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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/19/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terauchi et al., US 2015/0371876.
Terauchi et al. shows the invention as claimed including a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a processing chamber 101 in which a sample 114 is subjected to plasma processing; a first radio frequency power supply 103 configured to supply a first radio frequency power for generating plasma via an impedance matching circuit 104; a sample 111 stage on which the sample is placed; a second radio frequency power 105 supply configured to supply a second radio frequency power to the sample stage via a matching unit 106; and a processor 108 configured to control the impedance matching circuit to perform impedance matching during a cycle pattern comprising more than three sequential periods, and which corresponds to one of a plurality of modes in which a requirement for impedance matching by the impedance matching circuit is defined when the first radio frequency power is modulated by a waveform having a plurality of amplitude values and repeating periodically, wherein the period is each period of the waveform corresponding to any one of the plurality of amplitude values (see, for example Figs. 1-7 and their descriptions, paragraphs 0006-0008 and 0023-0093, especially paragraphs 0035-0040, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the processor impedance matching circuit performing impedance matching during a cycle pattern, such that the impedance matching circuit provides a different impedance matching state for each period of the cycle pattern, it should be noted that Terauchi et al. clearly discloses in, for example, Figs. 5 and 6 (figures shown below) that impedance matching (through variable capacitors a and b) occurs in each period of the cycle of the process. It should be noted that the Terauchi et al. reference teaches a process in which a substrate is consecutively processed using three different power supply conditions which are identified in Figs. 5 and 6 as Conditions 401, 402 and 403. The process performed during conditions 401, 402 and 403, as a whole, includes a cycle comprising multiple periods in which the impedance circuit is controlled to provide impedance matching during each period (see, for example, Figs. 5-6 of Terauchi et al., both shown below). It should be noted that the whole cycle comprises more than three sequential periods since each condition itself comprises multiple periods in which the impedance circuit is controlled to provide impedance matching during each period. For example, Fig. 5 shows nine different periods (three periods in Condition 401, two periods in Condition 402, and four periods in Condition 403), while Fig. 6 shows ten periods (three periods in Condition 401, three periods in Condition 402, and four periods in Condition 403).
PNG
media_image2.png
598
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
628
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation of the average power output by the radio frequency power supply is a maximum value during at least one of the periods of the cycle pattern, it should be noted that inherently the cycle pattern would comprise at least one period in which the first radio frequency power supply is at a maximum value.
Concerning claim 2, it should be noted that the control device is configured to control a matching unit so as to perform matching during a period corresponding to a mode in which a requirement for matching by the matching unit is defined when the second radio frequency power is modulated by a waveform having a plurality of amplitude values and repeating periodically (see, for example, paragraphs 0035-0036, 0039-0040, 0063, 0068-0081).
Regarding claim 3, it should be noted that the mode includes a first mode in which a requirement for matching is defined based on a value of the modulated radio frequency power (see, for example, paragraphs 0035-0036, 0038-0040, 0068-0081).
Concerning claim 4, it should be noted that the mode includes a second mode in which a requirement for matching is defined based on a duty ratio of the modulated radio frequency power (see, for example, paragraphs 0035-0036, 0037, 0056-0057, 0067-0070, 0074, 0082-0093, 0099).
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.
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Terauchi et al., US 2015/0371876.
Terauchi et al. appears to further disclose that the mode further includes a third mode in which a requirement for matching is defined based on an average radio frequency power value which is a product of the modulated radio frequency power and a duty ratio in the period (see, for example, Fig. 4 and its description, paragraphs 0012, 0057-0060, 0067-0068, 0074-0075, 0082-0083). This notwithstanding, Terauchi et al., as stated in the above rejection, defines the requirement for matching based in the modulated radio frequency power and/or the duty ratio. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to define the matching requirement based on a product of the modulated radio frequency power and the duty ratio because such variables are known and used in the art as suitable variables to effectively and efficiently define the requirement for matching in order to remove or reduce reflection of RF power.
Regarding claim 6, it should be noted that as broadly claimed Terauchi et al. appears to further disclose that the third mode further includes, when there are a plurality of period candidates corresponding to the third mode, a mode 3A in which a requirement is defined based on a value of the modulated radio frequency power and a mode 3B in which a requirement is defined based on the duty ratio (see, for example, Figs. 4-6 and their descriptions, especially paragraphs 0067-0068, 0074-0075, 0082-0083). It should be noted that matching requirement is defined by both the modulated radio frequency power and the duty ratio in each of Condition 401, Condition 402, and Condition 403. Therefore, and as broadly claimed, the matching in any of Condition 401, Condition 402, and Condition 403, would read on the claimed mode 3A or on the claimed mode 3B. This notwithstanding, Terauchi et al., as stated in the above rejection, defines the requirement for matching based in the modulated radio frequency power and/or the duty ratio. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to define the matching requirement based on the modulated radio frequency power in a first mode, and define the matching requirement based on the duty ratio in a second mode, because such variables are known and used in the art as suitable variables to effectively and efficiently define the requirement for matching in order to remove or reduce reflection of RF power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Terauchi et al. does not disclose the claimed invention because it discloses a plasma processing apparatus and method in which a variable capacitance value of two impedance boxes is controlled according to three plasma processing conditions based on output values of the RF power supply. As stated in the above rejection, Terauchi et al. clearly discloses in, for example, Figs. 5 and 6 (figures shown below) that impedance matching (through variable capacitors a and b) occurs in each period of the cycle of the process. It should be noted that the Terauchi et al. reference teaches a process in which a substrate is consecutively processed using three different power supply conditions which are identified in Figs. 5 and 6 as Conditions 401, 402 and 403. The process performed during conditions 401, 402 and 403, as a whole, includes a cycle comprising multiple periods in which the impedance circuit is controlled to provide impedance matching during each period (see, for example, Figs. 5-6 of Terauchi et al., both shown below). It should be noted that the whole cycle comprises more than three sequential periods since each condition itself comprises multiple periods in which the impedance circuit is controlled to provide impedance matching during each period. For example, Fig. 5 shows nine different periods (three periods in Condition 401, two periods in Condition 402, and four periods in Condition 403), while Fig. 6 shows ten periods (three periods in Condition 401, three periods in Condition 402, and four periods in Condition 403).
PNG
media_image2.png
598
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
628
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-4 and the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 5-6, over the Terauchi et al. reference, are respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iwata et al. (US 2015/0069910) is cited because of its teachings of a plasma processing apparatus comprising radio frequency power supplies to supply radio frequency power via a matching unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
September 29, 2025