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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 18 June 2024 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 1 and Species 8, in the reply filed on 18 June 2024 is also acknowledged. Applicant timely traversed a portion of the restriction (election) requirement in the aforementioned reply.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are directed to closely related embodiments that share common features and there is no search burden because of these shared common features (variations). This is not found persuasive because the fact that the species have shared features does not negate the fact that the species have mutually exclusive features, wherein the premise of the requirement is based on these mutually exclusive features, not whether or not shared features exist. Additionally, these mutually exclusive features do in fact require a search and examination burden based on the additional time and effort required to address the same individually, as well as in a compounded nature based on the fact that there is more than one group of species. Rejoinder will be considered if and when appropriate.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0027344 to Okunishi et al.
Regarding claim 1: Okunishi et al. disclose a system comprising: a processing chamber (Fig. 1, 10) configured to perform a plasma process with respect to one or more substrates; an electrostatic chuck (14) disposed within the processing chamber, wherein the electrostatic chuck comprises one or more electrodes (e.g. heater electrode, heater) (HT); and an analog filter (FD) electrically coupled to at least one electrode of the one or more electrodes, wherein the analog filter comprises: an air-core coil (80, also see, e.g., para. 40) comprising a first coil (e.g. CG3) and a second coil (e.g. CG2) disposed within the first coil, wherein the first coil and the second coil together form an inductor.
With respect to claim 2, Okunishi et al. discloses one or more of a radio frequency (RF) generators (61 and 62) configured to provide an RF signal to the processing chamber or a pulsed voltage (PV) waveform generator configured to provide a PV waveform signal to the processing chamber.
With respect to claim 3, Okunishi et al. disclose an electrical source (“heater controller HC”) to provide electrical energy to the one or more electrodes, wherein the analog filter is configured to protect (i.e. capable of protecting) the electrical source from damage from one or more of the RF signal or the PV waveform signal (also see, e.g., para. 40). Note: regarding intended use, the courts have ruled that 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).
With respect to claim 4, the inductor (i.e. the first coil and the second coil, i.e. the air core coil) is configured to at least partially block (i.e. capable of blocking) one or more of the RF signal or the PV waveform signal from passing through the air-core coil.
With respect to claim 5, in Okunishi et al., one or more of the RF signal or the PV waveform signal has a frequency less than 50 megahertz (MHz).
With respect to claim 6, in Okunishi et al., the one or more electrodes comprises at least one heater electrode (HT).
With respect to claim 7, in Okunishi et al., each of the at least one heater electrode is associated with one or more heating zones of the electrostatic chuck, and wherein a corresponding analog filter) is electrically coupled to teach of the at least one heater electrode (see, e.g., Fig. 3 and accompanying text).
With respect to claim 9, in Okunishi et al., the second coil is folded with respect to the first coil and wound in the same direction as the first coil (see, e.g. Figs. 4-5).
However, Okunishi et al. fails to disclose the analog filter further comprises a choke electrically in series with the air-core coil, and wherein the air-core coil is configured to at least partially prevent voltage saturation of the choke and/or the analog filter comprises one or more of a low-pass filter or a band-stop filter.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okunishi et al. as applied to claims 1-7 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0011611 to Mahoney et al.
Okunishi et al. disclose the plasma processing system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Okunishi et al. fail to disclose the analog filter further comprises a choke electrically in series with the air-core coil, and wherein the air-core coil is configured to at least partially prevent voltage saturation of the choke.
Mahoney et al. disclose a choke electrically in series with a filter in a processing system, and wherein the air-core coil is configured to at least partially prevent (i.e. capable of at least partially preventing as an intended use, see above) voltage saturation of the choke for the purpose of providing a RF blocking circuit as commonly used in plasma processing and manufacturing systems in order to mix DC or low frequency AC signals without perturbing concurrent RF-signals and circuitry within the processing system (see, e.g., para. 55).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a choke electrically in series with the analog filter/air-core coil of Okunishi et al., and wherein the air-core coil is configured to at least partially prevent (i.e. capable of at least partially preventing) voltage saturation of the choke in order to provide an RF blocking circuit as commonly used in plasma processing and manufacturing systems in order to mix DC or low frequency AC signals without perturbing concurrent RF-signals and circuitry within the processing system as taught by Mahoney et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okunishi et al. as applied to claims 1-7 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0133839 to Yamazawa et al.
Okunishi et al. disclose the plasma processing system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Okunishi et al. fail to the analog filter comprises one or more of a low-pass filter or a band-stop filter.
Yamazawa et al. disclose providing a low-pass filter as a feature of a system comprising processing chamber, electrostatic chuck and an air-core coil for the purpose of controlling an amount of radio frequency current introduced from stage to stage of a filter (see, e.g., para. 86).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the analog filter of Okunishi et al. comprises one or more of a low-pass filter or a band-stop filter in order to control an amount of radio frequency current introduced from stage to stage of a filter as taught by Yamazawa et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2014099585 first indicated in the IDS is provided with full translation. U.S. Patent Pub. Nos. 2020/0234924 and 2024/0212985 to Ikeda et al. disclose filter circuits and plasma processing apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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 (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights