DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (01/26/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (21-40) were examined in a Non-Final on 8/22/2025. This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 10/27/2025. Claims 21, 34 and 36 were amended.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s amendments are addressed in the office action. As noted below, a voltage less than 10V (rms) points to the effectiveness of the filtering and not to any structural part of the apparatus which would distinguish it from prior art. Regarding IDS please submit on a separate PTO/SB/08a for the examiner to consider. Thanks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-40 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
These claims now recite “a voltage across the cable is less than 10V (rms)”. This limitation is unclear since it is unclear how this voltage is measured. Also, the RF voltage seen at the output of the filter will be related to the input RF voltage and frequency. The claim does not mention it. Therefore, a limit of 10V is not definite. Further the cable has voltage from power supply 126.
For the examination this is interpreted that the filtering of RF is almost perfect so that at the power supply 126 almost no RF is present.
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 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al (US 20180158709) in view of Chen et al (US 6063234).
Tsuji et al disclose an apparatus for substrate processing (Fig 1),
a conductive rod configured to couple to an electrode (connecting conductor between electrode 30 filter 70 in Fig 5); and
a radio frequency filter (70),
the radio frequency filter comprising:
a first capacitor (32a) disposed between the conductive rod and ground, and
an LC resonant circuit (Parallel resonant circuit) disposed between the conductive rod and a second capacitor (32c), the second capacitor disposed between the LC resonant circuit and ground,
the LC resonant circuit comprising:
a third capacitor (32e) and an inductor (32f) disposed in parallel (Fig 5).
Tsuji et al do not disclose a conductive housing coupled to ground when the filter and capacitor are contained in it and grounded through it.
Grounded enclosure to contain electrical components were however well known.
Chen et al disclose a grounded filter box (Fig 3) which includes inductor and capacitor components inside a grounded box (302). The enclosed inductor and capacitors provide filtering of electrical signals and disclose connectivity to ground through the box. Chen et al disclose a cable extend outside the grounded box.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art regarding claims stated above to contain filter components in the box to prevent unwanted capacitive and inductive fields from interfering the operation of the filter and components as taught by Chen.
Regarding the limitation “a voltage across the cable is less than 10V (rms)”, it is noted that this points to the effectiveness of the filtering and not to any structural part of the apparatus which would distinguish it from prior art. Further, since the prior art components disclosed in Tsuji et al are same and connected in identical way as to the claim, they would be as effective in filtering the RF as contemplated in the claim.
Regarding claims 22 and 23 the cable is the wiring connection between the LC resonant circuit and the power supply 34.
Regarding claim 24 and 28, DC power supply 34 is coupled to the electrode 30 through the LC resonant circuit.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, grounded enclosure is disclosed by Chen.
Regarding claim 27 LC resonant circuit and second capacitor are down stream of first capacitor.
Regarding claim 29 cable being the conductor is between the LC resonant circuit and power supply.
Regarding claims 30-32 grounded enclosure including the components is disclosed by Chen.
Regarding claim 33 substrate support (14) includes the electrode (30).
Claims 34 and 36 are rejected with claim 21 as now being of similar scope.
Claims 35 and 37-39 are rejected with claims 21, 34 and 36 as the limitations are disclosed as above.
Regarding claim 40 DC power supply is disclosed by Tsuji et al (34).
Claims 21-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutomu Higashiura (US 20050236111) in view of Lee et al (US 20090237178) and further in view of Chen et al (US 6063234).
Higashiura discloses an apparatus for substrate processing (Fig 2),
a conductive rod configured to couple to an electrode (100); and
a radio frequency filter (108), and DC power supply 28.
Higashiura does not disclose details of the radio frequency filter except that it is connected between a DC power supply and the electrode. Therefore, it would be a low pass filter
Lee et al disclose a RF filter which could be connected so that first end (IN) is connected to the electrode through conductor 100 and the other end (OUT) to the power supply so that the filter would comprise:
a first capacitor (C2) disposed between the conductive rod and ground, and
an LC resonant circuit (Parallel resonant circuit) disposed between the conductive rod and a second capacitor (C3), the second capacitor disposed between the LC resonant circuit and ground,
the LC resonant circuit comprising:
a third capacitor (C1) and an inductor (L1) disposed in parallel (Fig 1).
Lee et al teach that resonant structure (capacitor and inductor in parallel) was well known as a filter component (Par 8).
Therefore, having the resonant structure disclose by Lee as a low pass filter in the filter of Higashiura would have been obvious.
Tsutomu Higashiura in view of Lee et al do not disclose an enclosure coupled to ground when the filter and capacitor are contained in it and grounded through it.
Grounded enclosure to contain electrical components were however well known.
Chen et al disclose a grounded filter box (Fig 3) which includes inductor and capacitor components inside a grounded box (302). The enclosed inductor and capacitors provide filtering of electrical signals and disclose connectivity to ground through the box.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art regarding claims stated above to contain filter components in the box to prevent unwanted capacitive and inductive fields from interfering the operation of the filter and components as taught by Chen.
Regarding the limitation “a voltage across the cable is less than 10V (rms)”, it is noted that this points to the effectiveness of the filtering and not to any structural part of the apparatus which would distinguish it from prior art. Since the prior art components disclosed in Tsuji et al are same and connected in identical way according to the claim they would be as effective in filtering the RF as contemplated in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koji Motoyama (US 20030083034) discloses low pass filters of the claimed type arranged in an array (Fig 2).
Uriu et al (US 20030092397) discloses low pass filters of the claimed type (Fig 11, 87 and 88) and teach that such circuits were well known (Para 255).
Yamada (US 6721427) discloses low pass filters of the claimed type arranged in an array (Fig 1A).
Mi et al (US 20100237965) discloses low pass filters of the claimed type (Fig 10 B).
Taniguchi (US 20140203890) discloses low pass filters of the claimed type (Fig 7, LPF2A).
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716