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 claims 1-16 and species D (Figures 10-15) in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 390 (Fig. 3), 410 and 490 (Fig. 4), 510 (Fig. 5), 710 and 790 (Fig. 7), 990 (Fig. 9), 1010 (Fig. 10), 1290 (Fig. 12), 1310 and 1390 (Fig. 13), 1490 (Fig. 14), 1510, 1515, and 1590 (Fig. 15), 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Fig. 20). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3-14 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.
In claims 3 and 11, the limitation “the control unit” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because claim 1, which claims 3 and 11 depend upon, does not previously recite a control unit.
In claim 4, the limitation “a scheduler” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to require the scheduler recited in claim 3 or a different scheduler.
In claim 5, the limitation “the moving unit” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because a moving unit is only introduced previously in claim 2, which claim 5 does not depend upon.
Claims 6-10 and 12-14 are indefinite by virtue of depending on indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) calculating a turn-off duration, comparing a moving time of the moving unit with the turn-off duration, determining whether the turn-off duration is greater than the moving time, and determining whether a first condition and a second condition are satisfied.
The limitations of calculating, comparing, and determining are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “control unit” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “calculating”, “comparing”, and “determining” in the context of the claims encompass the user manually calculating or comparing the turn-off duration and moving time based on observations and data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 7-10 and 13 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. After the calculating, comparing, or determining steps are performed, no action is taken, much less a particular practical application. The claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they amount to generally applying the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), which are not particular applications.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional elements are the limitations of the claims that are depended upon by claims 7-10 and 13. These elements are all well-understood, routine, and conventional methods of supplying and purging gases and setting a variable capacitor (see Kobayashi (US 20230129976 A1), Yamasaki (US 20150004803 A1), and Joma (US 20020160621 A1)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 7-10 and 13 are not patent eligible. It should be noted that claim 14 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it introduces a limitation of performing a second adjustment operation when the first and second condition are satisfied, thus integrating the abstract idea of claim 13 into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20230129976 A1) in view of Yamasaki (US 20150004803 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi (US 20230129976 A1) teaches a substrate processing apparatus including a processing container 12 (first reactor), an RF power supply 55 (power generation unit), and a matching box 53 (matching network) connected between the power supply and a pair of electrodes in the reactor (Abstract, para 0006, 0036-0037; Fig. 2). Kobayashi also teaches the apparatus is used to perform a process including a modification step (S25) in which a modifying gas (source gas) is provided in a (first) plasma atmosphere, purging the modifying/source gas (step S27), performing a nitriding step (S29) by supplying a nitriding gas (reaction gas) under a second plasma atmosphere, and purging the reaction gas (step S31) (para 0098-0102; Fig. 11). Kobayashi also teaches a variable capacitor included in the matching network, where the capacitor is set to initial position to a first value and second value during each of the modifying step and nitriding step (para 0006, 0098, 0101).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly teach setting the variable capacitor to a first value during the purging of the source gas and to a second value during the purging of the reaction gas. However, Yamasaki (US 20150004803 A1), in the analogous art of substrate plasma processing, teaches a first plasma step of forming aa film and a second plasma step of nitriding, where the inside of the chamber is purged between the plasma steps and the setting of the variable capacitor in the matching unit is changed during the purge between the plasma steps (para 0054-0056). Kobayashi teaches the variable capacitor is controlled for each plasma step and repeating the plasma steps (para 0098-0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the initial setting method of the variable capacitor of Kobayashi with the variable capacitor control method of Yamasaki including controlling/setting the variable capacitor during the purge steps between plasma steps including the repeated plasma steps (i.e., setting the variable capacitor to a first value during the purging of the source gas (between modifying step and nitriding step) and setting the variable capacitor to a second value during the purging of the reaction gas (between nitriding step and repeated modifying step)) because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of setting the capacitor for plasma processing. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kobayashi and Yamasaki teaches the variable capacitor may have its capacitance controlled by changing mechanical adjustment positions (moving unit configured to have a capacitance that is changed by movement of the moving unit) controlled by motors (driving unit) that sets the variable capacitor to the first and second values by moving the moving unit to first and second positions (Kobayashi para 0038). Kobayashi also teaches that the capacitor is moved by a control unit that transmits (control) signals to the outside through an output interface (para 0038, 0052, 0087, 0098, 0101) and therefore the movement of the capacitor to the first and second position is in response to a first and second control signal from the control unit.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kobayashi and Yamasaki teaches the variable capacitor in the matching network may have its capacitance controlled by using the control unit to change mechanical adjustment positions with motors that set the variable capacitor to the first and second values by moving the capacitor to first and second positions (first adjustment operation) (Kobayashi para 0038), wherein the capacitance is changed during the purging of the source gas or the reaction gas (Yamasaki para 0054-0056).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kobayashi and Yamasaki teaches a (second) adjustment operation is performed by the control unit to place the variable capacitor in position during the first supplying of the modifying/source gas (Kobayashi para 0098). Alternatively, Kobayashi teaches that multiple adjustments (second adjustment operation) are performed during the ignition steps (supplying of the source gas or supplying of the reactive gas) (para 0084-0092).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a capacitance change range of the variable capacitor during the first adjustment operation is greater than a capacitance change range of the variable capacitor during the second adjustment operation. However, Kobayashi teaches that the matching position of the plasma generation changes are corrections due to the cumulative film thickness in the chamber (para 0112; Fig. 5A-6B). Therefore, the change in matching position and thus change in capacitance in the first adjustment operation is necessarily either the same as, greater than, or less than the change in the second adjustment operation. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the capacitor changes such that the first adjustment change is the same, greater than, or less than the second adjustment change depending on the operating conditions.
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20230129976 A1) in view of Yamasaki (US 20150004803 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joma (US 20020160621 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kobayashi and Yamasaki teaches the control unit is configured to receive a (second) information indicating a voltage from the RF power supply (power generation unit) (Kobayashi para 0006, 0081).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the control unit is configured to receive first information from a scheduler. However, Joma (US 20020160621 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a substrate processing method executed by a control module may include a scheduler that provides information on schedule for processing wafers (first information) based upon the process recipe including the duration of each process to allow the control module to control the process (Abstract, para 0027, 0034, 0036, 0082). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a scheduler with the control unit of Kobayashi to improve process efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kobayashi, Yamasaki, and Joma fails to explicitly teach the power generation unit and the controller unit are configured to receive a turn-off signal from the scheduler, wherein the turn off signal is different from the first information and the second information. However, Kobayashi teaches that the RF power (power generation unit) is turned off after the ignition process (para 0084-0092). Additionally, Joma teaches that the control module executes a schedule for the process from the scheduler (para 0027, 0082-0084). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an RF power turn off step/direction/signal in the schedule executed by the control unit to shut off the RF power at the desired time. As a result, an RF power turn off signal would be received by both the controller and power generation unit from the scheduler through the execution of the schedule.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kobayashi, Yamasaki, and Joma teaches the second information comprises a voltage between electrodes and voltage between the electrode and wafer (“related” to power level of the RF power supply) (Kobayashi para 0081) and the first information includes the duration of the process (Joma para 0034, 0036), which is a value “related” to the moving time of the moving unit of the capacitor of Kobayashi because the moving time inherently affects the process duration due to the process not being able to be continued without the moving of the capacitor.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kobayashi, Yamasaki, and Joma teaches the process duration (first information) may be a preset value specified by the process recipe and stored in the scheduler (para 0034).
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20230129976 A1) in view of Yamasaki (US 20150004803 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 6202590 B1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kobayashi and Yamasaki teaches the variable capacitor may have its capacitance controlled by changing mechanical adjustment positions controlled by motors that sets the variable capacitor to the first and second values by moving the moving unit to first and second positions (Kobayashi para 0038). Kobayashi also teaches that the capacitor is moved by a control unit that transmits (control) signals to the outside through an output interface (para 0038, 0052, 0087, 0098, 0101) and therefore the changing of the capacitor to the first and second value is in response to a first and second control signal from the control unit.
The combination of Kobayashi and Yamasaki fails to explicitly teach the control unit is configured to prevent generation of the at least one control signal due to noise. However, Kim (US 6202590 B1), in the analogous art of capacitors, teaches that a variable capacitor including a motive power source for changing a gap between electrodes with a driver for driving the motor power source may also include a noise filter for preventing noise and only allow the direct current signal from the control signal generator (control unit configured to prevent generation of the at least one control signal due to noise) (col 4 line 1-20, col 11, col 12 line 1-12). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a noise filter in the control path associated with the capacitor of Kobayashi to prevent an undesired signal from being received by the capacitor.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kobayashi, Yamasaki, and Kim fails to explicitly teach the noise comprises crosstalk power transmitted from a second reactor adjacent to the first reactor. However, the control unit of Kobayashi in view of Yamasaki and Kim is necessarily capable of (configured to) prevent generation of noise from crosstalk power transmitted from a second reactor adjacent to the first reactor.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20230129976 A1) in view of Yamasaki (US 20150004803 A1) and Kim (US 6202590 B1), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Di Liberto (US 20230352281 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kobayashi, Yamasaki, and Kim fails to explicitly teach the noise comprises crosstalk power transmitted from a second reactor adjacent to the first reactor. However, Di Liberto (US 20230352281 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that noise can originate from adjacent plasma chambers (second reactor) (para 0009-0010, 0068). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the noise filter of Kim to prevent noise (crosstalk power) from chambers/reactors (second reactor) adjacent to the processing container (first reactor) of Kobayashi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The aforementioned references fail to teach the control unit “performs a second adjustment operation of the variable capacitor after the first adjustment operation when both the first condition and the second condition are satisfied”. Therefore, claim 14 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794