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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 11-24 are pending
Claims 2-5, 8, 12, and 14-24 have been withdrawn
Claim 1 has been amended
Claims 9-10 have been cancelled
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewenhardt et al. (US 6356097) in view of Ently et al. (US 20080302652), and Howard et al. (US 20090290145), with Kim et al. (US 20160216100) and Roche et al. (US 20060171848) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Loewenhardt teaches an in-situ current sensing apparatus (probe 102), the in-situ current sensing apparatus comprising: an assembly including an electrically conductive housing (electrode 114) coupled to a dielectric coating layer (second layer 254), a current probe (instrument 116), inductively or electrically connected to the assembly, and at least one dielectric break (window 106) [Fig. 1, 2A, 3 & Col. 3 lines 1-4, 31-57].
Loewenhardt does not specifically disclose a controller electrically coupled to the current probe and configured to receive the sensed current from the current probe.
Ently teaches a controller (controller 108) electrically coupled to the current probe and configured to receive the sensed current from the current probe (the controller 108 may accept data from the current probe within module 144) [Fig. 1 & 0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the current probe of Loewenhardt to be coupled to a controller, as in Ently, to provide automatic control over plasma power based on measured data [Ently - 0039].
Modified Loewenhardt does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to calculate a thickness of the dielectric coating layer based on the sensed current.
Howard teaches wherein the controller is further configured to calculate a thickness of the dielectric coating layer based on the sensed current (direct current conducted from the plasma through the base plate may be monitored over time. The conducted direct current changes as protective layers erode thus increasing resistance in the electrical monitoring layer) [Fig. 4 & 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Modified Loewenhardt to have instructions for determining layer thickness, as in Howard, to determine layer degradation, thereby reducing impact to yield and impact to operating costs [Howard - 0009, 0025]. Kim et al. (US 20160216100) and Roche et al. (US 20060171848) also disclose that using current to measure layer thicknesses is a well-known technique in the art [Kim – 0011, 0066; Roche - 0029].
It’s further noted that the limitations “for a plasma processing system comprising one or more sections defining a plasma channel, the plasma processing system configured to form a plasma in the plasma channel using a process gas, wherein a surface of the dielectric coating layer is configured to physically contact at least one of the process gas or the plasma in the plasma channel; for sensing a capacitively-coupled current within the assembly caused by the formation of plasma in the plasma channel, for electrically isolating the assembly, the sensed current being capacitively coupled through the dielectric coating layer and having a linear relationship with the thickness of the dielectric coating layer such that a higher sensed current indicates a thinner dielectric coating layer,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that claim 1 is directed to “an in-situ current sensing apparatus.” As such, structures that are part of the plasma processing system, but not part of the current sensing apparatus, are not considered structural. The in-situ current sensing apparatus Loewenhardt would be capable of being placed anywhere, and as such, would be capable of being places in a plasma processing system to currents from plasma.
It is further noted that the combination of references disclose all the structural elements of claim 1, and as such, would be capable of measuring and forming a capacitively coupled current through a dielectric coating layer. It’s also noted that the electrode 114 of Loewenhardt measures current through dielectric layers 254 and 106, and as such, Loewenhardt itself would be capable of measuring a capacitively coupled current through the dielectric coating layer.
Regarding Claim 6:
Loewenhardt teaches wherein the current probe is inductively or electrically coupled to the housing (as evidenced by Figs 1 and 2A, the instrument 116 is electrically coupled to the probe 102) [Fig. 1, 2A, 3 & Col. 3 lines 31-57].
Regarding Claim 7:
Loewenhardt teaches wherein the assembly is configured to be electrically coupled to ground for sensing the capacitively coupled current (as evidenced by Figs 1 and 2A, the probe 102 is grounded) [Fig. 1, 2A, 3 & Col. 3 lines 31-57].
Regarding Claim 13:
The limitations of claim 13 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that claim 1 is directed to “an in-situ current sensing apparatus.” As such, structures that are part of the plasma processing system, but not part of the current sensing apparatus, are not considered structural. The in-situ current sensing apparatus Loewenhardt would be capable of being placed anywhere, and as such, would be capable of being places in a plasma processing system to currents from plasma.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewenhardt et al. (US 6356097) in view of Ently et al. (US 20080302652) and Howard et al. (US 20090290145), with Kim et al. (US 20160216100) and Roche et al. (US 20060171848) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 1, 6-7, and 13, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 20100321029), with Hwang et al. (US 20200335313) and Lee et al. (US 20220270852) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claim 10 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Loewenhardt does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to detect a change in composition of the process gas based on the sensed current.
Ito teaches wherein the controller is further configured to detect a change in composition of the process gas based on the sensed current (an I-V curve is obtained by the probe 6, after which, data is presented so that it can determined if a plasma is electrically positive or negative) [Fig. 1 & 0037, 0067-0068, 0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Modified Loewenhardt to have instructions for determining gas composition, as in Ito, to optimize in-plane uniformity and etching rate distribution [Ito - 0007]. Hwang et al. (US 20200335313) also discloses that it would be beneficial to monitor species in a plasma to improve process consistency [Hwang - 0040]. Lee et al. (US 20220270852) also discloses that measuring plasma composition is beneficial so as to enable more accurate process control [Ito - 0154].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 11, and 13 under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 11, and 13 under 35 USC 112b has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6-7, and 13 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 6-7, and 13 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection under 35 USC 103 has been set forth herein in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 11, and 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “the sensed current being capacitively coupled through the dielectric coating layer and having a linear relationship with the thickness of the dielectric coating layer such that a higher sensed current indicates a thinner dielectric coating layer.”
In response, the examiner would like to note that these limitations are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the combination of references disclose all the structural elements of claim 1, and as such, would be capable of measuring and forming a capacitively coupled current through a dielectric coating layer. It’s further noted that the electrode 114 of Loewenhardt measures current through dielectric layers 254 and 106, and as such, Loewenhardt itself would be capable of measuring a capacitively coupled current through the dielectric coating layer.
Furthermore, the applicant seems to claiming a law of nature in regards to the limitation “having a linear relationship with the thickness of the dielectric coating layer such that a higher sensed current indicates a thinner dielectric coating layer.” In other words, the applicant seems to be trying to claim the result of the measurement performed by the controller and sensing apparatus. This is not considered structural as the limitation is not directed to a positively recited step directly performed by the controller. As such, this limitation is met by the combination of references if the apparatus is capable of measuring a sensed current having a linear relationship with the thickness of the dielectric coating layer such that a higher sensed current indicates a thinner dielectric coating layer (see intended use above).
Additionally, the limitation “the sensed current being capacitively coupled through the dielectric coating layer,” is not considered structural because the current is not a physical/structural part of the current sensing apparatus itself, nor is it formed via a positively recited step by the controller. Rather, the current is what occurs as a result of a plasma being generated in a plasma chamber. The current invention is not directed to a plasma chamber but rather a current sensing apparatus (plasma is not formed within the current sensing apparatus itself). As such, this limitation is met by the combination of references if the apparatus is capable forming and sensing a capacitive current (see intended use above).
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot combine Howard et al. (US 20090290145) with Loewenhardt et al. (US 6356097) because Howard discloses a conductive layer which, if inserted into the apparatus of claim 1, would render the apparatus inoperable. In response, the examiner would like to note that this argument is a bodily incorporation argument. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, Howard is being used to modify Loewenhardt and not the applicant’s apparatus. Including a conductive layer in the apparatus of Loewenhardt would not render the apparatus inoperable as using sandwiched conductive layers that are exposed to plasma is a very well-known technique in the art. In fact, Loewenhardt itself uses a sandwiched conductive layer (electrode 114) [Loewenhardt – Fig. 2A & Col. 3 lines 10-12]. Kim et al. (US 20160216100) and Roche et al. (US 20060171848) also disclose that using current to measure layer thicknesses is a well-known technique in the art [Kim – 0011, 0066; Roche - 0029].
Furthermore, the examiner is not using the layers of Howard to modify Loewenhardt. Rather, the examiner is merely utilizing Howard to disclose that including steps for measuring layer thickness using a current would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the bodily incorporation argument is moot since the examiner is not even trying to incorporate the layers of Howard into the apparatus of Loewenhardt.
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights