CTFR 17/774,521 CTFR 83660 DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s Response Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on February 26, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 22, 24, and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Further, in the request for reconsideration filed on June 9, 2025, the applicant contends that Kashaba does not situate a first tuning circuit between a matching network and an electrode embedded within the substrate support, as independent claims 1 and 15 require. From this, it follows that the reference cannot disclose the claimed control sequence directed to altering an impedance of the first tuning circuit for the obvious reason that said tuning circuit does not exist (p. 11). Although the Office cites Dhindsa to address the feature of the first tuning circuit, this reference is silent regarding the adjustment of a radio frequency in order to achieve a target impedance of the first tuning circuit (p. 12). In response, the examiner notes, as an initial matter, that claim 8 contemplates a scenario where the first and second radio frequencies are the same frequency. In other words, the metes of claim 1 are of sufficient breadth to encompass an embodiment where the first RF signal is “adjusted” to the same value, meaning that the impedance of the first tuning circuit is “altered” to its already existing value. This is not patentably distinct, or distinct in any substantive sense, from a static system of the same structure that refrains from any adjustments or alterations at all. In other words, given a system of the same structure, it is sufficient to arbitrarily name the “target impedance” as the present value of an inductor of the first tuning circuit, thereby warranting an “adjustment” of the first RF value to its very same value, which is then named the ”second frequency.” Of course, the composite prior art apparatus comprises the claimed array of a matching network, an RF generator, and a first tuning circuit coupled to an electrode in the substrate support, as well as a controller configured to regulate each of these features. Given the premise that the impedance of the first tuning circuit is already constitutive of the “target impedance,” the prior art system becomes essentially coextensive with Applicant’s system as claimed. This is because “adjusting” a value to the same value is not patentably distinct from simply permitting the value to remain constant. The examiner notes that a rejection of this form can be readily circumvented merely by stipulating that the first and second radio frequencies are different. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 8-11, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashaba, KR 2018-0046713, in view of Dhindsa et al., US 2010/0126847 . Claims 1, 21: Kashaba discloses a substrate processing system comprising a matching network (13) configured to receive a first RF signal from an RF generator (11) and match impedances therebetween (Fig. 2). The reference also provides a controller (14) configured to determine a target impedance for a first circuit component (12) of a plasma chamber. To achieve this target, the controller directs the RF generator to adjust the output frequency to alter the impedance of the first circuit component to match the target impedance (page 4, paragraphs 6-7). Kashaba, though, does not specify the first circuit component of the plasma chamber, although the reference clarifies that RF power is to be supplied to various electrodes embedded within the substrate support. In supplementation, Dhindsa, too, discloses an RF generator (117) coupled to a downstream matching network (115) (Figs. 1A-B). Yet the citation further situates a first circuit component, i.e., adjustable inductors (L2, L3) and capacitors (C4, C5), between the matching network and the plasma chamber’s lower electrode (103) in order to provide “tuning” of the incoming RF power transmission [0024]. Given this paradigm, it would have been obvious to configure a set of adjustable circuit components downstream of the matching network in order to provide further tuning of the plasma profile. The upshot of this arrangement is that, given a scenario where the “target impedance” is coextensive with the present impedance of the first tuning circuit, the claim is already satisfied since the RF generator can remain at the same frequency, or “adjust” to the same frequency, in the language of claim 1. Claim 2: Any two frequencies of the RF generator can be arbitrarily deemed the “center” and “first” frequencies, respectively. Further, the bounds of the “predetermined range” can, too, be set arbitrarily to always encompass the center and first frequencies. Claims 3-6, 8, 10-11: This recited step is a matter of intended use, whereby an operator can control the system to yield the claimed outcome – it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function ( In re Danly , 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)). Claim 9: Kashaba avails the controller to adjust both the impedance of the circuit components and the frequency of the RF power source (page 4, paragraph 7). Claim 23: The composite prior art apparatus can simply “adjust” the first frequency to the same frequency, which can then be named the “second frequency,” per the precedent of claim 8. This is patentably indistinct from simply permitting the RF generator to remain at the same frequency value . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7, 12-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashaba in view of Dhindsa, and in further view of Hammond, IV et al., US 2021/0166915 . Claims 7, 14-15, 20: The rejection of claim 1, above, substantially addresses these limitations. Claims 14 and 15, however, recite two electrodes embedded within the substrate support, whereas Kashaba and Dhindsa merely show one such electrode. Hammond, however, discloses a plasma system whose substrate support comprises first (122) and second (124) electrodes coupled to respective circuit components of a tuning circuit (148) which, in turn, is coupled to a match network (152) and an RF generator (150) (Figs. 1, 4; [0026]). It would have been obvious to integrate a second electrode within Kashaba’s substrate support for enhanced control of the plasma distribution, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art ( St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co ., 193 USPQ 8). Claim 12: Hammond provides a source terminal (450), as well as first (122) and second (124) electrodes embedded within the substrate support (Fig. 4). As shown by Figure 10, for example, Hammond provides a first and second impedance sets that are serially connected between the first and second electrodes, respectively, and the matching network. Hammond also provides a “reference terminal,” i.e., a ground path. Claim 13: Hammond does not teach a third tuning circuit coupled to a third electrode, but simply replicating an already existing tuning circuit-electrode pairing would be adequate to satisfy the contested limitation, whereby the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art ( St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co ., 193 USPQ 8). Claims 16-19: The rejections of claims 3-6, above, substantially address these limitations. Claim 25: The rejection of claim 23, above, substantially addresses this limitation . Conclusion The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Collins et al., EP 0 840 350. Collins discloses a plasma processing system comprising a matching network (36) configured to receive a frequency from an RF generator (28), as well as a first tuning circuit (42) distinct from the matching network and comprising a first circuit component having a first impedance (Fig. 6). 07-39 AIA 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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300. /N. K. F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/774,521 Page 2 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/774,521 Page 3 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/774,521 Page 4 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/774,521 Page 5 Art Unit: 1716
Prosecution Insights