DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/22/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendments made to each of independent claims 1, 8 and 14 do not distinguish patentably over the previously applied Valcore, Jr et al and Backes et al references, and therefore the rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained and repeated, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valcore, Jr et al (USP 9,462,672) in view of Backes et al (USPAP 2018/0159222).
As to claim 1, Valcore, Jr et al discloses, in figure 1,
an input (the input of matching circuit 106);
an output (the output of matching circuit 106); and
a controller (the unillustrated but inherent or obvious controller in Valcore, Jr et al which performs tuning of matching circuit 106, note that Valcore, Jr et al indicates at column 7, lines 61-64, that matching circuit 106 is tunable, and therefore inherently or obviously there will be some type of controller in figure 1 of Valcore, Jr et al which will output control signals to matching circuit 106 in order to tune it and thereby perform impedance matching between the power sources 160, 162 and the plasma chamber 104).
Not disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al are the recited first through third variable reactive components where the third variable reactive component is different from the first and second variable reactive components, as recited on lines 4-7 of claim 1, where these three variable reactive components are controlled by the controller. Such would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use a controller for controlling first through third variable reactive components of a matching circuit, i.e., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that matching circuit 106 shown in figure 1 of Valcore, Jr et al could be implemented as shown in figure 3 of Backes et al, the motivation for using the Backes et al matching circuit illustrated in figure 3 of this reference is a simple specific-for-broad substitution, i.e., Valcore, Jr et al shows the tunable matching network 106 generically as a blank box which would suggest to the ordinarily skilled circuit designer that any known tunable matching network could be used for implementing tunable matching network 106 in figure 1 of Valcore, Jr et al, including that shown in figure 3 of Backes et al.
As to the limitations recited on lines 9-14 of claim 1, i.e., controlling the first and second variable reactive components to match a load impedance at the output to a source impedance at the input during a first power state at a first frequency, and setting the third variable reactive component to match the load impedance at the output to the source impedance at the input during a second power state at a second frequency which is different from the first frequency, such will be inherent or obvious during the operation of the Valcore, Jr et al figure 1 controller when the capacitance values of the first and second variable reactive components included within tunable matching circuit 106 are varied in response to control outputs of the above-noted controller, note that such tuning of matching circuit 106 will inherently or obviously occur during a first power state at a first frequency--note the Valcore, Jr et al disclosure at column 7, line 28 through column 20, line 61 where this reference discloses adjusting between power states and frequencies, i.e., changing the output power and frequency of the power sources 160, 162 shown in figure 1 of Valcore, Jr et al between multiple different power states and multiple different frequencies, and note that such variation of the power states and frequencies of power sources 160, 162 will inherently or obviously occur simultaneously with the variation of the capacitance values of the first through third variable reactive components used within matching circuit 106 (as noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include first through third variable reactive components within Valcore, Jr et al's tunable matching circuit 106 in view of what is shown in figure 3 of Backes et al).
As to claim 2, the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al will inherently or obviously be configured to control the above-noted first and second variable reactive components together to match a load impedance at the output to a source impedance at the input during the first power state and to set the third variable reactive component so that frequency sweeping completes tuning during the second power state, i.e., as noted above there will be multiple different power states during the operation of Valcore, Jr et al's figure 1, and as noted above tunable impedance matching circuit 106 can obviously include first and second variable reactive components together (any two of the four variable reactive components shown in figure 3 of Backes et al) which will be adjusted for the purpose of matching the load impedance at the output to the source impedance at the input during different power states, and the third variable reactive component (any additional one of the four variable reactive components shown in figure 3 of Backes et al, other than the above-noted any two variable reactive components) will inherently or obviously be set so that frequency sweeping completes tuning during the second power state, i.e., the disclosure in Valcore, Jr et al of changing the frequencies of the power sources 160, 162 from one value to a next value can be interpreted as frequency sweeping, and such frequency sweeping will inherently or obviously complete the tuning during the different power states.
As to claims 3 and 4, note that figure 3 of Backes et al includes a pair of shunt capacitors 302A and 302C, and also includes a pair of series capacitors 302B and 302D.
As to claim 5, although not disclosed by Backes et al, forming the variable capacitors 302A-D shown in figure 3 of this reference using an array of fixed reactive components, i.e., using an array of fixed capacitors, wherein each fixed reactive component is switchably engaged and disengaged, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to form variable capacitors in this manner, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claim 6, the claimed functional limitations will all be inherent during the operation of the Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 matching network when it is modified so that the tunable matching circuit 106 is implemented as shown in figure 3 of Backes et al, again note that figure 3 of Backes et al includes a pair of shunt capacitors 302A and 302C, and also includes a pair of series capacitors 302B and 302D, and note further that all of the four capacitors will inherently or obviously be controlled so as to achieve a desired impedance when the frequency of power applied to the match network changes, i.e., as noted above both the power output and frequency output of power sources 160, 162 in figure 1 of Valcore, Jr et al change during operation.
As to claim 7, the claimed measurement section can be read on either sensor 210 or sensor 212 shown in figure 1 of Valcore, Jr et al (or, alternatively, the claimed measurement section can be read on sensor 272 shown in figure 7 of Valcore, Jr et al), note that such sensors will inherently or obviously be configured to provide an output indicative of an impedance of a dynamic load presented to a generator, i.e., the impedance of plasma chamber 104 presented to generator 160 and/or 162, and note further that the unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al's figure 1 will inherently or obviously be configured to control the above-noted variable reactive components within tunable matching circuit 106 based upon the output indicative of an impedance of the dynamic load, i.e., based on the outputs of sensors 210, 212 and/or 272, where such outputs are indicative of the impedance of the dynamic load 104.
As to claims 8-13, all of the limitations of these method claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-7.
As to claims 14-16, all of the limitations of these apparatus claims are also rejected using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-7 (note column 32, lines 31-44, of Valcore, Jr et al where this reference indicates that the figure 1 embodiment can be implemented as a non-transitory processor-readable medium, which will inherently or obviously comprise instructions for performing the source impedance to dynamic load impedance matching disclosed by this reference).
As to claim 17, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as indicated in the rejection of claim 7 above, i.e., the sensors 210, 212 and/or 272 disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al will inherently or obviously obtain a measure indicative of reflected power, and the disclosure by Valcore, Jr et al of changing between multiple frequencies output from power sources 160, 162 will inherently or obviously perform the function of sweeping the frequency of the power provided during the second power state based upon the reflected power until the power is at the second frequency, i.e., adjusting the frequency of the output of the power sources will inherently or obviously occur in figure 1 of Valcore, Jr et al during the different power states and such will be based on the reflected power measured by sensors 210, 212 and/or 272, and such will occur until the power is at the second frequency.
As to claim 18, inherently or obviously in figure 1 of Valcore, Jr et al as modified by Backes et al, as noted above, the frequency output of power sources 160, 162 will be changed during the above-noted second power state until the reflected power measured by sensors 210, 212 and/or 272 is minimized at the above-noted second frequency.
As to claims 19 and 20, to the extent that Valcore, Jr et al does not disclose the specific values of the first and second frequency of the power sources 160, 162, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the frequency outputs of these two power sources can be set to any values desired, note that it has long been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed on 07/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is that “the rejection reaches the claimed subject matter only by stacking successive suppositions: that Valcore’s functionally depicted matching circuit 106 contains an “unillustrated but inherent or obvious controller”; that Backes’s four-capacitor antenna tuner would be substituted for that circuit; that the assumed controller would then control the individual Backes capacitors; that variation of Valcore’s generator power and frequency “will inherently or obviously occur simultaneously” with variation of those capacitances; and that “any two” Backes capacitors may be designated the first and second variable reactive components while “any additional one” may be designated the third. Each link is supplied by the rejection rather than by either reference.”
Applicant’s first argument is not persuasive because it is incorrect, i.e., the rejection does not reach the claimed subject matter only by stacking successive suppositions, note the rejection above which clearly points out why each of the limitations recited in applicant’s claims would have been obvious from Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 when modified by Backes et al. As noted in the rejection above, the claimed input and output recited in claim 1 are at the input and output of Valcore et al’s matching circuit 106, the claimed controller recited in claim 1 will be inherent or obvious in Valcore, Jr et al because the matching circuit 106 is clearly disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al as being tunable and therefore by necessity there will be some controller in this reference which outputs control signals to the matching circuit 106 in order to perform the disclosed tuning function. As also noted in the rejection above, the claimed first through third variable reactive components recited in claim 1 which are controlled by the above-noted controller, although not disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by a simple substitution of the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al for the generic matching circuit 106 shown in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1. As to the limitations set forth on the last three lines of claim 1, i.e., setting the third variable reactive component to match the load impedance at the output to the source impedance at the input during a second power state at a second frequency different from the first frequency, this limitation will also be either inherent or obvious during the operation of Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 when modified so that the generic matching circuit 106 is replaced with the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al. When such a substitution is made, inherently or obviously the three different variable reactive components within matching circuit 106 can and will be set to different values by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al, note that such inherent or obvious tuning by the controller will inherently or obviously occur during both the first power state at the first frequency (i.e., when the first frequency power source 160 is being utilized) and the second power state at the second frequency (i.e., when the second frequency power source 162 is being utilized). Stated differently, in Valcore, Jr et al as modified by Backes et al there will be two different power states at two different frequencies, i.e., when the two different frequency power sources 160, 162 are activated, and there will also be tuning of the first through third variable reactive components within matching circuit 106, such tuning being controlled by the unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 (again note that Valcore, Jr et al clearly discloses that impedance matching circuit 106 is tunable, and when the specific impedance matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al is used to implement the generic impedance matching circuit 106 of Valcore, Jr et al, the four variable reactive components 302A-D will be included in impedance matching circuit 106 and these four variable reactive components will be controlled, i.e., tuned, by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al.
Applicant’s second argument is that “[t]he independent claims do not merely require three adjustable reactive components situated somewhere within a tunable network. Claim 1 requires a controller configured to perform two state-differentiated operations: controlling the first and second variable reactive components to match during a first power state at a first frequency, and setting the third variable reactive component to match during a second power state at a second frequency. Claims 8 and 14 recite corresponding method steps and processor instructions. A structural substitution yielding several tunable capacitors does not disclose, and the rejection does not explain, why the resulting system would allocate those components between power states as claimed. See MPEP 2143, 2143.03.”
Applicant second argument is not persuasive for the same reason noted above, i.e., rejection does not reach the claimed subject matter only by stacking successive suppositions, note the rejection above which clearly points out why each of the limitations recited in applicant’s claims would have been obvious from Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 when modified by Backes et al. As noted in the rejection above, the claimed input and output recited in claim 1 are at the input and output of Valcore et al’s matching circuit 106, the claimed controller recited in claim 1 will be inherent or obvious because the matching circuit 106 is clearly disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al as being tunable and therefore by necessity there will be some controller in this reference which outputs control signals to the matching circuit 106 in order to perform the disclosed tuning function. As also noted in the rejection above, the claimed first through third variable reactive components recited in claim 1 which are controlled by the above-noted controller, although not disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by a simple substitution of the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al for the generic matching circuit 106 shown in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1. As to the limitations set forth on the last three lines of claim 1, i.e., setting the third variable reactive component to match the load impedance at the output to the source impedance at the input during a second power state at a second frequency different from the first frequency, this limitation will also be either inherent or obvious during the operation of Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 when modified so that the generic matching circuit 106 is replaced with the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al. When such a substitution is made, inherently or obviously the three different variable reactive components within matching circuit 106 can and will be set to different values by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al, note that such inherent or obvious tuning by the controller will inherently or obviously occur during both the first power state at the first frequency (i.e., when the first frequency power source 160 is being utilized) and the second power state at the second frequency (i.e., when the second frequency power source 162 is being utilized). Stated differently, in Valcore, Jr et al as modified by Backes et al there will be two different power states at two different frequencies, i.e., when the two different frequency power sources 160, 162 are activated, and there will also be tuning of the first through third variable reactive components within matching circuit 106, such tuning being controlled by the unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 (again note that Valcore, Jr et al clearly discloses that impedance matching circuit 106 is tunable, and when the specific impedance matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al is used to implement the generic impedance matching circuit 106 of Valcore, Jr et al, the four variable reactive components 302A-D will be included in impedance matching circuit 106 and these four variable reactive components will be controlled, i.e., tuned, by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al.
Applicant’s third argument is that “[t]he Office Action rests the existence of a match-network controller on Valcore at column 7, lines 61-64. That passage states that “an impedance matching circuit is tuned to facilitate a match between an impedance of a source coupled to the impedance matching circuit with that of the load coupled to the impedance matching circuit.” That statement is generic and in the passive voice. It identifies no first, second, or third variable reactive component within circuit 106; it depicts no controller for such components; it specifies no control agent, timing, or criterion; and it does not associate any components setting with any pulse state. A general statement that the network is tuned does not establish the controller configuration of claim 1.”
Applicant’s third argument is not persuasive for the same reason noted above and, moreover, the argument that Valcore, Jr et al ‘s disclosure of tuning matching circuit 106 is “generic and in the passive voice” is not understood, i.e., Valcore, Jr et al clearly indicates that impedance matching circuit 106 is tunable and, as noted above, a controller is clearly required to perform such tuning. Moreover, the fact that this reference does not identify first, second, or third variable reactive components within impedance matching circuit 106 is also not understood, i.e., as noted above, such first through third variable reactive components within impedance matching circuit 106 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the generic impedance matching circuit 106 of Valcore, Jr et al is replaced with the specific impedance matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al.
Applicant’s fourth argument is that “Valcore’s auto-frequency tuners (AFTs 130, 132, 134, 138, 141, 142) do not fill the gap. Each AFT determines a frequency level and supplies it to power supply 160 or 162—that is, to a generator…Valcore nowhere describes an AFT, a power controller, or DSP 140/153 issuing a setting to a reactive element inside matching circuit 106. The AFTs are generator-frequency controllers, not match network component controllers. Significantly, the Office Action concedes that Valcore does not disclose the recited first through third variable reactive components…The controller the rejection supplies is therefore a controller for components the primary reference is acknowledged not to disclose.
Applicant’s fourth argument is not persuasive for the same reason noted above, i.e., the rejection above clearly points out why each of the limitations recited in applicant’s claims would have been obvious from Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 when modified by Backes et al. As noted in the rejection above, the claimed input and output recited in claim 1 are at the input and output of Valcore et al’s matching circuit 106, the claimed controller recited in claim 1 will be inherent or obvious because the matching circuit 106 is clearly disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al as being tunable and therefore by necessity there will be some controller in this reference which outputs control signals to the matching circuit 106 in order to perform the disclosed tuning function. As also noted in the rejection above, the claimed first through third variable reactive components recited in claim 1 which are controlled by the above-noted controller, although not disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by a simple substitution of the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al for the generic matching circuit 106 shown in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1. As to the limitations set forth on the last three lines of claim 1, i.e., setting the third variable reactive component to match the load impedance at the output to the source impedance at the input during a second power state at a second frequency different from the first frequency, this limitation will also be either inherent or obvious during the operation of Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 when modified so that the generic matching circuit 106 is replaced with the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al. When such a substitution is made, inherently or obviously the three different variable reactive components within matching circuit 106 can and will be set to different values by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al, note that such inherent or obvious tuning by the controller will inherently or obviously occur during both the first power state at the first frequency (i.e., when the first frequency power source 160 is being utilized) and the second power state at the second frequency (i.e., when the second frequency power source 162 is being utilized). Stated differently, in Valcore, Jr et al as modified by Backes et al there will be two different power states at two different frequencies, i.e., when the two different frequency power sources 160, 162 are activated, and there will also be tuning of the first through third variable reactive components within matching circuit 106, such tuning being controlled by the unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 (again note that Valcore, Jr et al clearly discloses that impedance matching circuit 106 is tunable, and when the specific impedance matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al is used to implement the generic impedance matching circuit 106 of Valcore, Jr et al, the four variable reactive components 302A-D will be included in impedance matching circuit 106 and these four variable reactive components will be controlled, i.e., tuned, by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al.
Applicant’s fifth argument is that “Backes has no power states at all. It’s capacitor selection turns on which of four Smith-chart regions the measured reflection coefficient occupies…a criterion determined by measured impedance, not by power state identity or by any transition between operating frequencies. Nor does Backes’s “sweeping” correspond to the frequency sweeping the rejection attributes to it. Backes sweeps the tuner through its tuner states to identify the state producing a desired reflected-signal amplitude, while the RF frequency is held at “a specified frequency. Backes thus describes a search across component settings at a fixed frequency--the converse of sweeping frequency to complete a match.”
Applicant’s fifth argument is not persuasive for the same reason noted above, i.e., the rejection above clearly points out why each of the limitations recited in applicant’s claims would have been obvious from Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 when modified by Backes et al. As noted in the rejection above, the claimed input and output recited in claim 1 are at the input and output of Valcore et al’s matching circuit 106, the claimed controller recited in claim 1 will be inherent or obvious because the matching circuit 106 is clearly disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al as being tunable and therefore by necessity there will be some controller in this reference which outputs control signals to the matching circuit 106 in order to perform the disclosed tuning function. As also noted in the rejection above, the claimed first through third variable reactive components recited in claim 1 which are controlled by the above-noted controller, although not disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by a simple substitution of the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al for the generic matching circuit 106 shown in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1. As to the limitations set forth on the last three lines of claim 1, i.e., setting the third variable reactive component to match the load impedance at the output to the source impedance at the input during a second power state at a second frequency different from the first frequency, this limitation will also be either inherent or obvious during the operation of Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 when modified so that the generic matching circuit 106 is replaced with the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al. When such a substitution is made, inherently or obviously the three different variable reactive components within matching circuit 106 can and will be set to different values by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al, note that such inherent or obvious tuning by the controller will inherently or obviously occur during both the first power state at the first frequency (i.e., when the first frequency power source 160 is being utilized) and the second power state at the second frequency (i.e., when the second frequency power source 162 is being utilized). Stated differently, in Valcore, Jr et al as modified by Backes et al there will be two different power states at two different frequencies, i.e., when the two different frequency power sources 160, 162 are activated, and there will also be tuning of the first through third variable reactive components within matching circuit 106, such tuning being controlled by the unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 (again note that Valcore, Jr et al clearly discloses that impedance matching circuit 106 is tunable, and when the specific impedance matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al is used to implement the generic impedance matching circuit 106 of Valcore, Jr et al, the four variable reactive components 302A-D will be included in impedance matching circuit 106 and these four variable reactive components will be controlled, i.e., tuned, by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are similarly deemed to be unpersuasive because applicant is merely arguing against the combination of Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 with Backes et al’s figure 3, i.e., applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to replace the generic impedance matching circuit 106 of Valcore, Jr et al with the specific impedance matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al. These arguments are not persuasive because any person having ordinary skill in the art can and would obviously substitute a specific impedance matching circuit for a generically depicted impedance matching circuit and, moreover, when such an obvious modification of Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 is made so as to replace generically depicted impedance matching circuit 106 with the specific impedance matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al, all of the limitations of applicant’s claims will clearly be met, as indicated in the rejection above, i.e., the claimed input and output recited in claim 1 are at the input and output of Valcore et al’s matching circuit 106, the claimed controller recited in claim 1 will be inherent or obvious because the matching circuit 106 is clearly disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al as being tunable and therefore by necessity there will be some controller in this reference which outputs control signals to the matching circuit 106 in order to perform the disclosed tuning function. As also noted in the rejection above, the claimed first through third variable reactive components recited in claim 1 which are controlled by the above-noted controller, although not disclosed by Valcore, Jr et al, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by a simple substitution of the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al for the generic matching circuit 106 shown in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1. As to the limitations set forth on the last three lines of claim 1, i.e., setting the third variable reactive component to match the load impedance at the output to the source impedance at the input during a second power state at a second frequency different from the first frequency, this limitation will also be either inherent or obvious during the operation of Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 when modified so that the generic matching circuit 106 is replaced with the specific matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al. When such a substitution is made, inherently or obviously the three different variable reactive components within matching circuit 106 can and will be set to different values by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al, note that such inherent or obvious tuning by the controller will inherently or obviously occur during both the first power state at the first frequency (i.e., when the first frequency power source 160 is being utilized) and the second power state at the second frequency (i.e., when the second frequency power source 162 is being utilized). Stated differently, in Valcore, Jr et al as modified by Backes et al there will be two different power states at two different frequencies, i.e., when the two different frequency power sources 160, 162 are activated, and there will also be tuning of the first through third variable reactive components within matching circuit 106, such tuning being controlled by the unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al’s figure 1 (again note that Valcore, Jr et al clearly discloses that impedance matching circuit 106 is tunable, and when the specific impedance matching circuit shown in figure 3 of Backes et al is used to implement the generic impedance matching circuit 106 of Valcore, Jr et al, the four variable reactive components 302A-D will be included in impedance matching circuit 106 and these four variable reactive components will be controlled, i.e., tuned, by the above-noted unillustrated but inherent controller in Valcore, Jr et al.
Action is Final
4. 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.
Conclusion
5. 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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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 2836 July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights