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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
The amended claims 1, 14 and 18 are rejected under U.S.C. 112, first paragraph because the disclosure as originally filed, does not provide a support for the claimed feature " an electrically conductive guard ring" which is added to the claim 1, 14 and 18. Whereas, the specification as originally filed discloses, that “a guard ring may be grounded.” (par. 0028) and "the conductive strip 285 is electrically coupled to the guard ring 270." (par. 0031). Therefore, the specification does not support the amended claim language "an electrically conductive guard ring". Claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because they inherit the deficiency of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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, 14 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 14 and 18, recite “an analog to digital (A/D) converter; a digital down converter (DDC); a frequency digital phase lock loop (dPLL); and a transmission line scaling module”. However, the claim fails to recite how these components are structurally or functionally connected to one another. Merely listing these elements without describing their interrelationship or collective function renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is not apparent how the components cooperate to achieve a particular result, nor is it clear whether they are arranged in a specific sequence, operate independently, or are part of integrated system.
As a result, one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty, as required by §112(b).
Claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depended on claims 1, 14 and 18.
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 (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 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 1-4 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swank et al. (EP 1889279) in view of Hirase et al (JP 2010109889) further in view of Ibuki et al. (US 2009/0058398) further in view of Moses et al. (US 2021/0407775 and Moses hereinafter) further in view of Oppelt et al. (DE 4024599 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Swank discloses a processing tool [figs. 3A-3B], comprising: a transmission line [4] sensor [10/12]; and a transmission line scaling module [page 5]. Swank does not explicitly disclose the transmission line sensor comprising a current loop, a voltage ring within the current loop, and an electrically conductive guard ring surrounding the current loop: an analog to digital (A/D) converter; a digital down converter (DDC); a frequency digital phase lock loop (dPLL).
However, Hirase discloses [figs. 2, 6] signal processing with an analog to digital (A/D) [41] converter; a digital down converter (DDC) [42]; a frequency digital phase lock loop (dPLL) [45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank as taught by Hirase in order to improve signal processing device. Swank in view of Hirase does not explicitly disclose the transmission line sensor comprising a current loop, a voltage ring within the current loop, and an electrically conductive guard ring surrounding the current loop.
Ibuki discloses [fig. 15A] current/voltage detection [4] comprising a current loop [current detection wire 10], a voltage ring [30 connected to voltage conversion circuit 53, par. 164] within the current loop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank in view of Hirase as taught in Ibuki in order to detect an alternating current (AC) voltage generated at a power transmission conductor. Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki does not explicitly disclose an electrically conductive guard ring.
In the same endeavor, Moses discloses [see fig. 1B, par. 59-60] a guard ring [insulating ring 152] surrounding a voltage pickup [151]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki as taught in Moses in order to provide mechanically supported by an insulating structure. Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses does not explicitly disclose an electrically conductive guard ring.
However, Oppelt discloses [page 2] a ring (guard ring) made of electrically conductive material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses as taught in Oppelt in order to utilize well known guard ring.
Regarding claim 2, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [see fig. 2] wherein the A/D converter is configured to receive analog signals from the transmission line sensor and deliver digital signals to the DDC.
Regarding claim 3, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [see fig. 6] wherein the frequency dPLL, the transmission line scaling module, and the DDC are communicatively coupled to each other.
Regarding claim 4, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [fig. 3A] wherein the transmission line sensor comprises a voltage sensor [10, fig. 3A] and a current sensor [12].
Regarding claim 9, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [figs. 2-4] wherein the DDC is configured to process a real component of a signal [I] from the transmission line sensor and an imaginary component of the signal [Q] from the transmission line sensor, and wherein the DDC is configured to combine the real component and the imaginary component into a complex signal.
Regarding claim 10, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [figs. 2-4] wherein the transmission line scaling module includes a plurality of scaling factors, wherein the plurality of scaling factors are each configured to be multiplied by the complex signal.
Regarding claim 11, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [fig. 6] wherein the dPLL feeds a frequency back to the DDC through a direct digital synthesis (DDS) module [AFC].
Regarding claim 12, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses wherein the transmission line scaling module outputs a voltage, a forward power, a reflected power, and a current [page 5].
Regarding claim 13, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [see figs. 6 and 10] wherein the dPLL includes a feedback loop, wherein the feedback loop includes multiplying signals by a conjugate pair [AFC].
Regarding claim 14, Swank discloses a processing tool [figs. 3A-3B], comprising: a transmission line [4] sensor [10/12]; and a transmission line scaling module [page 5]. Swank does not explicitly disclose the transmission line sensor comprising a current loop, a voltage ring within the current loop, and an electrically conductive guard ring surrounding the current loop: an analog to digital (A/D) converter; a digital down converter (DDC).
However, Hirase discloses [fig. 12] signal processing with an analog to digital (A/D) [101] converter; a digital down converter (DDC) [102]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank as taught by Hirase in order to provide improve signal processing device. Swank in view of Hirase does not explicitly disclose the transmission line sensor comprising a current loop, a voltage ring within the current loop, and an electrically conductive guard ring surrounding the current loop.
Ibuki discloses [fig. 15A] current/voltage detection [4] comprising a current loop [current detection wire 10], a voltage ring [30 connected to voltage conversion circuit 53, par. 164] within the current loop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank in view of Hirase as taught in Ibuki in order to detect an alternating current (AC) voltage generated at a power transmission conductor. Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki does not explicitly disclose an electrically conductive guard ring.
In the same endeavor, Moses discloses [see fig. 1B, par. 59-60] a guard ring [insulating ring 152] surrounding a voltage pickup [151]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki as taught in Moses in order to provide mechanically supported by an insulating structure. Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses does not explicitly disclose an electrically conductive guard ring.
However, Oppelt discloses [page 2] a ring (guard ring) made of electrically conductive material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses as taught in Oppelt in order to utilize well known guard ring.
Regarding claim 15, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [see figs. 6-7 and 10] wherein filters are provided before the transmission line scaling module, wherein complex signals pass through the filters.
Regarding claim 16, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [see figs. 6 and 10] wherein the filters are finite impulse response (FIR) filters.
Regarding claim 17, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt wherein the transmission line scaling module outputs a voltage, a forward power, a reflected power, and a current [page 5].
Regarding claim 18, Swank discloses a processing tool [figs. 1, 3A-3B], comprising: a chamber [plasma reactor 40]; a plasma source [plasma] coupled to the chamber; ; and a signal processing module [22, fig. 1] for determining a frequency of a plasma generated by the plasma source, comprising a transmission line [4] sensor [10/12]; and a transmission line scaling module. Swank does not explicitly disclose the transmission line sensor comprising a current loop, a voltage ring within the current loop, and an electrically conductive guard ring surrounding the current loop: an analog to digital (A/D) converter; a digital down converter (DDC); a frequency digital phase lock loop (dPLL).
However, Hirase discloses [figs. 2, 6] signal processing with an analog to digital (A/D) [41] converter; a digital down converter (DDC) [42]; a frequency digital phase lock loop (dPLL) [45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank as taught by Hirase in order to provide improve signal processing device. Swank in view of Hirase does not explicitly disclose the transmission line sensor comprising a current loop, a voltage ring within the current loop, and an electrically conductive guard ring surrounding the current loop.
Ibuki discloses [fig. 15A] current/voltage detection [4] comprising a current loop [current detection wire 10], a voltage ring [30 connected to voltage conversion circuit 53, par. 164] within the current loop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank in view of Hirase as taught in Ibuki in order to detect an alternating current (AC) voltage generated at a power transmission conductor. Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki does not explicitly disclose an electrically conductive guard ring.
In the same endeavor, Moses discloses [see fig. 1B, par. 59-60] a guard ring [insulating ring 152] surrounding a voltage pickup [151]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki as taught in Moses in order to provide mechanically supported by an insulating structure. Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses does not explicitly disclose an electrically conductive guard ring.
However, Oppelt discloses [page 2] a ring (guard ring) made of electrically conductive material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses as taught in Oppelt in order to utilize well known guard ring.
Regarding claim 19, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [figs. 2, 6] wherein the A/D converter is configured to receives analog signals from the transmission line sensor and deliver digital signals to the DDC.
Regarding claim 20, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses [figs. 2, 6] wherein the frequency dPLL, the transmission line scaling module, and the DDC are communicatively coupled to each other.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swank et al. in view of Hirase et al. further in view of Ibuki et al. further in view of Moses et al further in view of Oppelt et al.
Regarding claim 5, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses all the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above. Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt does not explicitly disclose wherein the A/D converter is a dual A/D converter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a well-known multiple ADC circuit would not have involved an inventive step and would not have produced an unexpected result, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt does not explicitly disclose wherein a second transmission line sensor; a second A/D converter; a second DDC; a second transmission line scaling module; and a second frequency dPLL. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a well-known multiple transmission line sensor; A/D converter; DDC; transmission line scaling module; and frequency dPLL, would not have involved an inventive step and would not have produced an unexpected result, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 7, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses all the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above. Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt does not explicitly disclose wherein a third transmission line sensor; a third A/D converter; a third DDC; and a third transmission line scaling module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a well-known multiple transmission line sensor; A/D converter; DDC; transmission line scaling module, would not have involved an inventive step and would not have produced an unexpected result, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, Swank in view of Hirase further in view of Ibuki further in view of Moses further in view of Oppelt discloses wherein the second frequency dPLL is communicatively coupled to the third DDC and the third transmission line scaling module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 14 and 18 under 112(a) have been fully considered and but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the disclosure in paragraph [0028 and 0031] (“a guard ring may be grounded.” (par. 0028) and "the conductive strip 285 is electrically coupled to the guard ring 270.") of the specification supports the claimed “conductive” limitation, asserting that a guard ring capable of being grounded must be inherently be conductive.
The claim recites “conductive guard ring” which affirmatively limits the guard to being always electrically conductive. Whereas, the specification merely states that “a guard ring may be grounded.” (par. 0028).
While grounding does imply conductivity, the phrase “may be grounded” introduces ambiguity. It suggests that grounding is optional and does not expressly or inherently require the guard ring to be conductive in all embodiment and encompasses structures that are only conditionally conductive depending on whether they are grounded.
As such, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of a guard ring that is always conductive, as now claimed.
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Applicant does not understand the insulating ring 152 of Moses as being an electrically conductive guard ring, as is required by Applicant's claims. Thus, the combination of Swank, Hirase, Ibuki and Moses does not disclose a processing tool including a transmission line sensor, the transmission line sensor comprising a current loop, a voltage ring within the current loop, and an electrically conductive guard ring surrounding the current loop, as is required by Applicant's claims. As such, with respect to independent claims 1, 14 and 18, the combination of Swank, Hirase, Ibuki and Moses fails to disclose each and every feature of Applicant's claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
However, Moses discloses a ring (152) surrounding a voltage pickup (151), and describes it as insulating, the structural arrangement of the ring surrounding a signal carrying element is relevant to the claimed limitation of “ a guard ring surrounding the current loop,” the reference teaches the concept of surrounding a signal path with a ring structure to control electromagnetic behavior, a concept directly relevant to the claimed invention.
Oppelt discloses a guard ring made of electrically conductive material use to shield electrical signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the insulating ring of Moses with a conductive guard ring as taught by Oppelt in order to enhance electromagnetic shielding around the current loop. Such substitution represents a predictable design choice within the skill of the art, motivated by the well-known benefit of using conductive guard rings to reduce interference and improve signal integrity. Therefore, the combination of Swank, Hirase, Ibuki and Moses still read on the claims and the rejection stands.
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 METASEBIA T RETEBO whose telephone number is (571)272-9299. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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.
/METASEBIA T RETEBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842
Prosecution Insights