and reduce instability.
This is further taught in Dhindsa who teaches a filter (314) connected to second electrode (312) and configured to provide high impedance to first RF power (310) (see Col 5 line 49-Col 6 line 3).
Therefore, having high impedance in second RF path of Aramaki et al would have been obvious.
Regarding the limitation of high impedance on the second path
Regarding claim 4-5 and 7-8 first electrode 111 and second electrode 132 are embedded in dielectric (Para 42).
Claim 6 is directed to a method using the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected along with claim 1 as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Glazek (US 20180053633) discloses a plasma processing chamber with dual power and matching systems where the master matching unit may stop matching and control another matching unit to match (para 27).
Similarly, Koguchi et al (US 20100248489) also disclose coordinating matching operation for dual RF power supplies (Abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716