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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/01/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller” in claim 1-lines 12 and 13, and claim 4-line 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In specific, the limitation “controller” has been interpreted as disclosed in paragraph 0045 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ventzek et al., US 2020/0058470 in view of Ishii et al., US 5,571,366.
With respect to independent claim 1, Ventzek et al. shows the invention as claimed including a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber 210; a substrate support 19 having a lower electrode and configured to support a substrate which is placed thereon in the chamber (paragraph 0053); a radio frequency power source 20 configured to generate radio frequency power which is supplied to generate plasma from a gas in the chamber, the radio frequency power having a first frequency 13.56 MHz; a bias power source 30 electrically connected to the lower electrode; and a controller 250 configured to control the radio frequency power source, wherein the controller controls the radio frequency power source to supply the radio frequency power in a first partial period in the each cycle (see, for example, modified Figs. 4-5 below) and set a power level of the radio frequency power in a second partial period in the each cycle (see, for example, modified Figs. 4-5 below) to a power level reduced from a power level of the radio frequency power in the first partial period; (see, for example, Figs. 1-13, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 and modified Figs. 4-5 are shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
500
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ventzek et al. further discloses that the bias power source applies a pulsed negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode in each cycle that is defined by a second frequency lower than the first frequency, wherein the second frequency is within the claimed range (see, for example, paragraphs 0075 and 0129). Additionally, Ventzek et al. clearly discloses that the pulse could be a single pulse (see, for example, paragraph 0037). Furthermore, and this notwithstanding, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias power source of the apparatus of Ventzek et al. is capable of applying the claimed single pulse of negative direct-current voltage as claimed if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
With respect to the limitation of the bias power source periodically applying the pulsed negative dc voltage “at a cycle that has a time length of a reciprocal of a second frequency lower than the first frequency, the second frequency being not less than 50 kHz and not more than 27 MHz”, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias power source of the apparatus of Ventzek et al. is capable of applying the pulsed dc voltage at the claimed cycle and at the claimed frequency if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
With respect to the substrate support having the lower electrode and an electrostatic chuck provided on the lower electrode, Ishii et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a substrate support 4 having a lower electrode 4c and an electrostatic chuck 12 provided on the lower electrode, and configured to support a substrate W which is placed thereon in a chamber 2 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Ventzek et al., as to comprise the claimed substrate support configuration because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to effectively and efficiently hold the substrate.
With respect to claims 3-4, it should be noted that the first partial period is a period in which the pulsed direct-current voltage is not applied to the lower electrode, and the second partial period is a period in which the pulsed negative direct-current voltage is applied to the lower electrode; and wherein the controller controls the radio frequency power source to stop supply of the radio frequency power in the second partial period (see, for example, modified Figs. 4-5 above, and Figs. 6, 9, 11, and 13, and their descriptions).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi et al., US 2005/0048787, as evidence by Hayashi et al., JP 2001-358129, and in view of Ishii et al., US 5,571,366.
With respect to independent claim 1, Negishi et al. shows the invention as claimed including a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber 101; a substrate support having a lower electrode 109 configured to support a substrate 110 which is placed thereon in the chamber; a radio frequency power source 106/108/111 configured to generate radio frequency power which is supplied to generate plasma from a gas in the chamber, the radio frequency power having a first frequency (450MHz/13.56 MHz/800KHz, respectively); a bias power source 129 electrically connected to the lower electrode and configured to periodically apply a pulsed direct-current voltage to the lower electrode at a cycle that is defined by a second frequency lower than the first frequency; and a controller 130 configured to control the radio frequency power source, wherein the controller controls the radio frequency power source to supply the radio frequency power in a first partial period in the cycle (see modified Fig. 9 below) and set a power level of the radio frequency power in a second partial period in the cycle (see modified Fig. 9 below) to a power level reduced from a power level of the radio frequency power in the first partial period; (see, for example, Figs. 7 and 9, and their descriptions, Fig. 7 and modified Fig. 9 are shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
514
342
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
336
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to the bias power source configured to periodically apply a single pulse negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode at a cycle that has a time length of a reciprocal of a second frequency lower than the first frequency, the second frequency being not less than 50 kHz and not more than 27 MHz, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias power source of the apparatus of Negishi et al. is capable of periodically applying the claimed pulsed negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode at the claimed cycle and at the claimed frequency, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it. Additionally, it should further be noted that, as evidence by Hayashi et al. (see, for example, Figs. 1-4, and their descriptions, Figs. 3-4 are shown below), a bias DC power source can be used to apply both a single pulse of negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode or a single pulse of positive direct-current voltage to the lower electrode.
PNG
media_image6.png
153
411
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to the substrate support having the lower electrode and an electrostatic chuck provided on the lower electrode, Ishii et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a substrate support 4 having a lower electrode 4c and an electrostatic chuck 12 provided on the lower electrode, and configured to support a substrate W which is placed thereon in a chamber 2 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Negishi et al., as to comprise the claimed substrate support configuration because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to effectively and efficiently hold the substrate.
With respect to claims 3-4, it should be noted that the first partial period is a period in which the pulsed direct-current voltage is not applied to the lower electrode, and the second partial period is a period in which the pulsed direct-current voltage is applied to the lower electrode; and wherein the controller controls the radio frequency power source to stop supply of the radio frequency power in the second partial period (see, for example, modified Fig. 9 above, and the description of Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al., US 6,335,535, as evidenced by Hayashi et al., JP 2001-358129, and in view of Ishii et al., US 5,571,366.
With respect to independent claim 1, Miyake et al. shows the invention as claimed including a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber 30; a substrate support 31 having a lower electrode, and configured to support a substrate which is placed thereon in the chamber; a radio frequency power source 41 configured to generate radio frequency power which is supplied to generate plasma from a gas in the chamber, the radio frequency power having a first frequency; a bias power source 44 electrically connected to the lower electrode and configured to periodically apply a pulsed direct-current voltage to the lower electrode at a cycle that is defined by a second frequency lower than the first frequency; and a controller 47 configured to control the radio frequency power source, wherein the controller controls the radio frequency power source to supply the radio frequency power in a first partial period in the cycle and set a power level of the radio frequency power in a second partial period in the cycle to a power level reduced from a power level of the radio frequency power in the first partial period (see, for example, Figs. 2-3B, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 and modified Figs. 3A-3B are shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
604
448
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
368
430
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to the bias power source configured to periodically apply a single pulse negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode at a cycle that has a time length of a reciprocal of a second frequency lower than the first frequency, the second frequency being not less than 50 kHz and not more than 27 MHz, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias power source of the apparatus of Miyake et al. is capable of periodically applying the claimed pulsed negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode at the claimed cycle and at the claimed frequency, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it. Additionally, it should further be noted that, as evidence by Hayashi et al. (see, for example, Figs. 1-4, and their descriptions, Figs. 3-4 are shown below), a bias DC power source can be used to apply both a single pulse of negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode or a single pulse of positive direct-current voltage to the lower electrode.
PNG
media_image6.png
153
411
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to the substrate support having the lower electrode and an electrostatic chuck provided on the lower electrode, Ishii et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a substrate support 4 having a lower electrode 4c and an electrostatic chuck 12 provided on the lower electrode, and configured to support a substrate W which is placed thereon in a chamber 2 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Miyake et al., as to comprise the claimed substrate support configuration because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to effectively and efficiently hold the substrate.
With respect to claims 3-4, it should be noted that the first partial period is a period in which the pulsed direct-current voltage is not applied to the lower electrode, and the second partial period is a period in which the pulsed direct-current voltage is applied to the lower electrode; and wherein the controller controls the radio frequency power source to stop supply of the radio frequency power in the second partial period (see, for example, modified Figs. 3A-3B above, and their descriptions).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papasouliotis et al., US 2011/0309049 in view of Ishii et al., US 5,571,366.
With respect to independent claim 1, Papasouliotis et al. shows the invention as claimed including a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber 102; a substrate support 144 having a lower electrode and configured to support a substrate which is placed thereon in the chamber (paragraph 0053); a radio frequency power source 130 configured to generate radio frequency power which is supplied to generate plasma from a gas in the chamber, the radio frequency power having a first frequency; a bias power source 148 electrically connected to the lower electrode; and a controller 152 configured to control the radio frequency power source, wherein the controller controls the radio frequency power source to supply the radio frequency power in a first partial period TP1/306 in the each cycle and set a power level of the radio frequency power in a second partial period TP2/308 in the each cycle to a power level reduced from a power level of the radio frequency power in the first partial period; (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 3A-3B, and their descriptions, Figs. 3A-3B are shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
399
554
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Papasouliotis et al. further discloses that the bias power source applies a single pulse negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode in each cycle that is defined by a second frequency (see, for example, Fig. 3B above), and further discloses that the second frequency can be different from the first frequency (see, for example, paragraph 0102). Furthermore, such limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias power source of the apparatus of Papasouliotis et al. is capable of applying the claimed single pulse of negative direct-current voltage, and having the second frequency being lower than the first frequency, as claimed if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
With respect to the limitation of the bias power source periodically applying the pulsed negative dc voltage “at a cycle that has a time length of a reciprocal of a second frequency lower than the first frequency, the second frequency being not less than 50 kHz and not more than 27 MHz”, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias power source of the apparatus of Papasouliotis et al. is capable of applying the pulsed dc voltage at the claimed cycle and at the claimed frequency if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
With respect to the substrate support having the lower electrode and an electrostatic chuck provided on the lower electrode, Ishii et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a substrate support 4 having a lower electrode 4c and an electrostatic chuck 12 provided on the lower electrode, and configured to support a substrate W which is placed thereon in a chamber 2 (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Papasouliotis et al., as to comprise the claimed substrate support configuration because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to effectively and efficiently hold the substrate.
With respect to claim 3, it should be noted that the first partial period is a period in which the pulsed direct-current voltage is not applied to the lower electrode, and the second partial period is a period in which the pulsed negative direct-current voltage is applied to the lower electrode, (see, for example, Figs. 3A-3B above).
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 and 3-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,361,947. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant claimed invention are encompassed by, broader than and/or generic to the claims of the US Patent 11,361,947. Therefore, under a one-way obviousness type double patenting test a prima facie case of obviousness have been established.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of the response/remarks, filed 06/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 under the 35 U.S.C. 112-first paragraph, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under the 35 U.S.C. 112-first paragraph of claims 1 and 3-4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8 of the response/remarks, filed 06/30/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Ventzek et al. in view of Ishii, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Negishi et al. in view of Ishii, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Miyake et al. in view of Ishii, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the primary reference of Ventzek et al. does not disclose the bias power source periodically applying a single pulse of the negative dc voltage to the lower electrode in each cycle. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that, as stated in the above rejection, Ventzek et al. discloses that the pulsing of the negative dc voltage to the lower electrode could be a single pulse (see, for example, paragraph 0037). Additionally, and this notwithstanding, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias power source of the apparatus of Ventzek et al. is capable of applying the claimed single pulse of negative direct-current voltage as claimed if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Applicant argues that Negishi et al. discloses a cycle wherein a sequence of pulses of positive DC voltage is applied, and therefore, it fails to disclose the bias power source applying a single pulse of negative direct-current voltage. However, as stated in the above rejection, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias power source of the apparatus of Negishi et al. is capable of periodically applying the claimed pulsed negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it. Additionally, as stated in the above rejection, it should further be noted that, as evidence by Hayashi et al. (see, for example, Figs. 1-4, and their descriptions, Figs. 3-4 are shown below), a bias DC power source can be used to apply both a single pulse of negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode or a single pulse of positive direct-current voltage to the lower electrode.
PNG
media_image6.png
153
411
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Miyake et al. merely describes a positive bias source which supply a pulse of a positive DC voltage to the susceptor electrode, and therefore, it fails to disclose the bias power source applying a single pulse of negative direct-current voltage. However, as stated in the above rejection, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias power source of the apparatus of Miyake et al. is capable of periodically applying the claimed pulsed negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it. Additionally, as stated in the above rejection, it should further be noted that, as evidence by Hayashi et al. (see, for example, Figs. 1-4, and their descriptions, Figs. 3-4 are shown below), a bias DC power source can be used to apply both a single pulse of negative direct-current voltage to the lower electrode or a single pulse of positive direct-current voltage to the lower electrode.
PNG
media_image6.png
153
411
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, for the above reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 over Ventzek et al. in view of Ishii, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 over Negishi et al. in view of Ishii, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 over Miyake et al. in view of Ishii, are respectfully maintained.
Additionally, it should be noted the new grounds of rejection over the Papasouliotis et al. (US 2011/0309049) reference.
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 for its teachings of a plasma processing apparatus comprising a rf power source, a bias power source, and a controller configured to control the rf power source and bias power source.
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 on 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
March 20, 2026