CTNF 18/398,217 CTNF 73018 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 in the reply filed on May 5, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claims are properly present, undue diverse searching should not be required and the claims should be examined together. This is not found persuasive because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11 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. In claim 1, lines 8, 9 and claim 2, line 5, the term “the setting value” should recite - - target setting value - - in order to have proper antecedent basis. In claim 5, the term “state space model” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. The term has not been defined. The specification describes models in detail (beginning at paragraph [0062]). It is unclear to what extent the claimed state space model requires the models described. For purposes of the rejection, any model reads on the claim. In claim 9, last line, the term “the setting value” should recite - - target setting value - - in order to have proper antecedent basis. Claims 3-4, 6-8 and 10-11 fail to cure the indefiniteness and are therefore also rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. STEP 1 The claims are directed to a process, a statutory category of invention. The analysis cannot be streamlined because when viewed as a whole, the eligibility of the claims are not self-evident. The claims recite mental steps “calculating” without integrating the results of the calculating into a positive step. In other words, all possible uses of the calculating are preempted. STEP 2A – Prong One Claim 1 recites “acquiring a target setting value” which is a mental processes. For example, acquiring can be looking up a value in a table, which is an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, and is a mental process. Mental processes are abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Claim 1 also recites “calculating a processing condition … based on the emission intensity … and the setting value…” This claim element recites a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). STEP 2A – Prong Two The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Such integration may include reciting additional elements that apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment. Here, claim 1 calculates a processing condition, but then does not integrate the calculation into a practical application. Upon determining the calculation, the claim does not do, i.e. integrate, anything with the abstract idea. The claim fails to provide additional limitations that transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application of the judicial application. MPEP 2106.04 II.A.2. More specifically, the additional elements in claim 1 are: acquiring emission intensity by a sensor that detects emission intensity, and plasma processing by periodically repeated supplying processing gas and exhausting. These additional steps are cited at a high level of generality, and merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, that of plasma etching. MPEP 2106.05(h). STEP 2B Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 merely recites using a sensor for optical emission spectroscopy (“OES”) and also repeating plasma processing and exhausting steps. OES is old and routine (paragraph [0005]-[0009], [0012] Morisawa et al, US 2012/0310403 A1). Repeating plasma processing and exhausting is old and routine (abstract, Xu et al, US 2012/0309198 A1), with optical emission spectroscopy ([0034], Xu). When considered in combination, these steps recite to use a sensor for optical emission spectroscopy during repeated plasma processing. Morisawa and Xu show that steps are known. The steps merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, that of plasma etching, using routine and conventional techniques. As to the remaining dependent claims and newly added claims, these also recite mental steps, or limitations that are well known in the art of etching. Claims 2-11 recite calculating or using a model, which are mathematical operations and are also abstract ideas for the same reasons as described for claim 1. Further, Morisawa teaches that using models in plasma processing and OES is old and routine [0039]. Claims 10-11 recite controlling, but at a high level of generality. The steps in the dependent claims link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, that of plasma etching, using routine and conventional techniques. For the reasons described above, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Morisawa et al (US 2012/031003 A1). Morisawa discloses a plasma processing method [0035] comprising: acquiring emission intensity of radicals by ionization of a processing gas 404 [0104] within a chamber by a sensor 410 [0102] that detects emission intensity [0106] within the chamber 401 (Fig. 4, [0102]), in a plasma processing in which supplying of the processing gas to the chamber (by gas supply line 408, [0104]) and exhausting of inside of the chamber (by exhaust line 407, [0104]) are periodically repeated (because the chamber is not a single-use chamber, but rather the process is repeated between lots [0010]); acquiring a target setting value of the emission intensity (“Y target value” [0108]); and calculating (by computer 411 [0108]) a processing condition of the plasma processing (“process/etching process information” [0108]) which brings the emission intensity closer to the setting value, based on the emission intensity acquired by (a) and the setting value acquired by (b) ([0111]; use of OES data to control by using “control model C” [0108]). As to claim 4, Morisawa discloses controlling the power 415 (Fig.4, [0140]) of the radio-frequency power supplied to the chamber as a processing condition for control model 632 [0140]. As to claim 5, the control model 632 of Morisawa is a state space model because it uses values of the state of the plasma [0140]. As to claim 6, Morisawa discloses to update the model according to pressure 414 (Fig. 4) and power 415 as cited [0140]. As to claim 7, Morisawa discloses to update based on differences as cited [0133]. As to claim 8, Morisawa discloses to model a disturbance (an impossibility leads to an error message, [0254]). As to claim 9, Morisawa discloses to model two or more types of radicals as cited [0282]. As to claim 10, Morisawa discloses to include time steps as cited [0032]. As to claim 11, Morisawa discloses to calculate at a given time point [0097], which encompasses using an earliest time step as cited . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-3 are allowable over the prior art, and would be allowable if the 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 rejections are overcome. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose a plasma processing method comprising wherein in (a), a gas flow rate of the processing gas supplied to the chamber and an operation amount of an adjuster that adjusts an exhaust volume of the chamber are further acquired, and in (c), the processing condition is calculated based on the emission intensity, the gas flow rate, and the operation amount acquired by (a), and the setting value acquired by (b), as in the context of claim 2. The closest prior art, Morisawa et al (US 2012/031003 A1), discloses some elements of claim 2, but fails to disclose the combination. Morisawa discloses controlling the flow rate 413 (Fig. 4, [0140]) and including that in the step (c) calculation of processing condition using control model 632 [0140]. However, Morisawa fails to also disclose to acquire an operation amount of an adjuster that adjusts an exhaust volume of the chamber. Morisawa also fails to therefore, in (c), include the operation amount and the gas flow rate when calculating a processing condition of the plasma processing, in combination with emission intensity of step (a) and target setting value of step (b), as in the context of claim 2. While flow rate is connected to the exhaust rate, including both flow rate and operation amount of an adjuster that adjusts an exhaust volume is not contemplated by Morisawa. The prior art also fails to disclose monitoring an operation amount of an adjuster that adjusts an exhaust volume of a plasma chamber. Accordingly, there is no motivation to modify the method of Morisawa to arrive at the invention, as in the context of claim 2 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moslehi (US 5,082,517) is cited to show controlling flow rate or pressure to obtain a desired plasma density based on plasma emission. Lane et al (US 2018/0130669 A1) is cited to show OES for real-time metrology for alternating cyclical plasma exposure steps ([0069], Fig.2). Xu et al (US 2012/0309198 A1) is cited to show more efficient use by timing the introduction of deposition and etch gases (claim 1), faster etching and more efficient use of resources [0031] with control that uses OES [0034] . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-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, 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. /ANITA K ALANKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/398,217 Page 2 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/398,217 Page 3 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/398,217 Page 4 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/398,217 Page 5 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/398,217 Page 6 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/398,217 Page 7 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/398,217 Page 8 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/398,217 Page 9 Art Unit: 1713
Prosecution Insights