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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species A1, B1 (claims 1-7, 15-16, 18-20) in the replies filed on 05/26/2026 (written election) and 08/18/2026 (oral election) is acknowledged.
Note: Examiner contacted Applicant on 08/18/2026, as the Response to Election filed 05/26/2026 was incomplete due to no selection of Species Group B; Applicant responded to the call and elected Species B1 as an oral election on 08/18/2026.
Claims 8-14, 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, Species A2-A5, B1, B2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the replies filed on 05/26/2026 (written election) and 08/18/2026 (oral election).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Signal generator (direct digital synthesizer {DDS}, para. [0028]) in at least claims 1-7, 15-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation " a low pass filter on the board and electrically coupled between the signal generator and the first mixer " in the claim. There is no embodiment with this limitation. Examiner interprets as “a band pass filter on the board and electrically coupled between the signal generator and the first mixer”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20240412088 to Kanazawa.
Claim 1: Kanazawa discloses an apparatus, comprising: a board (304 [circuitry], Fig. 3); a signal generator (324 [signal generator]) for generating chirped signals on the board (302, para. [0061] where transition frequencies are disclosed); a first mixer (323 [upconverter mixer]) on the board (302) and electrically coupled to the signal generator (324);
a circulator (325 [RF circulator]) on the board (302), wherein the circulator (325) comprises a first port that is electrically coupled to the mixer (323), a second port that is electrically coupled to a connector (connector to 326), and a third port (Fig. 3);
a second mixer (329 [second I/Q mixer], Fig. 3) on the board (320) and electrically coupled to the third port of the circulator (325); and an analog to digital converter (ADC) (330 [ADC circuitry]) on the board (302) and electrically coupled to the second mixer (329).
Claim 6: Kanazawa discloses wherein the first mixer (323, Fig. 3, Kanazawa) is configured to up- convert a signal (para. [0063]), and wherein the second mixer (329) is configured to down-convert the signal (para. [0067]).
Claim(s) 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230126790 to Papeer.
Claim 15: Papeer discloses a tool, comprising: a chamber (108 [chamber], Fig. 1-3) suitable for generating a plasma (para. [0080]); a pedestal (302 [stage(s)], Fig. 3) within the chamber (108) for supporting a substrate (110 [target], para. [0068]); and a sensor (320 [sensor]) at least partially within the chamber (108) for measuring plasma properties (para. [0076]), wherein the sensor (320) comprises: a resonator (320) or transmission line; and RF circuitry (102 or 216, para. [0104, 0058, 0061], coupled to the resonator, wherein the RF circuitry is configured to generate chirped pulses that are fed to the resonator (320, para. [0059]).
Claim 19: Papeer discloses wherein the sensor (320, Fig. 3, Papeer) is configured to measure a frequency of the plasma generated within the chamber (108) using the transmission line or a resonant frequency shift of the resonator induced by interaction with a plasma (para. [0108, 0058, 0078]).
Claim 20: Papeer discloses wherein the frequency of the plasma or the resonant frequency shift are used to measure plasma properties (para. [0078]). Additionally regarding the limitations, the courts have held 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. MPEP 2114 II.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of US 20030185287 to Ogawa.
Claim 2: Kanazawa does not disclose further comprising: a phase locked loop (PLL) synthesizer on the board and electrically coupled between the first mixer and the second mixer.
However Ogawa discloses further comprising: a phase locked loop (PLL) synthesizer (214a16 [PLL synthesizer], Fig. 15B) on the board (214) and electrically coupled between the first mixer (214a4 [first frequency mixer]) and the second mixer (214a11 [second frequency mixer]) for the purpose of securing high stability in frequency (para. [0102]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations as taught by Ogawa with motivation to secure high stability in frequency.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of US 20120002972 to Stiffler.
Claims 3-5: Kanazawa does not disclose (claim 3) wherein the signal generator is configured to generate the chirped signal with a pulse length up to 100ms; (claim 4) wherein the chirped signal is a linear chirp, an exponential chirp, or a hyperbolic chirp; (claim 5) wherein the chirped signal has a frequency range with a low frequency up to 0.01GHz and a high frequency up to 10.0GHz.
However Stiffler discloses (claim 3) wherein the signal generator (332 [chirp generator] or RF AWG, Fig. 3C) is configured to generate the chirped signal with a pulse length up to 100ms (para. [0057]); (claim 4) wherein the chirped signal is a linear chirp (para. [0048-0049], an exponential chirp, or a hyperbolic chirp; (claim 5) wherein the chirped signal has a frequency range with a low frequency up to 0.01GHz and a high frequency up to 10.0GHz (para. [0065] where the range overlaps the claimed range), for the purpose of having a wide range of uses (para. [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations as taught by Stiffler with motivation to have a wide range of uses.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of US 20100013711 to Bartlett.
Claim 7: Kanazawa does not disclose further comprising: a band pass filter (19 [band pass filter], Fig. 4) on the board (2) and electrically coupled between the signal generator (13 [DDS]) and the first mixer (20 [first mixer]) and/or a high pass filter on the board and electrically coupled between the first mixer and the circulator, for the purpose of generating and transmitting the chirp (para. [0093]) and/or reducing digital switching transients (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations as taught by Bartlett with motivation to generate and transmit the chirp (para. [0093]) and/or reduce digital switching transients.
Claims 8-14: (Withdrawn).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa as applied to claims 15, 19-20 above, and further in view of US 20220154330 to Cheng.
Claim 16: Papeer does not disclose wherein the resonator is provided along a wall of the chamber, and wherein the RF circuitry is coupled to the resonator through a link that passes through the wall of the chamber.
However Cheng discloses wherein the sensor(s) (132/134, Fig. 1) is provided along a wall of the chamber (walls of 110 [chamber]), and wherein the RF circuitry (139 [controller, para. [0027]) is coupled to the sensors (132/134) through a link that passes through the wall of the chamber (wall of 110, Fig. 1) for the purpose of detecting an abnormality of the process (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Cheng with motivation to detect an abnormality of the process.
Claim 17: (Withdrawn).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa as applied to claims 15, 19-20 above, and further in view of US 20240412088 to Kanazawa.
Claim 18: Papeer does not disclose wherein the RF circuitry comprises: a board; a direct digital synthesizer (DDS) on the board; a first mixer on the board and electrically coupled to the DDS; a circulator on the board, wherein the circulator comprises a first port that is electrically coupled to the mixer, a second port that is electrically coupled to a connector, and a third port;
a second mixer on the board and electrically coupled to the third port of the
circulator; and an analog to digital converter (ADC) on the board and electrically coupled to the second mixer.
However Kanazawa discloses wherein the RF circuitry comprises: a board (304 [circuitry], Fig. 3); a signal generator (324 [signal generator]) for generating chirped signals on the board (302, para. [0061] where transition frequencies are disclosed); a first mixer (323 [upconverter mixer]) on the board (302) and electrically coupled to the signal generator (324);
a circulator (325 [RF circulator]) on the board (302), wherein the circulator (325) comprises a first port that is electrically coupled to the mixer (323), a second port that is electrically coupled to a connector (connector to 326), and a third port (Fig. 3);
a second mixer (329 [second I/Q mixer], Fig. 3) on the board (320) and electrically coupled to the third port of the circulator (325); and an analog to digital converter (ADC) (330 [ADC circuitry]) on the board (302) and electrically coupled to the second mixer (329). Kanazawa discloses all the above for the purpose of generating a RF readout control signal to enable measurement of a component (para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations as taught by Kanazawa with motivation to generate an RF readout control signal to enable measurement of a component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170138847 discloses a signal generator (228, Fig. 2) coupled to a first and second mixer (222B, 222A), with a local oscillator (212) connected to two mixers, and an analog to digital converter (220, para. [0028-0029]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights