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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending in the Amendment filed 02/04/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 7, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20220326607 A1, herein Wu ‘607) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1, 11 and 21 (incorporating subject matter of previous claim 9).
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-14, 17-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20200328128 A1, herein Wu ‘128) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1, 11 and 21 (incorporating subject matter of previous claim 9), and Applicant’s arguments.
However, claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, as set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks” filed 02/04/2026, with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-14, 17-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20200328128 A1, herein Wu ‘128) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues as to the amended claims:
“Wu'128 discloses a plasma in which the OH species (the Applicant's first radical species) is greater than the hydrogen radicals (the Applicant's second radical species), and the oxygen radicals (the Applicant's third radical species). Wu'128 thus fails to disclose or suggest all of the Applicant's recited limitations.” [“Remarks”, pg. 9-10].
In response, this argument is persuasive for the reason set forth by Applicant—in particular, that Wu ‘128 teaches a plasma formed of water vapor which produces hydroxyl radical species in the greatest amount (i.e., greatest area in the OES detector output) [Fig. 4]. Further, Wu ‘128 does not teach supplying a gas mixture that includes both water vapor and oxygen (Fig. 7 shows two separate steps: water vapor mixture in step 702, and oxygen gas mixture in step 704), and therefore the claimed OES profile could not be produced by the method of Wu ‘128.
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 1-8 and 10-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “controlled” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, the claim fails to positively recite an active step of controlling amounts of the radical species, and the limitation therefore lacks antecedent basis. The claim positively recites the following active steps: producing a plasma comprising a plurality of radical species, measuring an OES of the radical species, contacting the photomask with the radical species. However, the first wherein clause recites “wherein amounts of the radical species…are controlled based at least in part on the measured optical emission spectrum”, without any recited step of controlling—either explicit or implied. Applicant must positively recite an active step of controlling the amount of the radical species.
Further as to claim 1, the second wherein clause recites the measured OES that the method intends to achieve (i.e., after a purported control step). This renders the claim logically inconsistent, and therefore indefinite, because if the measured OES already has the intended OES profile, then the method does not take any control step. That is, if the conditions of the plasma and resulting radical species have the claimed OES profile, then the purported control step cannot occur since there is nothing to change. Here, it appears the second wherein clause should recite “wherein the controlled amounts of the radical species produce a measured optical emission spectrum comprising…”
As to claim 8, the limitation “water vapor” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected base claim 1, and failing to cure the deficiencies thereof.
As to claim 11, the third wherein clause recites the measured OES that the claimed system intends to achieve. This limitation renders the claim logically inconsistent, and therefore indefinite, because if the measured OES already has the intended OES profile, then the system does not take any control step. That is, if the conditions of the plasma and resulting radical species have the claimed OES profile, then the control step cannot occur since there is nothing to change. Here, it appears the third wherein clause should recite “wherein the system is configured such that the controlled amounts of the radical species produce a measured optical emission spectrum comprising…”
Claims 12-19 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected base claim 11, and failing to cure the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth as to claim 1, above.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights