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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Group 1-Species I, Figure 3, Group 2-Species A, Figure 4 in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 7-16, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note. Claims 3 and 7-17 are directed to the non-elected species of Group 1-Species II-III and Group 2-Species B-C.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “wherein the low pass filter has a lower surface that abuts the dielectric. There is no support for this limitation. Page 20, lines 18-19 indicates that the filter elements 52 may be disposed on the dielectric layer 50. Hence, the specification simply supports that the low pass filter may be disposed on the dielectric. For purposes of examination, the low pass filter may be disposed on the dielectric.
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 17-18 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the dielectric member" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the dielectric member" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yokogawa et al. (U.S. 2015/0243486).
Referring to Figure 1 below and Figure 2, and paragraphs [0027]-[0044], Yokogawa et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a plasma processing chamber 10 (par.[0027]); a substrate support 2 disposed in the plasma processing chamber (par.[0028]), the substrate support including: a dielectric 14, 22, 23, 25 having a surface to support substrate (pars.[0037], [0042]-[0044]); a low pass filter 32 disposed in the dielectric and having a first terminal and a second terminal (par.[0038]); and a first electrode 15 disposed in the dielectric and being electrically connected to the first terminal (par.[0037]); an RF generator 20 to generate an RF signal and coupled to the plasma processing chamber (par.[0035]); and a first DC generator 17 to generate a DC signal and electrically connected to the second terminal (pars.[0037]-[0040]).
Note. Filter element 32 is considered a low pass filter since it prevents the flow 428, 528 of RF current flowing into a first DC generator 17 (Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0060],[0073]). According to page 23, lines 5-7, the specification indicates that the structure of the low pass filter is a resistance element or inductor element. Similarly, paragraph [0038], indicates that the structure of the low pass filter is a resistance element or inductor element.
Nevertheless, it is still obvious for the filter element 32 to perform as a low pass filter in order provide greater RF attenuation, enhance protection of the first DC generator 17 and reduce RF coupling into the ESC voltage.
PNG
media_image1.png
741
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the plasma processing apparatus of Yokogawa et al. further includes wherein the first electrode includes an electrostatic chuck electrode 15 (par.[0037]).
With respect to claim 4, the plasma processing apparatus of Yokogawa et al. further includes wherein the low pass filter 32 has a lower surface that abuts the dielectric 22 (Fig. 2, pars.[0038]-[0040]).
PNG
media_image2.png
660
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, the plasma processing apparatus of Yokogawa et al. further includes wherein the first filter includes a first resistance element 32 (pars.[0038]-[0040]).
With respect to claim 6, the plasma processing apparatus of Yokogawa et al. further includes wherein the first resistance element 32 is disposed to be perpendicular to the substrate supporting surface (Fig. 1 above).
With respect to claim 17, the plasma processing apparatus of Yokogawa et al. further comprising: a second DC generator 17 to generate a DC signal, wherein the dielectric member 14, 22, 23, 25 has a ring supporting surface around the substrate supporting surface, the substrate support includes: a second filter 32 disposed in the dielectric and having a fifth terminal and a sixth terminal; and a second electrode 15 disposed in the dielectric and electrically connected to the fifth terminal, and the second DC generator is electrically connected to the sixth terminal (Fig. 1 above, pars.[0038]-[0040]).
With respect to claim 18, he plasma processing apparatus of Yokogawa et al. further includes further comprising: an RF electrode 2a electrically connected to the RF generator 20, wherein the RF electrode includes a metal member, and the metal member is bonded to the dielectric member 14, 22, 23, 25 (Fig. 1, par.[0035]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that there would be no motivation for one skilled in the art to use a low pass filter as element 32, where that element is linked to "low pass filter 16" remote from the dielectric layer - why would one skilled in the art employ two low pass filters in series. And even if "element 32" of Yokogawa were a low pass filter, it is not "in the dielectric" as required by claim 1.
As stated above, according to Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0060],[0073], Yokogawa et al. disclose that a filter element 32 is considered a low pass filter since it prevents the flow 428, 528 of RF current flowing into a first DC generator 17. Furthermore, according to page 23, lines 5-7, the specification indicates that the structure of the low pass filter is a resistance element or inductor element. Similarly, in paragraph [0038], Yokogawa et al. indicate that the structure of the low pass filter is a resistance element or inductor element. In addition, the motivation to provide an additional low pass filter closer to the electrode would be to provide greater RF attenuation, enhance protection of the first DC generator 17, reduce RF coupling into the ESC voltage, improve RF isolation, and better broadband performance (i.e. first filter for first frequency range, second filter for a second frequency range). Lastly, as seen above, Figure 2 and paragraph [0038], Yokogawa et al. shows that "element 32" is "in the dielectric 22".
Hence, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (MPEP 2114). Therefore, since the apparatus of Yokogawa et al. has all the structural components, then it satisfies the claimed requirements.
Applicant has further argued that, even if "element 32" of Yokogawa were a low pass filter, it would additionally not meet the requirement of amended claim 4 that "the low pass filter has a lower surface that abuts the dielectric." Element 32 has a lower surface, but that surface does not abut a dielectric.
As previously stated above, the Examiner interprets this limitation as the low pass filter may be disposed on the dielectric. Hence, as seen above in Figure 2 and paragraph [0038], Yokogawa et al. show that the low pass filter 32 may be disposed on the dielectric 22. Therefore, the apparatus of Yokogawa et al. satisfies the claimed requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawawa et al.’662 teach a resistance element embedded in the electrostatic chuck. Yamazawa’854 teach the use of a first filter circuit and a second filter circuit.
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 Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, 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.
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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights