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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/27/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 21-31 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 10 are currently amended.
Claims 21-31 are newly added.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20100006881 A), in view of Chen (US 20020185228 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches A transformer apparatus (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, power variable distribution circuit 42) comprising:
a primary winding having a first end and a second end (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, primary winding coil 47 has two ends), wherein the first end of the primary winding is coupled to an output of an impedance matching circuit (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, top end of primary winding 47 is connected to impedance matcher 41, L160-172) and the second end of the primary winding is coupled to a ground connection (Choi, Fig. 4, L204-214, lower end of primary winding coil 47 is grounded);
a secondary winding associated with the primary winding and coupled to a first end of a transformer coupled plasma (TCP) coil of a plasma chamber and to a second end of the TCP coil (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, secondary winding 48 has two ends where the top end is connected to one end of antenna 30 and the bottom end of secondary winding 48 is connected to the other end of antenna 30, where antenna 30 is a planar coil on top of chamber 12, Fig. 10, L275-279),
wherein the primary winding is configured to receive power from a modified radio frequency (RF) signal provided from the impedance matching circuit (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, top end of primary winding 47 is connected to RF power supply 40 via impedance matcher 41, L160-172), wherein the power is received by the primary winding to generate a magnetic flux to induce a voltage in the secondary winding, wherein an RF signal generated by the voltage is transferred from the secondary winding to the TCP coil (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, secondary winding 48 has two ends where the top end is connected to one end of antenna 30 and the bottom end of secondary winding 48 is connected to the other end of antenna 30, where antenna 30 is a planar coil on top of chamber 12, Fig. 10, L275-279).
Choi fails to teach a first capacitor coupling the primary winding to the impedance match circuit, and a second capacitor coupling the primary winding to a ground connection.
However, Chen teaches a first capacitor coupling the primary winding to the impedance match circuit (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 82 couples the output terminal of matching network 28 and a first end of winding 42), and a second capacitor coupling the primary winding to a ground connection (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 86 couples the second end of winding 42 with ground terminal).
Chen is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of plasma processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]). The Examiner considers the apparatuses of Choi and Chen as analogous, as both have a first end of the primary winding receiving power via an RF generator and matching network (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, top end of primary winding 47 is connected to impedance matcher 41, L160-172; Chen, Fig. 2, [0045]-[0046], winding 42 receives RF power via generator 26 and matching network 28), both have a second end of the primary winding connected to ground (Choi, Fig. 4, L204-214, lower end of primary winding coil 47 is grounded; Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], second end of winding 42 is connected to ground terminal), and are associated with a second winding (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, primary winding 47 surrounds secondary winding 48; Chen, Fig. 2, [0041], winding 42 surrounds winding 40).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the primary winding is configured to receive a modified radio frequency (RF) signal from the impedance matching circuit to generate a magnetic flux to induce a voltage in the secondary winding, wherein an RF signal generated by the voltage is transferred from the secondary winding to the TCP coil“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The connection of the primary winding of Choi to RF power, connection of the secondary winding to the antenna, and transformer arrangement of the primary winding and secondary winding are structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches wherein the TCP coil is in series with the secondary winding (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, secondary winding 48 has two ends where the top end is connected to one end of antenna 30 and the bottom end of secondary winding 48 is connected to the other end of antenna 30, where antenna 30 is a planar coil on top of chamber 12, Fig. 10, L275-279).
Regarding claim 4, Choi fails to teach wherein the second capacitor has a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the second capacitor is coupled to the second end of the primary winding and the second end of the second capacitor is coupled to the ground connection.
However, Chen teaches wherein the second capacitor has a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the second capacitor is coupled to the second end of the primary winding and the second end of the second capacitor is coupled to the ground connection (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 86 couples the second end of winding 42 with ground terminal).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Choi fails to wherein the first capacitor is a variable capacitor.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first capacitor is a variable capacitor (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 82 couples the output terminal of matching network 28 and a first end of winding 42).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Choi fails to teach wherein the first capacitor has a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the first capacitor is coupled to the output of the impedance matching circuit, wherein the second end of the first capacitor is coupled to the first end of the primary winding.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first capacitor has a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the first capacitor is coupled to the output of the impedance matching circuit, wherein the second end of the first capacitor is coupled to the first end of the primary winding (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 82 couples the output terminal of matching network 28 and a first end of winding 42).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Regarding claim 21, Choi fails to teach wherein the first capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the first capacitor, wherein the capacitance of the first capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the first capacitor (Chen, Fig. 2, [0051], values of variable capacitors 80, 82, 84, and 86 are controlled in response to signals from controller 41), wherein the capacitance of the first capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the capacitance of the first capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The variable capacitors of Chen are in communication with a controller, where the controller outputs signals to the capacitors to change their values (Chen, [0050]-[0051]), thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 22, Choi fails to teach wherein the second capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the second capacitor, wherein the capacitance of the second capacitor is varied to achieve the uniformity in processing the substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
However, Chen teaches wherein the second capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the second capacitor (Chen, Fig. 2, [0051], values of variable capacitors 80, 82, 84, and 86 are controlled in response to signals from controller 41), wherein the capacitance of the second capacitor is varied to achieve the uniformity in processing the substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the capacitance of the second capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The variable capacitors of Chen are in communication with a controller, where the controller outputs signals to the capacitors to change their values (Chen, [0050]-[0051]), thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 23, Choi fails to teach wherein the first capacitor is configured to be coupled via a first motor and a first driver to a computer and the second capacitor is configured to be coupled via a second motor and a second driver to the computer.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first capacitor is configured to be coupled via a first motor and a first driver to a computer and the second capacitor is configured to be coupled via a second motor and a second driver to the computer (Chen, Fig. 2, [0072], microprocessor 33 supplies signals from input device 41/memory system 35 to motors 87 to control the values of capacitors 80, 82, 84, and 86).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20100006881 A) in view of Chen (US 20020185228 A1), as applied in claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, and 21-23, and further in view of Malcolm (US 4363009 A).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, and 21-23 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Choi fails to teach wherein the secondary winding is twisted with the primary winding to be associated with the primary winding.
However, Malcolm teaches wherein the secondary winding is twisted with the primary winding to be associated with the primary winding (Malcolm, C3 L6-14, primary winding 12 and secondary winding 14 of transformer 10 may be constructed by twisting).
Malcolm is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of modifying impedance of signals via transformers. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have twisted the primary and secondary windings of the transformer of Choi as doing so may provide some control over the frequency bandwidth of the signals passed by the transformer (Malcolm, C3 L6-14).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20100006881 A) in view of Chen (US 20020185228 A1), as applied in claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, and 21-23, and further in view of Yamazawa (US 20120073756 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, and 21-23 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Choi fails to teach wherein multiple taps are provided on the secondary winding to change the voltage that is applied by the secondary winding to the TCP coil.
However, Yamazawa teaches wherein multiple taps are provided on the secondary winding to change the voltage that is applied by the secondary winding to the TCP coil (Yamazawa, Fig. 20, [0125], secondary side of transformer 114 has taps that can be switched, where transformer 114 is connected to planar coil antenna 54).
Yamazawa is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have provided taps on the secondary side of the transformer in the manner of Yamazawa to the apparatus of modified Choi as doing so would allow for a mechanism to adjust the current being transmitted to the coil, possibly eliminating need for other current-altering devices (Yamazawa, [0125]).
Claims 3 and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 6252354 B1), further in view of Choi (KR 20100006881 A), Chen (US 20020185228 A1), and Mahoney (US 6432260 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Collins teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising:
a primary winding having a first end and a second end (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, primary winding 500 of transformer 505 has two ends), wherein the first end is coupled to an output of an impedance matching circuit (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, one end of primary winding 500 is connected to matching elements power servo 430, frequency servo 420, directional coupler 440, and RF generator 140);
a secondary winding associated with the primary winding and coupled to an end of a transformer coupled plasma (TCP) coil of a plasma chamber (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, secondary windings 510 of transformer 505 are connected to outer coil 120, where the coils can be planar, Fig. 1A, C7 L16-22),
wherein the primary winding is configured to receive a modified radio frequency (RF) signal from the impedance matching circuit to generate a magnetic flux to induce a voltage in the secondary winding (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, one end of primary winding 500 is connected to matching elements power servo 430, frequency servo 420, directional coupler 440, and RF generator 140), wherein an RF signal generated by the voltage is transferred from the secondary winding to the TCP coil (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, secondary windings 510 of transformer 505 are connected to outer coil 120), and
further comprising:
an additional primary winding having a first end and a second end (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, primary winding 500’ of transformer 505’ has two ends), wherein the first end of the additional primary winding is coupled to the output of an impedance matching circuit (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, one end of primary winding 500’ is connected to matching elements power servo 430’, frequency servo 420’, directional coupler 440’, and RF generator 140’);
an additional secondary winding associated with the additional primary winding and coupled to an end of an additional TCP coil of the plasma chamber (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, secondary windings 510’ of transformer 505’ are connected to inner coil 120’, where the coils can be planar, Fig. 1A, C7 L16-22),
wherein the additional primary winding is configured to receive a modified RF signal from an impedance matching circuit to generate a magnetic flux to induce a voltage in the additional secondary winding (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, one end of primary winding 500’ is connected to matching elements power servo 430’, frequency servo 420’, directional coupler 440’, and RF generator 140’), wherein an RF signal generated by the voltage induced in the additional secondary winding is transferred from the additional secondary winding to the additional TCP coil (Collins, Fig. 5, C10 L53 – C12 L11, secondary windings 510’ of transformer 505’ are connected to inner coil 120’).
Collins fails to explicitly teach wherein a secondary winding is connected to a first end and second end of the TCP coils. Collins also fails to teach a first capacitor coupling the primary winding to the impedance match circuit, a second capacitor coupling the primary winding to a ground connection, a third capacitor coupled to the second end of the additional primary winding, and wherein the primary winding and additional primary winding are connected to a same impedance matching circuit.
However, Choi teaches wherein a secondary winding is connected to a first end and second end of the TCP coils (Choi, Fig. 4, L243-248, secondary winding 48 has two ends where the top end is connected to one end of antenna 30 and the bottom end of secondary winding 48 is connected to the other end of antenna 30, where antenna 30 is a planar coil on top of chamber 12, Fig. 10, L275-279).
Choi is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the plural secondary windings, switches, and connections to coil of Collins with the secondary windings and connections to the coil in the manner of Choi as doing so would remove the cost and complexity of having multiple switches, and eliminating additional electrical contacts to reduce potential noise or failure, while still achieving the effect of controlling RF power distribution (Choi, L139-147).
Modified Collins fails to teach a first capacitor coupling the primary winding to the impedance match circuit, a second capacitor coupling the primary winding to a ground connection, a third capacitor coupled to the second end of the additional primary winding, and wherein the primary winding and additional primary winding are connected to a same impedance matching circuit.
However, Chen teaches a first capacitor coupling the primary winding to the impedance match circuit (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 82 couples the output terminal of matching network 28 and a first end of winding 42), a second capacitor coupling the primary winding to a ground connection (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 86 couples the second end of winding 42 with ground terminal), and a third capacitor coupled to the second end of the additional primary winding (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 84 couples the second end of winding 40 to a ground connection).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Modified Collins fails to teach wherein the primary windings are connected to a same impedance matching circuit.
However, Mahoney teaches wherein the primary windings are connected to a same impedance matching circuit (Mahoney, Fig. 8a, C12 L22-38, primary windings of transformers 52a and 53a are connected to a single power supply 46 and single impedance matching network 48).
Mahoney is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the multiple power supplies and matching circuits of modified Collins with a single power supply and matching network of Mahoney (Mahoney, Fig. 8a, C12 L22-38) as doing so would reduce cost.
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the primary winding is configured to receive a modified radio frequency (RF) signal from the impedance matching circuit to generate a magnetic flux to induce a voltage in the secondary winding, wherein an RF signal generated by the voltage is transferred from the secondary winding to the TCP coil“ and ” wherein the additional primary winding is configured to receive a modified RF signal from the impedance matching circuit to generate a magnetic flux to induce a voltage in the additional secondary winding, wherein an RF signal generated by the voltage induced in the additional secondary winding is transferred from the additional secondary winding to the additional TCP coil” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The connection of the primary windings of Collins to RF power, connection of the secondary windings to the antennas, and transformer arrangements of the primary windings and secondary windings are structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 24, modified Collins fails to teach wherein the third capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the third capacitor, wherein the capacitance of the third capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
However, Chen teaches wherein the third capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the third capacitor (Chen, Fig. 2, [0051], values of variable capacitors 80, 82, 84, and 86 are controlled in response to signals from controller 41), wherein the capacitance of the third capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the capacitance of the third capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The variable capacitors of Chen are in communication with a controller, where the controller outputs signals to the capacitors to change their values (Chen, [0050]-[0051]), thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 25, modified Collins fails to teach wherein the first end of the additional primary winding is coupled to the output of the impedance matching circuit via a fourth capacitor.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first end of the additional primary winding is coupled to the output of the impedance matching circuit via a fourth capacitor (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 80 couples the output terminal of matching network 28 and a first end of winding 40).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Collins fails to teach wherein the fourth capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the fourth capacitor, wherein the capacitance of the fourth capacitor is varied to achieve the uniformity in processing the substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
However, Chen teaches wherein the fourth capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the fourth capacitor (Chen, Fig. 2, [0051], values of variable capacitors 80, 82, 84, and 86 are controlled in response to signals from controller 41), wherein the capacitance of the fourth capacitor is varied to achieve the uniformity in processing the substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the capacitance of the fourth capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The variable capacitors of Chen are in communication with a controller, where the controller outputs signals to the capacitors to change their values (Chen, [0050]-[0051]), thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 27, modified Collins fails to teach wherein the third capacitor is configured to be coupled via a motor and a driver to a computer.
However, Chen teaches wherein the third capacitor is configured to be coupled via a motor and a driver to a computer (Chen, Fig. 2, [0072], microprocessor 33 supplies signals from input device 41/memory system 35 to motors 87 to control the values of capacitors 80, 82, 84, and 86).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Collins fails to teach wherein the first end of the additional primary winding is coupled to the output of the impedance matching circuit via a fourth capacitor.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first end of the additional primary winding is coupled to the output of the impedance matching circuit via a fourth capacitor (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 80 couples the output terminal of matching network 28 and a first end of winding 40).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Collins fails to teach wherein the fourth capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the fourth capacitor, wherein the capacitance of the fourth capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
However, Chen teaches wherein the fourth capacitor is configured to be controlled to vary a capacitance of the fourth capacitor (Chen, Fig. 2, [0051], values of variable capacitors 80, 82, 84, and 86 are controlled in response to signals from controller 41), wherein the capacitance of the fourth capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the capacitance of the fourth capacitor is varied to achieve uniformity in processing a substrate placed within the plasma chamber“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The variable capacitors of Chen are in communication with a controller, where the controller outputs signals to the capacitors to change their values (Chen, [0050]-[0051]), thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 30, modified Collins fails to teach wherein the fourth capacitor is configured to be coupled via a motor and a driver to a computer.
However, Chen teaches wherein the fourth capacitor is configured to be coupled via a motor and a driver to a computer (Chen, Fig. 2, [0072], microprocessor 33 supplies signals from input device 41/memory system 35 to motors 87 to control the values of capacitors 80, 82, 84, and 86).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Regarding claim 31, modified Collins fails to teach wherein the third capacitor is configured to be coupled to a ground connection.
However, Chen teaches wherein the third capacitor is configured to be coupled to a ground connection (Chen, Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047], variable capacitor 84 couples the second end of winding 40 to a ground connection).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the first and second variable capacitors as taught by Chen into the apparatus of Choi as doing so would allow one to change the current in the winding, inducing a change in the other associated winding, allowing one to vary plasma characteristics per working requirements (Chen, [0050]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 11/27/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Choi in view of Kwon, teach the claim limitations “a primary winding having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the primary winding is coupled via a first capacitor to an output of an impedance matching circuit . . . the power is received by the primary winding via the first capacitor to generate a magnetic flux to induce a voltage in the secondary winding” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, 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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718