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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 4/2/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of both groups I and II overlap and does not impose serious burden. This is not found persuasive because search and examination of both groups are not coextensive and will impose serious burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/2/26.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in section [0056] interlock 414 should be corrected to interlock 404 to be consistent with Fig. 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 1A, the refence number 123 should point to the chamber lid rather than to the gas distributor to be consistent with specification section [0018 and 0028] and Fig. 1B. Reference number 120 in Fig. 1A is not cited and not described in the specification. Specification uses 128 as gas inlets that is also consistent with labels in Fig. 1B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number 121 in Fig. 1A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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 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 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:
Bias compensation module (BCM) in claims 3, 4, 10, and 11.
The word “module” is a generic place holder. Specification [0038] describes the corresponding structure as a “circuit” configured to keep the chucking voltage stable and eliminate the effects of pulse-off (stabilize the chucking voltage).
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.
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.
Regarding “a high voltage module (HVM) filter”: this limitation is not interpreted under 112(f) even though it uses the generic place holder “module” because the word “filter” is considered as a structure that perform the claimed function.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorf (US 20220037121 A1) in view of Kubota (US2022-0068604) .
Regarding claims 1, 9: Dorf discloses a plasma processing system 100, Fig 1A), comprising: a radio frequency generator (118) electrically coupled to a substrate support assembly (136, [0038]) and configured to deliver a radio frequency voltage waveform (118, 160) at the support base (claim 1 of Dorf); and a chucking module (150, 116, 151) configured to provide a chucking voltage thereto, such as static DC (claim 1of Dorf, [0047]).
Further regarding claim 9: Claim 9 relates to a plasma processing system, and it shares similar technical features with claim 1 except for an additional feature comprising a junction box coupled (160) to an RF generator (118), a PV waveform generator, and a high voltage supply, the junction box configured to receive an RF signal, a PV waveform, and a chucking voltage (150) , supply the RF signal and the PV waveform to a substrate support base of the plasma processing system, and supply the chucking voltage to a biasing electrode (104) of the plasma processing system. However, the additional feature of claim 9 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Dorf that teaches a junction box enclosure (169, Fig. 1C, [0012, 0013, 0062, 0063]) includes a first bias compensation module compartment (171), a second bias compensation module compartment (171), and a radio frequency filter compartment (162, [0012, 0013, 0042, 0062, 0063]). Dorf teaches that it is common to isolate components from interfering with each other using isolation or junction box enclosure ([0012, 00130064, 0065, 0066, 0067]).
Claims 1 and 9 differ from the apparatus of Dorf and require a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform generator coupled to a substrate support base and configured to deliver a PV waveform to the substrate support base while an RF signal is delivered to the substrate support base.
However, this feature is merely a variation of the disclosure of Kubota that teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising a bias power source (81, Fig. 1) electrically connected to a substrate support (14) and configured to generate bias power for drawing ions into the substrate support, wherein the bias power source is configured to periodically generate a pulsed voltage as the bias power ([0051, 0053, 0054], and claim 1 in Kubota).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have implement the pulsed voltage waveform of Kubota in the apparatus of Dorf in order to generate bias power for drawing ions into the substrate support.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 (junction box): Dorf as discussed above discloses junction box 169, bias compensation module 171 including a capacitor 153 and a tuning circuit (bias compensation circuit 116A), filter assembly 151 (Fig. 1D). The additional feature of claim 2 is merely a variation of the disclosure of apparatus of Dorf considering that the RF generator and a PV waveform generator are configured to deliver an RF waveform and a pulsed-voltage waveform to the support base and a biasing electrode, respectively ([0069] in Dorf). These additional features are merely variations of the disclosure of Dorf considering that the junction box enclosure includes one or more bias compensation module compartments and a radio frequency (RF) filter compartment ([0063] in Dorf).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, 12, 13: Dorf disclose RF matching circuit 161, RF filter 162 coupled to RF generator 118 ([0044]). Kubota discloses the PV waveform generator 81 is coupled to a PV filter 83 ([0051, 0080]). These additional features are merely variations of the disclosure of Dorf considering that RF signal matching techniques are used during a plasma processing of a substrate to avoid the inefficient delivering of RF power to the complex load ([0073] in Dorf).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorf (US 20220037121 A1) in view of Kubota (US2022-0068604) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-13 above, and further in view of Dhindsa (US 20220399194 A) or Gui (US 20220367158 A).
Dorf in view of Kubota disclose all limitations of the claims except for explicit teaching of communication between various electrical components of the junction box and power source through a sensor located between substrate support and the electrical components and power source.
Dhindsa and Gui both teach an arrangement wherein a controller is in communication with various electrical components of a junction box and power sources and through a sensor located between substrate support and the electrical components and power source. The controller is configured to control the operation of all components in order to optimized the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus.
Dhindsa teaches a tuning circuit 170 to adjust and/or manipulate one or more of voltage, current, and/or phase of the RF power used to ignite and/or maintain the plasma 101 (Fig. 1B, [0063]). In some embodiments, one or more characteristics of the generated RF power are measured and/or determined using a signal detection module 187 that is communicatively coupled to the system controller 126 ([0067]). In some embodiments, the data acquisition module 169 is configured to generate a control signal that is used to automatically control one or more characteristics of the RF signal, RF waveforms, PV waveforms, and/or chucking voltages during substrate processing. In some embodiments, desired changes in one or more characteristics are communicated to the signal detection module 187 by the system controller 126, and the data acquisition module 169 may be used to implement the desired change ([0068]).
Gui also teaches a processing chamber 100 further including a signal detection module 188 (Fig. 1A) that is electrically coupled to one or more electrical components found within a processing chamber 100 by use of a plurality of signal lines 187, which are illustrated in FIG. 1E ([0058]). The multiple input channels 172 may also be coupled to various electrical sensing elements, such as a current sensor, which are configured to measure and collect electrical data at various points within the processing chamber 100 ([0059]). Signal information is received by the controller 126 that can analyze and control a desired real-time adjustment of the voltage applied by the DC voltage supply of the clamping network 116 based on the analyzed characteristics of the received signal information ([0059]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have implemented the controller and the sensor arrangements as taught by Dhindsa or Gui in the apparatus of Dorf in view of Kubota in order to control in real-time various applied electrical signals and operations and thus automate the performance of the plasma processing apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Match (US 20220216080 A1) teaches a high voltage power supply or amplifier 316, a chucking sensor 314, RF filter 312, a notch or band stop filter 330, and controller 332 (Fig, 3, [0034, 0035]).
Koshimizu (US 20090255800) teaches HF-RF power 102 with Oscillator 82, matching unit (junction box) 32 including RF sensor 94, filter 90, controller 92, and control unit 80 (Fig. 4, [0087]).
Yamazawa (US 20080236492) teaches DC power 46 with filter 48 and sensor 52 and controller 62. The controller 62 can variably control the impedance position of the variable capacitor 90E via a step motor 98E such that the measured value of the RF leakage current obtained by the current sensor 60 is equal to a set value ([0065]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Parviz Hassanzadeh whose telephone number is (571)272-1435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-1446. 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.
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights