DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (7/18/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-18) were subject to an election requirement. Applicant elected claims 1-9 without travers in a response dated 7/2/2025. Therefore claims 1-9 were examined in a Non-Final on 8/27/2025. Claims 10-18 were withdrawn from consideration.
This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 11/25/2025. Claims were amended, so that claims 1, 6 and 9 are pending and being examined.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s arguments are related to the latest amendments and addressed below. It is noted that detection of abnormality by a sensor will depend upon its current measurement compared to its historical measurement when the plasma was stable. The limitation of the threshold being smaller at high power or larger at higher pressure is inherent to plasma behavior since these factors affect the stability of plasma with normally smaller or larger range expected. This however does not point to a structural distinction. As discussed below determination of threshold range would turn up small or large depending upon process parameters. This does not point to any structure or an instruction which could be characterized as structure but only a result of a determination of threshold which method is disclosed in the prior art.
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 1, 6 and 9 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.
These claims recite an arithmetic device configured to determine a threshold depending upon the value of high frequency power in claim 1, depending upon chamber pressure as in claim 6 and depending upon substrate information as in claim 9. While the specification appears to repeat the above statements several times, it does not state what the threshold is and how it is obtained when the plasma is stable.
There is no drawing to clearly explain the determination of threshold and detection of abnormality.
The term “threshold” is interpreted according to the specification as best understood as below.
The specification states several related terms
1 Predetermined value (a), which is an average value of measured values from sensor when the plasma is stable (See Para 17 or 31).
2 Measured value (b), is the current value from the sensor during the processing.
3 Threshold appears to be a range of expected values around the predetermined value (a) of the sensor output when the plasma is stable. The threshold depends upon process condition so that for a different process condition threshold will be different.
4 Abnormal condition of plasma is detected when the (a~b) > Th.
In practice this means that abnormal discharge exists when the actual measured value is above or below the threshold value range.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination maybe expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an arithmetic device”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation, “arithmetic device” is disclosed as a part which determines the presence or absence of abnormal discharge by comparing the two values 1 and 2 as below.
Value (1) is the difference of actual sensor value and a predetermined value. Predetermined value corresponds to average sensor values when the plasma is stable (as indicated in para 19 or 33).
Value (2) is the threshold which is the normal deviation around the predetermined value where plasma is considered stable indicating absence of abnormal discharge.
This is how “arithmetic device” is interpreted as to its functioning and structure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a plasma sensor to evaluate and judge the plasma to determine if an abnormal discharge exists. Observation, evaluation and judgement under its broadest reasonable interpretation is akin to a mental process. The fact that a sensor is used to identify a plasma state instead of a possible visual observation does not change the fact of it being abstract since using sensors of this type are so ubiquitous. A judgment depending upon a comparison of the observed value from sensor to a threshold is a mental exercise. Using a processor does also not change the fact of it being abstract.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) do not include any additional elements to use that observation to any practical use. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru Nomura (US 20110277933) supplemented by Imatake et al (US 5759424) and Kamaji et al (US 20190237309).
Masaru Nomura discloses a plasma processing apparatus (Fig 1), comprising:
a chamber in which plasma processing is performed (3);
an electrode part configured to be applied with a high-frequency power for generating a plasma in the chamber (5);
a plasma sensor for measuring a measured value corresponding to an electric potential of the plasma (23); Nomura teaches that the sensor monitors the state of the plasma through plasma potential (Para 30).
Determination of a threshold, depending on a plasma processing condition is disclosed as an upper limit V1(+) and a lower limit V2(-) (See Fig 5(b) description at para 40-41) and the events W1 or W2 corresponding to abnormality. Determination of numerical value of the threshold is discussed in para 40 through Fig 5(a). Determined threshold is stored in (34c). The determination depends upon operating condition parameter (Fig 4, 38).
Nomura teaches that a change in plasma discharge induces a change in sensor (Abstract). Therefore, the determination of threshold will depend upon the plasma state when the plasma is stable.
Regarding amendments to claims 1, 6 and 9, since operating parameters like RF power, chamber pressure, gas and substrate information will determine electrical parameters of the plasma in its the stable state, the potential detected by the sensor will be dependent upon such parameters.
Imatake et al teaches this dependence and its use in determination of threshold more explicitly.
Imatake teaches that in order to detect an apparatus error it is necessary to define a normal apparatus state and a range thereof (corresponds to threshold) and to determine operating parameters like power, gas, pressure and other factors as discussed in (Col 18 lines 33-56).
Stating further:
“Items representing a number of apparatus states are recorded over a period and a mean value and a standard deviation of the apparatus state may be determined based on those data. If the apparatus state is near the average value, it is determined normal, and if it is distant, it is determined abnormal. Whether it is close to or distant from the average value, that is, the threshold for determining the error may be determined with reference to the standard deviation. The average value and the standard deviation may be determined based on the number of data, a total sum of data and a square sum of data.” (Col 18 lines 57-67)
Here the average value corresponds to predetermined value and distance corresponds to threshold.
Imatake et al teach the dependence of plasma characteristics on process conditions like pressure, gas flow and power (See also col 7 lines 19-36).
Still further, Kamaji et al disclose a plasma processing apparatus (Fig 1), comprising:
a chamber in which plasma processing is performed (101); an electrode part configured to be applied with a high-frequency power for generating a plasma in the chamber (109); a plasma sensor (voltage/current probe) for measuring a measured value corresponding to an electric potential of the plasma (301 and Para 40); and a threshold determination section (631) for determining a threshold, depending on a plasma processing condition obtained from (621).
Regarding claims 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that plasma characteristics are dependent upon RF power. Therefore, threshold determination would obviously be dependent upon RF power.
Regarding claims 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that plasma characteristics are dependent upon chamber pressure. Therefore, threshold determination would obviously be dependent upon pressure.
Regarding claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that plasma characteristics are dependent upon contents of the plasma affected by the type of processing, etching or deposition. Therefore, threshold determination would obviously be dependent upon substrate information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizukami et al (US 20100163182) disclose similar sensor in a similar plasma chamber for measuring a measured value corresponding to an electric potential of the plasma (23) and a threshold determination section for determining a threshold, depending on a plasma processing condition is disclosed implicitly (See Fig 4, 6 and its description).
Johnson et al (US 6332961) discloses sensing voltage/current using a threshold to detect abnormal discharge (Col 2 lines 46-64).
Roche et al (US 20060171848) discloses sensing voltage using a threshold to detect plasma status (Para 22).
Ito et al (US 20070058322) discloses sensing voltage using a threshold to detect abnormal plasma discharge (Para 4, 44 and 50).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716