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 1-13 and 17-23 are pending
Claims 14-16 have been cancelled
Claims 1 and 21 have been amended
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.
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 19-20 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.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable capacitor and a fixed inductor.” There is no support in the written specification for this limitation. Specifically, on the response dated 11/05/2025, the applicant elected Species F (outlined in the restriction dated 09/17/2025). Species F is depicted in Fig. 5F of the instant application, and it comprises an LC circuit wherein every component is variable. As such, an embodiment wherein the components are not all variable is not within the scope of the chosen Species.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable inductor and a fixed capacitor.” There is no support in the written specification for this limitation. Specifically, on the response dated 11/05/2025, the applicant elected Species F (outlined in the restriction dated 09/17/2025). Species F is depicted in Fig. 5F of the instant application, and it comprises an LC circuit wherein every component is variable. As such, an embodiment wherein the components are not all variable is not within the scope of the chosen Species.
Claims 17-20 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.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a length of the resonator antenna from the second point to an end of the resonator antenna being equal to a quarter-wavelength of a frequency of operation of the resonator antenna. Reference to a frequency of operation is indefinite because the characteristic resonant frequency of a coil can be varied. This limitation is indefinite by reference to an object that is variable because a structural dimension is claimed as a function of a variable. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, claim 17 will be read as “A plasma processing system comprising: a plasma processing chamber; a resonator antenna outside the plasma processing chamber, the resonator antenna coupled to an RF source at a first point on the resonator antenna, a matching circuit and a first current sensor being coupled between the RF source and the first point; and a ground terminal coupled to a second point on the resonator antenna,
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected at least based on its dependency on claim 17.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable capacitor and a fixed inductor.” However, on the response dated 11/05/2025, the applicant elected Species F (outlined in the restriction dated 09/17/2025). Species F is depicted in Fig. 5F of the instant application, and it comprises an LC circuit wherein every component is variable. As such, it is unclear how the LC circuit would have a component that is constant when all the components in Species F are variable. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, claim 19 will be read as “wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable capacitor and a variable inductor.”
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable inductor and a fixed capacitor.” However, on the response dated 11/05/2025, the applicant elected Species F (outlined in the restriction dated 09/17/2025). Species F is depicted in Fig. 5F of the instant application, and it comprises an LC circuit wherein every component is variable. As such, it is unclear how the LC circuit would have a component that is constant when all the components in Species F are variable. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, claim 20 will be read as “wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable inductor and a
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) 1-3 and 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619) and Patrick et al. (US 5556549), with Barnes et al. (US 20020041160) and Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Nishimura teaches a resonator antenna system for a plasma processing tool, the resonator antenna system comprising: a resonator antenna (antenna element 142B) coupled to a RF source (power supply 150B) at a first point on the resonator antenna; a ground coupled to the resonator antenna at a second point on the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 4, a ground is coupled to the antenna at a second point), the second point not being an inner end or an outer end of the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the second point of the antenna element 142B is not an end of the antenna element 142B) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050, 0055].
Nishimura does not specifically disclose a first current sensor coupled between the RF source and the resonator antenna; and a second current sensor coupled between the current balancing circuit and the resonator antenna.
Patrick teaches a first current sensor (sensor 704) coupled between the RF source (RF source 702) and the resonator antenna (the RF source may be connected to a chamber electrode or a planar coil) [Fig. 5, 7 & Col. 3 lines 47-55, Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor, controller, and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Furthermore, although Patrick does not specifically disclose a current sensor between an antenna and a current balancing circuit, Patrick does disclose that it is beneficial to utilize sensors prior to impedance adjusters (an to utilize multiple current sensors at different points of a circuit) [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55]. As such, it would be obvious to utilize sensors between any two points on the antenna of Modified Holland. Barnes et al. (US 20020041160) and Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995) also disclose that utilizing sensors or a plurality of sensors is a known technique in the art, and as such, utilizing sensors would be obvious (see MPEP 2143 D) [Barnes - 0042; Yamazawa - 0120].
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Nishimura (Nishimura modified by Holland) does not specifically disclose a controller coupled to the first current sensor, the second current sensor, and the first variable component, the controller being configured to balance a first current measured by the first current sensor with a second current measured by the second current sensor by adjusting a parameter of the first variable component.
Patrick teaches a controller (control computer system 716) coupled to the first current sensor, the second current sensor, and the first variable component (the control computer system 716 is coupled to all elements in the circuit shown in Fig. 7), the controller being configured to balance a first current measured by the first current sensor with a second current measured by the second current sensor by adjusting a parameter of the first variable component (the computer system 716 controls the RF source 702, matching network 706, and parameter network 710 based off of measurements from the sensors 704, 708, and 712; the matching network 706 may comprise variable capacitors 106 as shown in the Fig. 1 which may have their values adjusted so as to obtain desired RF characteristics) [Fig. 1, 5, 7 & Col. 3 lines 47-55, Col. 7 lines 13-25, Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 15-23, 40-55].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor, controller, and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Furthermore, although taught by the prior art, the limitations “the controller being configured to balance a first current measured by the first current sensor with a second current measured by the second current sensor by adjusting a parameter of the first variable component,” 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).
Regarding Claim 3:
Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable capacitor.
Holland teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable capacitor (capacitors 131 and 133 are variable capacitors, as evidenced by Fig. 2) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Regarding Claim 5:
Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable resistor.
Holland teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable resistor (the variable impedance 134 may comprise a variable resistor 135) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Regarding Claim 6:
Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the current balancing circuit further comprises a second variable component, the second variable component being a different type of component from the first variable component.
Holland teaches wherein the current balancing circuit further comprises a second variable component, the second variable component being a different type of component from the first variable component (the variable impedance 134 comprises a plurality of variable capacitors 133 and variable resistors 135) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Regarding Claim 7:
Nishimura teaches wherein the resonator antenna is a flat coil antenna (the antenna element 142B is a planar antenna) [Fig. 4 & 0109].
Regarding Claim 8:
Nishimura teaches an absorption coil (antenna element 142B) surrounded by the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the antenna element 142B surrounds antenna element 142A) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050, 0055].
Regarding Claim 9:
Nishimura teaches wherein an inner end and an outer end of the resonator antenna are electrically floating (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the ground and power connections are not at the ends of antenna element 142B) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050, 0055].
Regarding Claim 10:
Nishimura teaches wherein a frequency of the RF source is at least 13.56 MHz (the power supply 150B may operate at 13.56 MHz) [Fig. 4 & 0057].
Furthermore, although taught by the prior art, the limitations of claim 10 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).
Regarding Claim 11:
The limitations of claim 11 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 power supply 150B of Nishimura is controllable and is capable of supplying pulsed power at a variety of frequencies [Nishimura - 0125].
Regarding Claim 12:
The limitations of claim 11 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 power supply 150B of Nishimura is controllable and is capable of supplying pulsed power at a variety of frequencies [Nishimura - 0125].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Nishimura (Nishimura modified by Holland) does not specifically disclose a matching circuit coupled between the RF source and the first current sensor, wherein the matching circuit is separate from the current balancing circuit.
Patrick teaches a matching circuit (matching network 706) coupled between the RF source (RF source 702) and the first current sensor (sensor 704), wherein the matching circuit is separate from the current balancing circuit [Fig. 5, 7 & Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619) and Patrick et al. (US 5556549), with Barnes et al. (US 20020041160) and Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-13 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20140302256) and Collins et al. (US 5392018), with Chen et al. (US 20220406565) and Redeker et al. (US 5800621) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 5-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein a component is an inductor.
Chen ‘256 teaches wherein a first component is an inductor (inductance L20) [Fig. 4 & 0052].
It would have been obvious to modify the current balancing circuit of Modified Nishimura to comprise an inductor, as in Chen '256, to provide further control over impedance [Chen ‘256 - 0032, 0053-0055]. Chen et al. (US 20220406565) and Redeker et al. (US 5800621) also disclose that impedance adjusters comprising inductors is a well-known technique in the art [Chen '565 - 0027; Redeker - Col. 5 lines 10-20].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable inductor.
Collins teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable inductor (variable inductor 74) [Fig. 3 & Col. 4 lines 30-54].
It would have been obvious to modify the inductor of Modified Nishimura to be a variable inductor, as in Collins, to provide the capabilities for further real-time control over impedance [Collins - Col. 6 lines 26-34, Col. 7 lines 23-35]. Furthermore, substituting a fixed inductor with a variable inductor would be a simple substitution to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 B).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619) and Patrick et al. (US 5556549), with Barnes et al. (US 20020041160) and Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 17:
Nishimura teaches A plasma processing system comprising: a plasma processing chamber (processing chamber 102); a resonator antenna (antenna element 142B) coupled to a RF source (power supply 150B) outside the plasma processing chamber, the resonator antenna coupled to an RF source (power supply 150B) at a first point on the resonator antenna; and a ground terminal coupled to a second point on the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 4, a ground is coupled to the antenna at a second point) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050, 0055].
Nishimura does not specifically disclose a filter circuit being coupled between the second point and the ground terminal.
Holland teaches a filter circuit (variable impedance 145; it's noted that the variable impedance 145 is similar to the impedances 132 and 134 in Fig. 2) coupled between the second point and the ground terminal.
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose a matching circuit and a first current sensor being coupled between the RF source and the first point; a second current sensor coupled between the second point and the ground terminal.
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor, controller, and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Patrick teaches a matching circuit (matching network 706) and a first current sensor (sensor 704) coupled between the RF source (RF source 702) and the first point (sensor 704) [Fig. 5, 7 & Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Furthermore, although Patrick does not specifically disclose a current sensor between an antenna and a current balancing circuit, Patrick does disclose that it is beneficial to utilize sensors prior to impedance adjusters (an to utilize multiple current sensors at different points of a circuit) [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55]. As such, it would be obvious to utilize sensors between any two points on the antenna of Modified Holland. Barnes et al. (US 20020041160) and Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995) also disclose that utilizing sensors or a plurality of sensors is a known technique in the art, and as such, utilizing sensors would be obvious (see MPEP 2143 D) [Barnes - 0042; Yamazawa - 0120].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619) and Patrick et al. (US 5556549), with Barnes et al. (US 20020041160) and Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20140302256), with Chen et al. (US 20220406565) and Redeker et al. (US 5800621) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claim 17 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the filter circuit is an LC circuit.
Chen ‘256 teaches wherein the filter circuit is an LC circuit (RF filter includes inductance L20) [Fig. 4 & 0052].
It would have been obvious to modify the current balancing circuit of Modified Nishimura to comprise an inductor, as in Chen '256, to provide further control over impedance [Chen ‘256 - 0032, 0053-0055]. Chen et al. (US 20220406565) and Redeker et al. (US 5800621) also disclose that impedance adjusters comprising inductors is a well-known technique in the art [Chen '565 - 0027; Redeker - Col. 5 lines 10-20].
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619), Patrick et al. (US 5556549), and Chen et al. (US 20140302256), with Barnes et al. (US 20020041160), Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995), Chen et al. (US 20220406565), and Redeker et al. (US 5800621) as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Collins et al. (US 5392018).
The limitations of claim 18 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 19:
Modified Nishimura teaches wherein the filter circuit comprises a variable capacitor (capacitors 131 and 133 are variable capacitors, as evidenced by Fig. 2) [Holland - Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable inductor.
Collins teaches wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable inductor (variable inductor 74) [Fig. 3 & Col. 4 lines 30-54].
It would have been obvious to modify the inductor of Modified Nishimura to be a variable inductor, as in Collins, to provide the capabilities for further real-time control over impedance [Collins - Col. 6 lines 26-34, Col. 7 lines 23-35]. Furthermore, substituting a fixed inductor with a variable inductor would be a simple substitution to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 B).
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Nishimura teaches wherein the filter circuit comprises a variable capacitor (capacitors 131 and 133 are variable capacitors, as evidenced by Fig. 2) [Holland - Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable inductor.
Collins teaches wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable inductor (variable inductor 74) [Fig. 3 & Col. 4 lines 30-54].
It would have been obvious to modify the inductor of Modified Nishimura to be a variable inductor, as in Collins, to provide the capabilities for further real-time control over impedance [Collins - Col. 6 lines 26-34, Col. 7 lines 23-35]. Furthermore, substituting a fixed inductor with a variable inductor would be a simple substitution to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 B).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619) and Patrick et al. (US 5556549), with Barnes et al. (US 20020041160) and Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 21:
Nishimura teaches a plasma processing system comprising: a plasma processing chamber (processing chamber 102); a resonator antenna (antenna element 142B) coupled to a RF source (power supply 150B) outside the plasma processing chamber, the resonator antenna coupled to an RF source (power supply 150B) at a first point on the resonator antenna, the second point not being an inner end or an outer end of the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the second point of the antenna element 142B is not an end of the antenna element 142B) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050, 0055].
Nishimura does not specifically disclose a current balancing circuit coupled to the resonator antenna at a second point on the resonator antenna, the current balancing circuit comprising a first variable component, the current balancing circuit being further coupled to a ground terminal.
Holland teaches a current balancing circuit (variable impedance 145; it's noted that the variable impedance 145 is similar to the impedances 132 and 134 in Fig. 2) coupled to the resonator antenna at a second point on the resonator antenna, the current balancing circuit comprising a first variable component (capacitors 131 and 133), the current balancing circuit being further coupled to a ground terminal (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the impedance 145 is coupled to a ground terminal) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose a first current sensor coupled between the RF source and the first point; and a second current sensor coupled between the second point and the ground terminal.
Patrick teaches a first current sensor (sensor 704) coupled between the RF source (RF source 702) and the first point (sensor 704) [Fig. 5, 7 & Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Furthermore, although Patrick does not specifically disclose a current sensor between an antenna and a current balancing circuit, Patrick does disclose that it is beneficial to utilize sensors prior to impedance adjusters (an to utilize multiple current sensors at different points of a circuit) [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55]. As such, it would be obvious to utilize sensors between any two points on the antenna of Modified Holland. Barnes et al. (US 20020041160) and Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995) also disclose that utilizing sensors or a plurality of sensors is a known technique in the art, and as such, utilizing sensors would be obvious (see MPEP 2143 D) [Barnes - 0042; Yamazawa - 0120].
Regarding Claim 22:
Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable capacitor.
Holland teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable capacitor (capacitors 131 and 133 are variable capacitors, as evidenced by Fig. 2) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619) and Patrick et al. (US 5556549), with Barnes et al. (US 20020041160) and Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 21-22 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20140302256) and Collins et al. (US 5392018), with Chen et al. (US 20220406565) and Redeker et al. (US 5800621) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 5-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 23:
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein a component is an inductor.
Chen ‘256 teaches wherein a first component is an inductor (inductance L20) [Fig. 4 & 0052].
It would have been obvious to modify the current balancing circuit of Modified Nishimura to comprise an inductor, as in Chen '256, to provide further control over impedance [Chen ‘256 - 0032, 0053-0055]. Chen et al. (US 20220406565) and Redeker et al. (US 5800621) also disclose that impedance adjusters comprising inductors is a well-known technique in the art [Chen '565 - 0027; Redeker - Col. 5 lines 10-20].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable inductor.
Collins teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable inductor (variable inductor 74) [Fig. 3 & Col. 4 lines 30-54].
It would have been obvious to modify the inductor of Modified Nishimura to be a variable inductor, as in Collins, to provide the capabilities for further real-time control over impedance [Collins - Col. 6 lines 26-34, Col. 7 lines 23-35]. Furthermore, substituting a fixed inductor with a variable inductor would be a simple substitution to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 USC 112a have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the specification discloses that the matching circuit disclosed in Fig. 2 discloses that any suitable combination of impedance-adjustable variable components can be used, and as such, the limitation “wherein the LC circuit comprises a variable capacitor,” would have support [IA - 0042].
The examiner would like to note that specifically the embodiment of the current balancing circuit depicted in Fig. 5F was elected. Fig. 5F discloses all variable elements, and as such, the claim limitations must disclose the elements be variable. Even if the applicant discloses that any combination may be used, the elected species shows a specific configuration; utilizing different combinations of fixed/variable elements would be mutually exclusive embodiments (even if any combination can be used, those different combinations would result in mutually exclusive structures), and as such, would fall outside the species elected.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation “a length of the resonator antenna from the second point to an end of the resonator antenna being equal to a quarter-wavelength of a frequency of operation of the resonator antenna,” is not indefinite by reference to an object that is variable because the frequency of operation is a known and fixed physical characteristic of the claimed system. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument, as the frequency of operation being known and fixed does not render it invariable.
Firstly, the specific “frequency of operation” has not been directly specified by the claims. The frequency of operation is an unknown quantity, and as such, cannot be used to directly determine the specific length required by the claims. Furthermore, since the frequency of operation has not been defined, the value of the frequency of operation can be a plurality of different values, and as such, it cannot be properly determined what exactly the claimed length would be. In summary, the claim isn't limited to a single resonant frequency, therefore, the aforementioned limitation would be indefinite due to the value being variable. It's also noted that the claim as it is currently written is directed to a frequency of operation, which can be any frequency; the claim is not limited to a single resonant frequency or a single characteristic resonant frequency.
Secondly, the characteristic resonant frequency of a coil can be changed based on the power applied, as evidenced by Stimson (US 6345588) [Stimson – Col. 20-26]. Yamawaku et al. (US 20160126063) also discloses that the resonant frequency of a coil can be adjusted by changing capacitance [Yamawaku – 0048, 0058]. Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) itself also discloses that the resonance frequencies of the antennas can be controlled and changed [Nishimura – 0097-0098]. As such, the characteristic frequency of an inductive coil can be changed and is therefore variable.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 and 17-23 under 35 USC 103 have bene fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Holland et al. (US 5800619) does not specifically disclose “a current balancing circuit coupled to the resonator antenna at a second point on the resonator antenna, the second point being separate from an end of the resonator antenna.” In response, the examiner would like to note that Holland is merely being used to modify the ground of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit. As such, Holland by itself may not disclose the aforementioned limitation, but the combination of references does. The second point (the ground is coupled to the antenna at a second point in Fig. 4) of Nishimura is not located at an end of the antenna, and modifying the ground of Nishimura to include the balancing circuit of Holland would result in disclosing the aforementioned limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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 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