DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Restriction Requirement
2. Applicant's arguments against the restriction requirement are deemed to be persuasive and therefore all of pending claims 1-23 are now subject to examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statements
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/24/23, 05/05/23 and 06/07/24 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on the second line of paragraph [0001], the word "the" should be deleted. On the first line of paragraph [0005], a comma should be inserted after the word "chamber". On the second line of paragraph [0007], the word "define" should be changed to --defines--. On the first line of paragraph [0009], the word --which-- should be inserted after "method". On the last five lines of paragraph [0009], "Generating...second electrode." should be rewritten because it is not a complete sentence (and note the same for "Altering...first RF waveform.", i.e., this is also not a complete sentence). On the penultimate line of paragraph [0028], the word "include" should be changed to --provide--. In paragraph [0029], "Whereby...plasma processing chamber." should be rewritten because it too is not a complete sentence. On the first line of paragraph [0030], the word --obtained-- should be inserted after "data". On the second line of paragraph [0031], a comma should be inserted after the word "characteristics". On line 11 of paragraph [0032], "126" should be deleted. On line 9 of paragraph [0034], the word --applied-- should be inserted after "process". On the first line of paragraph [0036], the word "An" should be changed to --The--, and on line 14 of this paragraph, the word "is" should be changed to --are--. On the first line of page 11, "flowrate" should be changed to --flow rate--. On line 15 of paragraph [0038], "a" should be changed to --an--. On line 8 of paragraph [0040], the word "is" should be changed to --are--, and on line 12 of this paragraph, the word "elements" should be changed to -- element--. Also in paragraph [0040], on line 17, the word "is" should be changed to --are--, and "element 125b is" on line 24 should be changed to -- elements 125b are--. Also in paragraph [0040], on line 26, the word "element" should be changed to --elements--. On the second line of paragraph [0043], the comma after the word "code" should be deleted. On the second line of paragraph [0044], the word "is" should be changed to --are--. On line 30 of paragraph [0044], a comma should be inserted after "3B", and on line 31 of this paragraph, the word "portion" should be changed to --portions--. On line 34 of paragraph [0044], the word "are" should be changed to --is--. On line 8 of paragraph [0045], the word "comprise" should be changed to --comprises--. On the second line of paragraph [0048], the word
--is-- should be inserted at the end of the line after "which", and on line 5 of this paragraph, the word --is-- should be inserted after "which". Also in paragraph [0048], on line 13 thereof, the word "are" should be deleted. On the second line of paragraph [0055], the word "does" should be changed to --do--. On the first line of paragraph [0056], "or/and" should be changed to --and/or--. On the first line of paragraph [0057], the word "configurations" should be changed to --configuration--. On line 6 of paragraph [0059], it appears that the word --is-- should be inserted after "170". On the penultimate line of page 24, --a-- should be inserted before "corresponding" (and note that the same insertion should also be made on line 15 of this paragraph). On line 3 of paragraph [0063], "a" should be deleted. On the second line of page 26, --a-- should again be inserted before the word "corresponding". On line 9 of paragraph [0069], --)-- should be inserted after the word "measured". On the first line of paragraph [0070], the word --is-- should be inserted after "depicted". On line 6 of paragraph [0071], the word "generators" should be changed to --generator--. On the second line of paragraph [0073], the word "of" should be deleted, and on line 14 of this paragraph, the word --on-- should be inserted after "based". Also in paragraph [0073], third line from the bottom, the word "collect" should be changed to --collected--. On the first line of page 31, "150" should be changed to -- 54-- (and note that the same change should also be made on the last line of paragraph [0077]).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to because in instant figure 1, no reference numeral 104 is seen, note the last three lines of paragraph [0034] of the instant specification which indicates that a plasma sheath 104 is formed over the top of the substrate support assembly 114. Also, in figure 8A of the instant drawings, it appears that "RF Electrode #1" should be changed to --RF Electrode #2--, and "RF Electrode #2" should be changed to --RF Electrode #1--, the reason being that the output of the tuning circuit is applied to the second electrode, not the first electrode, as indicated in claim 1, on lines 15-16 thereof. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
6. 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.
Claims 10 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The recitation in claim 10 that the one or more electrical components include a variable capacitor is indefinite because this claim goes back to claim 8 and claim 8 already recites that the one or more electrical components has one or more variable capacitors disposed therein, i.e., it is not clear if the variable capacitors recited in claim 10 is referring to one of the variable capacitors are ready recited in claim 8, or if it is in addition thereto.
In claim 20, the recitation of "a first variable impedance producing element of the tuning circuit" on lines 13-14 is indefinite because lines 8-9 of claim 20 already recite that the tuning circuit comprises a plurality of impedance producing elements that comprise a first variable impedance producing element, i.e., it is not clear if the first variable impedance producing element of the tuning circuit recited on lines 13-14 is referring to the same first variable impedance producing element already recited on lines 8-9 of this claim, or if it is in addition thereto.
In claim 21, the recitation of "one or more characteristics of the second RF waveform" is indefinite because claim 20 already recites one or more characteristics of the second RF waveform on the last two lines of this claim, and therefore it is not clear if the recitation of one or more characteristics of the second RF waveform in claim 21 is referring to the same one or more characteristics of the second RF waveform already recited on the last two lines of claim 20, or if it is in addition thereto.
Claims 22 and 23 are indefinite in view of their dependencies on indefinite claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
Claims 1-11, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hironaka, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0393021.
As to claim 1, Hironaka discloses, in figures 1 and 2,
a plasma processing chamber (plasma processing chamber 103), comprising:
a substrate support assembly (substrate support assemby 107) that comprises a substrate supporting surface that at least partially defines a processing region of the plasma processing chamber (although Hironaka's substrate supporting surface does not define a processing region of the processing chamber, i.e., because the upper surface thereof is completely covered by substrate 108, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that smaller diameter substrates 108 could be used in the figure 1 apparatus because it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use such smaller diameter substrates in a plasma processing apparatus, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner, and when such a smaller diameter substrate 108 is used, Hironaka's substrate supporting surface will define a processing region of the processing chamber 103);
a first electrode (inner electrode 109) having a lower surface that is positioned over at least a portion of the substrate supporting surface, is substantially parallel to a first plane, and is a first distance from the substrate supporting surface in a direction that is perpendicular to the first plane;
a second electrode (outer electrode 110) having a lower surface that is substantially parallel to the first plane, wherein the second electrode and the first electrode are spaced a distance apart in a second direction that is parallel to the first plane;
a radio frequency (RF) power source assembly comprising:
a first RF generator (RF generator 112),
an impedance matching network (matching box 114 by itself or in combination with matching box 115) having an input coupled to an output of the first RF generator and an output coupled to the first electrode, and
a tuning circuit (the combination of the three tuning circuits 116 through 118) having an input coupled to the output of the impedance matching network and an output coupled to the second electrode, wherein the tuning circuit comprises a plurality of impedance producing elements that comprise a first variable impedance producing element (variable impedance producing element 118); and
a controller (controller 119) configured to control the impedance of the first variable impedance producing element to cause an RF phase difference or an RF amplitude change between a first RF waveform provided to the first electrode and a phase shifted or an amplitude changed first RF waveform provided to the second electrode through the first variable impedance producing element of the tuning circuit (note that inherently during the operation of the Hironaka plasma processing chamber, controller 119 will control the impedance of the first variable impedance producing element 118 to cause an RF phase difference or an RF amplitude change between a first RF waveform provided to the first electrode and a phase shifted or an amplitude changed first RF waveform provided to the second electrode through the first variable impedance producing element 118, note that it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claim 2, the claimed second RF generator reads on RF generator 113, note that it has an output coupled to another input of Hironaka's impedance matching network and it provides a second RF waveform to the first electrode 109 through the impedance matching network, and it also provides a phase shifted second RF waveform to second electrode 110 through the first variable impedance producing element 118, and wherein the frequencies of the first and second RF waveforms can be made different from each other, as noted above it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claims 3-7, the functional limitations recited in these claims will all be inherent during the operation of Hironaka's plasma processing chamber, as noted above it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claim 11, note that the outer electrode 110 shown in figures 1 and 2 of Hironaka encircles the inner electrode 109 on the above-noted first plane.
As to claims 20 and 21, the limitations of these two claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1-7 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 8-10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hironaka, supra.
As to claims 8-10, the functional limitations of these claims will be inherent during the operation of the Hironaka plasma processing chamber, as noted above it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971), and the limitation that the tuning circuit includes one or more variable capacitors would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the capacitors within tuning circuits 116 and 117 could be made variable, i.e., it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that capacitors are typically implemented as variable capacitors for the well-known purpose of being able to vary the impedance characteristics of a tuning circuit, without the need to replace the capacitors with different capacitors having different capacitance values.
As to claim 18, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Hironaka plasma processing apparatus could be implemented using a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions for performing the claimed method steps (a) and (b), i.e., these method steps will be inherent during the operation of the Hironaka plasma processing chamber.
As to claim 19, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1-11.
Double Patenting
9. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/138,733 (note that this application has been published as USPAP 2024/0355587). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the claims of USPAP 2024/0355587. Note, for example, that independent claims 1 and 8 of the '587 publication recite a first RF generator, a tuning circuit and the connections of these two components to first and second electrodes, similarly to what is recited in independent claim 1 of the instant application. The remaining limitations of independent claim 1 of the instant application, i.e., the substrate support assembly comprising a substrate supporting surface, the first electrode having a lower surface positioned over at least a portion of the substrate supporting surface and being substantially parallel to the first plane and a first distance from the substrate supporting surface in a direction perpendicular to the first plane, the impedance matching network and the controller, all would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that these limitations were all old and well-known in the art of plasma processing chambers, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner. The same is true of independent claims 19 and 20 of the instant application, i.e., the limitations of these two claims also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of what is recited in independent claims 1 and 8 of the '587 application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 12-17, 22 and 23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the plasma processing chamber of claim 1 with the further limitation of a third electrode between the first and second electrodes, wherein the third electrode is aligned substantially to the first plane, as recited in claim 12; nor does any of the prior art of record disclose or suggest the plasma processing chamber of claim 1 with the further limitation that the first electrode comprises a plurality of first electrode segments, as recited in claim 14; nor does any of the prior art of record disclose or suggest the method of claim 20 with the further measuring and adjusting steps recited therein; nor does any of the prior art of record disclose or suggest the method of claim 20 with the further step of establishing a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform at an edge control electrode in the substrate support assembly, as recited in claim 23. Claims 13, 16 and 17 are allowable in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on allowable claim 12, and claim 15 is allowable in view of its dependency on allowable claim 14.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada et al (USPAP 2019/0088452) discloses another plasma processing chamber with inner and outer electrodes 114 and 115, respectively, a pair of RF generators 121 and 123, respectively, an impedance matching network formed by matching box 122 and matching box 124, and a tuning circuit, i.e., inductor 130 between the output of the first RF generator 121 and the outer electrode 115.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 February 18, 2026