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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-16, and 21-22 are pending
Claims 1, 10, and 21 have been amended
Claims 3-4, 11-13, and 17-20 have been cancelled
Claim Objections:
Claim 22 recites “wherein an impedance of the circuit unit is adjusted so that based on Zin=Zo tan(β1), and wherein Zin is an impedance of the cable, Zo is a characteristic impedance of the cable, 1 is the length of the cable, β is a propagation constant, wherein β=2πf/cη” However, there is no period at the end of this claim. Claim 22 should be read as “wherein an impedance of the circuit unit is adjusted so that based on Zin=Zo tan(β1), and wherein Zin is an impedance of the cable, Zo is a characteristic impedance of the cable, 1 is the length of the cable, β is a propagation constant, wherein β=2πf/cη.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-2, 5-10, 14-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the cable has: a first impedance of 50 Ω to 1000 Ω with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics to remove the harmonic component; and a second impedance with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance.” There is insufficient support in the written specification for this limitation. This limitation, as it is currently written, suggests that the cable has two different impedances simultaneously. The instant application discloses that the impedance of the cable changes when a frequency is applied [IA – Table 1 & 0083, 0086-0089, 0100]. This would imply that the impedance of the cable is changing in response to the frequency applied. For example, the specification discloses an impedance with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz (wherein the supplied RF frequency is 10 MHz), and another impedance with respect to a supplied RF frequency of 60 MHz [IA – 0086-0089]. As such, the impedance of the cable can exhibit different impedances at two different points in time (an impedance for a supplied 10 MHz, and a higher impedance for a supplied 60 MHz).
Regarding Claims 2, 5-9, and 21:
Claims 2, 5-9, and 21 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the cable has: a first total impedance of 50 Q to 1000 Q with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics generated by the RF power source in the processing chamber to remove the harmonic component; and a second total impedance with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance.” There is insufficient support in the written specification for this limitation. This limitation, as it is currently written, suggests that the cable has two different impedances simultaneously. The instant application discloses that the impedance of the cable changes when a frequency is applied [IA – Table 1 & 0083, 0086-0089, 0100]. This would imply that the impedance of the cable is changing in response to the frequency applied. For example, the specification discloses an impedance with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz (wherein the supplied RF frequency is 10 MHz), and another impedance with respect to a supplied RF frequency of 60 MHz [IA – 0086-0089]. As such, the impedance of the cable can exhibit different impedances at two different points in time (an impedance for a supplied 10 MHz, and a higher impedance for a supplied 60 MHz).
Regarding Claims 14-16 and 22:
Claims 14-16 and 22 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 10.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim recites the limitation “wherein the cable has: a first impedance of 50 Ω to 1000 Ω with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics to remove the harmonic component; and a second impedance with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance.” This limitation, as it is currently written, suggests that the cable has two different impedances simultaneously. It is unclear how a cable at a point in time can have two different impedances simultaneously. The instant application discloses that the impedance of the cable changes when a frequency is applied [IA – Table 1 & 0083, 0086-0089, 0100]. This would imply that the impedance of the cable is changing in response to the frequency applied. For example, the specification discloses an impedance with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz (wherein the supplied RF frequency is 10 MHz), and another impedance with respect to a supplied RF frequency of 60 MHz [IA – 0086-0089]. As such, the impedance of the cable can exhibit different impedances at two different points in time (an impedance for a supplied 10 MHz, and a higher impedance for a supplied 60 MHz).
As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, this limitation will be read as “wherein the cable has: a first impedance of 50 Ω to 1000 Ω with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics to remove the harmonic component, or adjusting either the frequency or the length [IA – Table 1 & 0083, 0086, 0089, 0100].
Regarding Claims 2, 5-9, and 21:
Claims 2, 5-9, and 21 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the cable has: a first total impedance of 50 Q to 1000 Q with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics generated by the RF power source in the processing chamber to remove the harmonic component; and a second total impedance with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance.” This limitation, as it is currently written, suggests that the cable has two different impedances simultaneously. It is unclear how a cable at a point in time can have two different impedances simultaneously. The instant application discloses that the impedance of the cable changes when a frequency is applied [IA – Table 1 & 0083, 0086-0089, 0100]. This would imply that the impedance of the cable is changing in response to the frequency applied. For example, the specification discloses an impedance with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz (wherein the supplied RF frequency is 10 MHz), and another impedance with respect to a supplied RF frequency of 60 MHz [IA – 0086-0089]. As such, the impedance of the cable can exhibit different impedances at two different points in time (an impedance for a supplied 10 MHz, and a higher impedance for a supplied 60 MHz).
As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “wherein the cable has: a first total impedance of 50 Q to 1000 Q with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics generated by the RF power source in the processing chamber to remove the harmonic component, or adjusting either the frequency or the length [IA – Table 1 & 0083, 0086, 0089, 0100].
Regarding Claims 14-16 and 22:
Claims 14-16 and 22 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 10.
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, 5, 7-9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 20180102238) in view of Hayami et al. (US 20040154540), with Gideon et al. (US 20200203119), Howald et al. (US 6265831), and Forster et al. (US 8920611) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Gu teaches a substrate treating apparatus (substrate treating apparatus 10) comprising: a processing chamber (chamber 620) having a processing space therein; a support unit (substrate support assembly 200) for supporting a substrate in the processing space; a gas supply unit (gas supply unit 400) for supplying a processing gas into the processing space; and a RF power source (power source 610) for supplying a RF signal having a first frequency to the processing gas to generate plasma (plasma generating unit 600 may be a CCP type), wherein the support unit comprises: an edge ring (first ring 241) surrounding the substrate; a coupling ring (second ring 242) disposed under the edge ring and including an electrode (insertion body 243) therein; and a cable having one end connected to the electrode of the coupling ring and the opposite end connected to a ground (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, the insertion body 243 has a cable connected to it, with the other end of the cable connected to ground) [Fig. 1,2, 3A & 0049, 0075-0075, 0082, 0094].
Gu does not specifically disclose wherein the cable has: a first impedance of 50 Q to 1000 Q with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics to remove the harmonic component; and a second impedance with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance.
Although Hayami does not specifically disclose “wherein the cable has: a first impedance of 50 Q to 1000 Q, or a second impedance, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance," Hayami does disclose that cable length is a result effective variable. Specifically, the length of a cable can be adjusted to reduce desired harmonic frequencies [Hayami - 0011-0012, 0037, 0047, 0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum length for a cable to reduce desired harmonic frequencies. It has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It's also noted that Gideon et al. (US 20200203119) discloses that cable length can be chosen to adjust its impedance [Gideon - 0043]. Furthermore, Howald et al. (US 6265831) discloses a 50 ohm cable, therefore such cables are well known in the art [Howald - Col. 10 lines 1-8]. Hayami also discloses a harmonic wave of 300 MHz, therefore such harmonic frequencies are well known in the art [Hayami - 0047].
Furthermore, the limitations “with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics generated by the RF power source in the processing chamber to remove the harmonic component, with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that Hayami discloses a length of a cable can be adjusted so as to reduce desired harmonic frequencies [Hayami - 0011-0012, 0037, 0047, 0051]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of adjusting the length of a cable based on any variable desired. Furthermore, the instant application states that harmonic frequencies can be blocked by adjusting the length of a cable [IA – 0076-0079, 0083, 0086, 0100]. As such, since Hayami discloses length adjustment for a cable, one of ordinary skill in the art could find a desired length for a cable, such that the length of the cable would be capable of blocking certain harmonic frequencies.
In summary, the combination of references would provide an apparatus that is capable of blocking harmonic frequencies and suppressing loss. It’s also noted that Gu discloses an embodiment (Fig. 4a) wherein the circuit is substantially similar to an embodiment of a circuit of the instant application. Fig. 6B of the instant application comprises a circuit comprising an inductor, capacitor, and a resistor [IA – Fig. 6B & 0098]. Similarly, the Fig. 4a embodiment of Gu discloses a circuit comprising an inductor, capacitor, and a resistor [Gu – Fig. 4A & 0094-0096]. It is also noted that the instant application states the combination of an inductor and capacitor acts as a filter circuit [Instant Application - 0098]. Since the arrangements of the circuits of Gu and the instant application are substantially similar, the combination of references would be capable of removing harmonic frequencies.
Regarding Claim 5:
Gu teaches a circuit unit (the variable capacitor and inductor of the apparatus shown in Fig. 3A) connected between the cable and the ground [Fig. 3A & 0094].
Regarding Claim 7:
Gu teaches wherein the circuit unit comprises a filter circuit (the variable capacitor and inductor of the apparatus shown in Fig. 3A) [Fig. 3A & 0094].
Furthermore, claim 7 recites the limitations “passing only a specific range of a wavelength.” These limitations are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that the instant application states the combination of an inductor and capacitor acts as a filter circuit [Instant Application - 0098]. Gu utilizes a variable capacitor so the circuit could be adjusted to control which wavelengths are able to pass through [Fig. 3A & 0094].
Regarding Claim 8:
Gu teaches wherein the filter circuit comprises at least one of a band pass filter, a low pass filter, and a high pass filter (the variable capacitor and inductor of the apparatus shown in Fig. 3A) [Fig. 3A & 0094].
Forster et al. (US 8920611), which is herein used as an evidentiary reference, discloses that the combination of an inductor and a variable capacitor is a pass filter [Fig. 4 & Col. 6 lines 22-37].
Regarding Claim 9:
Gu teaches wherein the filter circuit is any one of a band pass filter, a high pass filter, and a combination of the band pass filter and the high pass filter (the variable capacitor and inductor of the apparatus shown in Fig. 3A) [Fig. 3A & 0094].
Forster et al. (US 8920611), which is herein used as an evidentiary reference, discloses that the combination of an inductor and a variable capacitor is a pass filter [Fig. 4 & Col. 6 lines 22-37].
Regarding Claim 21:
Gu does not specifically disclose wherein a length of the cable is selected to satisfy an equation of Zin=Zo tan(β1), and wherein Zin is an impedance of the cable, Zo is a characteristic impedance of the cable, 1 is the length of the cable, β is a propagation constant, wherein β=2πf/cη with f being a frequency, c being a propagation speed in a vacuum, and η is a velocity factor determined by characteristics of the cable.
However, Hayami does disclose that cable length is a result effective variable. Specifically, the length of a cable can be adjusted to reduce desired harmonic frequencies [Hayami - 0011-0012, 0037, 0047, 0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum length for a cable to reduce desired harmonic frequencies. It has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It's also noted that Gideon et al. (US 20200203119) discloses that cable length can be chosen to adjust its impedance [Gideon - 0043]. Furthermore, Howald et al. (US 6265831) discloses a 50 ohm cable, therefore such cables are well known in the art [Howald - Col. 10 lines 1-8]. Hayami also discloses a harmonic wave of 300 MHz, therefore such harmonic frequencies are well known in the art [Hayami - 0047].
It is noted that the limitations “wherein a length of the cable is selected to satisfy an equation of Zin=Zo tan(β1), and wherein Zin is an impedance of the cable, Zo is a characteristic impedance of the cable, 1 is the length of the cable, β is a propagation constant, wherein β=2πf/cη with f being a frequency, c being a propagation speed in a vacuum, and η is a velocity factor determined by characteristics of the cable,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that Hayami discloses a length of a cable can be adjusted so as to reduce desired harmonic frequencies [Hayami - 0011-0012, 0037, 0047, 0051]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of adjusting the length of a cable based on any variable desired, or to satisfy any conditions desired.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 20180102238) in view of Hayami et al. (US 20040154540), with Gideon et al. (US 20200203119), Howald et al. (US 6265831), and Forster et al. (US 8920611) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 21 above, and further in view of Gideon et al. (US 20200203119).
The limitations of claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 21 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Gu does not specifically disclose wherein a length of the cable is variable.
Gideon teaches wherein a length of the cable is variable (a length of cables between the matching network 106 and the filter 104 may be adjusted) [Fig. 7 & 0043].
Modified Gu and Gideon are analogous inventions in the field of substrate processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cable of Modified Gu to be variable, as in Gideon, to allow for optimization of impedance characteristics [Gideon - 0043].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 20180102238) in view of Hayami et al. (US 20040154540), with Gideon et al. (US 20200203119), Howald et al. (US 6265831), and Forster et al. (US 8920611) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 21 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (US 20010022293).
The limitations of claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 21 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Gu does not specifically disclose wherein the circuit unit comprises a resistor connected in series with the cable.
Maeda teaches wherein the circuit unit comprises a resistor (variable resistor 116) connected in series with the cable [Fig. 7 & 0102-0103].
Modified Gu and Maeda are analogous inventions in the field of substrate processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the circuit unit of Modified Gu to include a resistor connected in series with the cable, as in Maeda, to prevent bias frequency from flowing to ground, and to help control bias generated by a focus ring [Maeda - 0102-0103].
Claim(s) 10, 14-16, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 20180102238) in view of Hayami et al. (US 20040154540), with Gideon et al. (US 20200203119) and Howald et al. (US 6265831) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 10:
Gu teaches a substrate treating apparatus (substrate treating apparatus 10) comprising: a processing chamber (chamber 620) having a processing space therein; a support unit (substrate support assembly 200) for supporting a substrate in the processing space; a gas supply unit (gas supply unit 400) for supplying a processing gas into the processing space; and a RF power source (power source 610) for supplying a RF signal having a first frequency to the processing gas to generate plasma (plasma generating unit 600 may be a CCP type), wherein the support unit comprises: an edge ring (first ring 241) surrounding the substrate; a coupling ring (second ring 242) disposed under the edge ring and including an electrode (insertion body 243) therein; and a cable having one end connected to the electrode and the opposite end connected to a ground, the cable having a fixed length (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, the insertion body 243 has a cable connected to it, with the other end of the cable connected to ground) [Fig. 1,2, 3A & 0049, 0075-0075, 0082, 0094].
Gu does not specifically disclose wherein the cable has: a first total impedance of 50 Q to 1000 Q with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics generated by the RF power source in the processing chamber to remove the harmonic component, or a second total impedance with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance.
Although Hayami does not specifically disclose “wherein the cable has: a first total impedance, or a second total impedance, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance." Hayami does disclose that cable length is a result effective variable. Specifically, the length of a cable can be adjusted to reduce desired harmonic frequencies [Hayami - 0011-0012, 0037, 0047, 0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum length for a cable to block desired harmonic frequencies. It has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It's also noted that Gideon et al. (US 20200203119) discloses that cable length can be chosen to adjust its impedance [Gideon - 0043]. Furthermore, Howald et al. (US 6265831) discloses a 50 ohm cable, therefore such cables are well known in the art [Howald - Col. 10 lines 1-8]. Hayami also discloses a harmonic wave of 300 MHz, therefore such harmonic frequenices are well known in the art [Hayami - 0047].
It is also noted that Gu discloses that impedance of a circuit may be adjusted by changing the value of a variable capacitor [Fig. 3A & 0099]. As such, the combination of references would be capable of adjusting the total impedance of a circuit unit and cable (by adjusting cable length and variable capacitor values).
Furthermore, the limitations “with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics generated by the RF power source in the processing chamber to remove the harmonic component, with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that Hayami discloses a length of a cable can be adjusted so as to reduce desired harmonic frequencies [Hayami - 0011-0012, 0037, 0047, 0051]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of adjusting the length of a cable based on any variable desired. Furthermore, the instant application states that harmonic frequencies can be blocked by adjusting the length of a cable [IA – 0076-0079, 0083, 0086, 0100]. As such, since Hayami discloses length adjustment for a cable, one of ordinary skill in the art could find a desired length for a cable, such that the length of the cable would be capable of blocking certain harmonic frequencies.
In summary, the combination of references would provide an apparatus that is capable of blocking harmonic frequencies and suppressing loss. It’s also noted that Gu discloses an embodiment (Fig. 4a) wherein the circuit is substantially similar to an embodiment of a circuit of the instant application. Fig. 6B of the instant application comprises a circuit comprising an inductor, capacitor, and a resistor [IA – Fig. 6B & 0098]. Similarly, the Fig. 4a embodiment of Gu discloses a circuit comprising an inductor, capacitor, and a resistor [Gu – Fig. 4A & 0094-0096]. It is also noted that the instant application states the combination of an inductor and capacitor acts as a filter circuit [Instant Application - 0098]. Since the arrangements of the circuits of Gu and the instant application are substantially similar, the combination of references would be capable of removing harmonic frequencies.
Regarding Claim 14:
Gu teaches wherein the circuit unit comprises a variable impedance device (the apparatus of Fig. 3A comprises of a variable capacitor and inductor) [Fig. 3A & 0094].
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It is noted that Gu utilizes a variable capacitor so impedance can be adjusted as necessary [Fig. 3A & 0094].
Regarding Claim 16:
Gu teaches wherein the circuit unit comprises a variable impedance device (the apparatus of Fig. 3A comprises of a variable capacitor and inductor) [Fig. 3A & 0094].
Regarding Claim 22:
Gu does not specifically disclose wherein an impedance of the circuit unit is adjusted so that based on Zin=Zo tan(β1), and wherein Zin is an impedance of the cable, Zo is a characteristic impedance of the cable, 1 is the length of the cable, β is a propagation constant, wherein β=2πf/cη.
However, Hayami does disclose that cable length is a result effective variable. Specifically, the length of a cable can be adjusted to reduce desired harmonic frequencies [Hayami - 0011-0012, 0037, 0047, 0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum length for a cable to reduce desired harmonic frequencies. It has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It's also noted that Gideon et al. (US 20200203119) discloses that cable length can be chosen to adjust its impedance [Gideon - 0043]. Furthermore, Howald et al. (US 6265831) discloses a 50 ohm cable, therefore such cables are well known in the art [Howald - Col. 10 lines 1-8]. Hayami also discloses a harmonic wave of 300 MHz, therefore such harmonic frequencies are well known in the art [Hayami - 0047].
It is noted that the limitations “wherein a length of the cable is selected to satisfy an equation of Zin=Zo tan(β1), and wherein Zin is an impedance of the cable, Zo is a characteristic impedance of the cable, 1 is the length of the cable, β is a propagation constant, wherein β=2πf/cη with f being a frequency, c being a propagation speed in a vacuum, and η is a velocity factor determined by characteristics of the cable,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that Hayami discloses a length of a cable can be adjusted so as to reduce desired harmonic frequencies [Hayami - 0011-0012, 0037, 0047, 0051]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of adjusting the length of a cable based on any variable desired, or to satisfy any conditions desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-16, and 21-22 under 35 USC 112a have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The examiner would like to note that the limitation “wherein the cable has: a first impedance of 50 Ω to 1000 Ω with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics to remove the harmonic component; and a second impedance with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance” still has insufficient support in the written specification. This limitation, as it is currently written, suggests that the cable has two different impedances simultaneously. It is unclear how a cable at a point in time can have two different impedances simultaneously. The instant application discloses that the impedance of the cable changes when a frequency is applied [IA – Table 1 & 0083, 0086-0089, 0100]. This would imply that the impedance of the cable is changing in response to the frequency applied. For example, the specification discloses an impedance with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz (wherein the supplied RF frequency is 10 MHz), and another impedance with respect to a supplied RF frequency of 60 MHz [IA – 0086-0089]. As such, the impedance of the cable can exhibit different impedances at two different points in time (an impedance for a supplied 10 MHz, and a higher impedance for a supplied 60 MHz). Claim 10 is rejected for a similar to claim 1.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-16, and 21-22 under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The examiner would like to note that the limitation “wherein the cable has: a first impedance of 50 Ω to 1000 Ω with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics to remove the harmonic component; and a second impedance with respect to the first frequency to suppress loss through the cable of the RF signal applied by the RF power source, and wherein the second impedance is greater than the first impedance,” as it is currently written suggests that the cable has two different impedances simultaneously. It is unclear how a cable at a point in time can have two different impedances simultaneously. The instant application discloses that the impedance of the cable changes when a frequency is applied [IA – Table 1 & 0083, 0086-0089, 0100]. This would imply that the impedance of the cable is changing in response to the frequency applied. For example, the specification discloses an impedance with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz (wherein the supplied RF frequency is 10 MHz), and another impedance with respect to a supplied RF frequency of 60 MHz [IA – 0086-0089]. As such, the impedance of the cable can exhibit different impedances at two different points in time (an impedance for a supplied 10 MHz, and a higher impedance for a supplied 60 MHz).
As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, this limitation will be read as “wherein the cable has: a first impedance of 50 Ω to 1000 Ω with respect to a harmonic component of 100 MHz or more among harmonics to remove the harmonic component, or adjusting either the frequency or the length [IA – Table 1 & 0083, 0086, 0089, 0100].
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-16, and 21-22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose the limitation “to remove the harmonic component” because Hayami et al. (US 20040154540) does not specifically mention the removal of harmonic frequencies.
In response, the examiner would like to note that this limitation is merely intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that Hayami discloses a length of a cable can be adjusted so as to reduce desired harmonic frequencies [Hayami - 0011-0012, 0037, 0047, 0051]. The instant application also states that harmonic frequencies can be blocked by adjusting the length of a cable [IA – 0076-0079, 0083, 0086, 0100]. As such, since Hayami discloses length adjustment for a cable, one of ordinary skill in the art could find a desired length for a cable, such that the length of the cable would be capable of blocking certain harmonic frequencies.
In summary, the combination of references would provide an apparatus that is capable of blocking harmonic frequencies and suppressing loss. It’s also noted that Gu discloses an embodiment (Fig. 4a) wherein the circuit is substantially similar to an embodiment of a circuit of the instant application. Fig. 6B of the instant application comprises a circuit comprising an inductor, capacitor, and a resistor [IA – Fig. 6B & 0098]. Similarly, the Fig. 4a embodiment of Gu discloses a circuit comprising an inductor, capacitor, and a resistor [Gu – Fig. 4A & 0094-0096]. It is also noted that the instant application states the combination of an inductor and capacitor acts as a filter circuit [Instant Application - 0098]. Since the arrangements of the circuits of Gu and the instant application are substantially similar, the combination of references would be capable of removing harmonic frequencies.
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718