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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on9/9/22, 11/30/23, 3/24/25, 12/29/25 and 1/15/26 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Huh et al TW-I769562 B.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Huh et al discloses a matching network comprising an input; a load capacitor 840a (i.e. a first matrix tuning element) on a first branch from the input, wherein the load capacitor comprises a first variable capacitance; a transformer 870a on a second branch from the input, wherein the transformer has at least a first tap, wherein a variable capacitance unit is on the first tap; a blocking capacitor 876a after the transformer on the second branch and an output after the third blocking capacitor on the second branch.
Thus, Huh et al is shown to teach all the limitations of the claim with the exception of the blocking capacitor (i.e. the third matrix tuning element comprises) a third variable capacitance; and an output after the third matrix tuning element on the second branch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the blocking capacitor variable.
The motivation for this modification would be been to provide a means to control the output impedance.
With regards to claims 2 and 3, since the load capacitor, variable capacitance unit and the blocking capacitor are variable. These capacitors are capable of being identical or different form each other .
With regards to claim 13, the output is coupled to a plasma processing tool, and wherein the input is coupled to an RF power source. Huh et al states that the matching network may reduce an impedance mismatch between the generator and the plasma load. Therefore, the output of the matching network is coupled to the plasma load.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY E GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
February 6, 2026
/K.E.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights