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 .
Status of the Claims and Preliminary amendments
Claims filed 24 Oct 2024 are examined on their merits. Claims 1-13 are canceled. Claims 14-30 are new.
Specification
Examiner acknowledges and accepts amendments to the Specification filed 19 April 2024.
The disclosure filed 19 April 2024 is objected to because of the following informalities:
para. [0115] recites “an heat generation amount” which contains a grammatical error. Examiner suggest amending recitation to “a heat generation amount” to overcome this Specification objection;
para. [0061]: Equation (4) is disclosed in original specification para. [0060] as representing the thermal resistance per unit area Rthc∙A between the front surface of the electrostatic chuck 18 and the heater, but the equation (4) in para. [0061] does not recite Rthc ∙A and instead recites Rth ∙A which is disclosed in para. [0062] as representing the heat flux per unit area from the plasma to the wafer. Clarification and correction for this discrepancy is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 measurement part (claim 14, 15, 18, 19, 21); output part (claim 14, 15, 17); changing part (claim 16, 22, 23); alert part (claim 17).
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. For the purpose of examination, measurement part (claim 14, 15, 18, 19, 21) shall be interpreted as comprising measurement part 102b which is a part of a programmable process controller 102 in light of para. [0037], [0084]-[0085] and Fig. 3; shall be interpreted as comprising output part 102d which is a part of a programmable process controller 102 in light of Fig. 3 and para. [0037], [0091]; changing part (claim 16, 22, 23) shall be interpreted as comprising changing part 102f which is a part of a programmable process controller 102 in light of para. [0037], [0098]; alert part (claim 17) shall be interpreted as comprising alert part 102e which is a part of a programmable process controller 102 in light of para. [0037], [0096].
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.
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 14 (and dependent claims 15-28), claim 15 (and dependent claims 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28), claim 18, claim 19 is/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.
Regarding claim 14, limitation “the heat input amount” in the second to last line of the claim is unclear and confusing if this is the same or different from “a heat input amount from the plasma” which was recited in claim 14 line 10 or if “the heat input amount” is a different heat input amount such as the heat input amount from the heater or the combined heat input amount from both the plasma and the heater.
For the purpose of examination, “the heat input amount” as discussed above shall be interpreted as referring to any one of the heat input (i.e. flux) from the heater, the heat input (i.e. flux) from the plasma, or the total heat input amount from both the plasma and the heater in light of para. [0087]-[0090].
In light of the above, dependent claims 15-28 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, limitation “a set temperature” (claim 15 line 4) is unclear if it is the same as “a set temperature” recited in claim 14 line 5 or different from it, i.e. another set temperature.
For the purpose of examination, the above discussed limitation shall be interpreted as “the set temperature.”
Further, regarding claim 15, limitation “the heat input amount for each heater” (second to last paragraph) does not have sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Claim 14 established “a heat input amount from the plasma” but is silent regarding a heat input amount from the heater.
For the purpose of examination, the above discussed limitation shall be interpreted as “a heat input amount for each heater.”
In light of the above, depending claims 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, limitation “the heat input amount” (third to last line of the claim) is unclear and confusing if this heat input amount is the heat input amount from the plasma, the heat input amount from the heater, or a combined heat input amount from both the plasma and the heater.
For the purpose of examination “the heat input amount” as discussed above shall be interpreted as referring to any one of the heat input (i.e. flux) from the heater, the heat input (i.e. flux) from the plasma, or the total heat input amount from both the plasma and the heater in light of para. [0087]-[0090].
Regarding claim 19, limitation “the heat input amount” (second to last line of the claim) is unclear and confusing if this heat input amount is the heat input amount from the plasma, the heat input amount from the heater, or a combined heat input amount from both the plasma and the heater.
For the purpose of examination “the heat input amount” as discussed above shall be interpreted as referring to any one of the heat input (i.e. flux) from the heater, the heat input (i.e. flux) from the plasma, or the total heat input amount from both the plasma and the heater in light of para. [0087]-[0090].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 14-19, 22, 23, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 14-19, 22, 23, the claim(s) is/are directed to a plasma processing apparatus. This lies within one of the four enumerated categories (i.e. apparatus) of patentable subject matter (See MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1).
However, determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 in Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis does not end the analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (i.e. mathematical formula, equations, or performance of limitation in the mind), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection (See MPEP 2106.03 Section I).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I Judicial exceptions) without significantly more. Specifically, claim 14 recites "a parameter calculator configured to calculate a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state as measured by the measurement part" and “an output part configured to output information based on the heat input amount calculated by the parameter calculator.”
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: claim 14 limitation of "a parameter calculator configured to calculate a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state as measured by the measurement part," as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. “one or more processors”). That is, other than reciting "parameter calculator” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. More specifically, the limitation of "a parameter calculator configured to calculate a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state as measured by the measurement part," as drafted, in the context of the claim encompasses the user mentally calculating the heat input amount. Similarly, the limitation of "output information based on the heat input amount calculated by the parameter calculator," as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. More specifically, but for the "output part" (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of the process controller), "output information" in the context of this claim element encompasses the user thinking/mentally outputting the information or outputting information using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the above claim 14 limitations recite an abstract idea (see Prong one of 2106.04 (a)(s) in MPEP2106.04).
Regarding Prong Two of revised Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, once the calculation is performed and the information is outputted, the claim recites no further action/application of the calculated information. Although claim 14 recites additional elements including a stage, a heater controller, and a measurement part, the judicial exception regarding the “a parameter calculator configured to calculate a heat input amount …” and “output information based on the heat input amount calculated by the parameter calculator” are not integrated into practical application because the calculation is performed and the information is output and then there is no recitation as being used in any manner to control or adjust operation of any part of the plasma processing apparatus. (note: claim 14 recitation of “control the supplied power to the heater such that a temperature of the heater becomes constant by using the heater controller” is not tied to the recitations of the above discussed judicial exceptions). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106. 04(d).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B see MPEP 2106.05). As currently claimed, the step of calculating a heat input amount and outputting information is not integrated into a particular machine or manufacture (see MPEP 2106.05(b), Section I). Claim 14 recites a stage, a heater, a heater controller, and a measurement part (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as discussed in detail above as comprising a part of the process controller or equivalents thereof), which are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to represent well understood, routine, and conventional parts/structures in the field of plasma processing apparatus (see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d), wherein the limitations regarding limitations calculating a heat input amount and outputting information do not further describe how the steps of calculating a heat input amount and outputting information are integrated into the apparatus to amount to something significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I. Judicial Exceptions) without significantly more. The claim recites “the parameter calculator is configured to calculate the heat input amount for each heater by using the supply power in the unignited state and the ignited state for each heater measured by the measurement part" and "the output part configured to output information indicating plasma density distribution based on the heat input amount calculated by the parameter calculator."
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The limitation “the parameter calculator is configured to calculate the heat input amount for each heater by using the supply power in the unignited state and the ignited state for each heater measured by the measurement part" as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "parameter calculator" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “the parameter calculator is configured to calculate the heat input amount for each heater by using the supply power in the unignited state and the ignited state for each heater measured by the measurement part” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally calculating (or calculating with pen and paper). Similarly, the limitation of "output information indicating plasma density distribution based on the heat input amount calculated by the parameter calculator," as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. More specifically, but for the "output part" (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of the process controller), "output information" in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking/mentally outputting the information or outputting information using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the above claim 15 limitations recite abstract ideas. see Prong one of 2106.04 (a)(2) in MPEP 2106.04).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B see MPEP 2106.05). As currently claimed, the steps of calculating and outputting information are not integrated into a particular machine or manufacture (see MPEP 2106.05(b), Section I). The claim further recites “the stage,” “the heater is individually provided for each of a plurality of division regions of the mounting surface” and “wherein the heater controller is configured to control the supplied power for each heater such that the heater provided for each of the division regions has a set temperature set for each of the divisions regions” and “the measurement part.” The stage, heater having different regions, a heater controller and measurement part are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to represent well understood, routing, and conventional parts/structures in the field of plasma processing apparatuses (see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d), wherein the limitations regarding calculating and outputting information are merely appended to the apparatus limitations without further describing how the steps calculating and outputting information are integrated into the apparatus to amount to something significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, regarding the "measurement part" (interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as discussed in detail above as comprising a part of the process controller), the measurement part takes measurements that are then used by the parameter calculator; this limitation is considered mere data gathering. Mere data gathering in a general way is not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus claim 15, is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I. Judicial Exceptions) without significantly more. The claim recites “a changing part (which is interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller) configured to change a control parameter based on the plasma density distribution such that the plasma processing on the workpiece is equalized.”
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The limitation “change a control parameter of plasma processing based on the plasma density distribution such that the plasma processing on the workpiece is equalized,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a changing part” (which is interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of “a changing part,” the process of “change a control parameter of plasma processing based on the plasma density distribution such that the plasma processing on the workpiece is equalized” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally adjusting the input parameter based on the results of mental calculations performed in claim 16. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Prong Two of revised Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim only recites one additional element- using a “changing part” (i.e. a part of a process controller) to perform the change of a control parameter. The “changing part” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106. 04(d).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The claim 16 limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a process controller/”changing part” to perform the step of changing a parameter amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under U.SC. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I. Judicial Exceptions) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “an alert part configured to issue an alert based on the information output by the output part or a change in the information” wherein “alert part” is interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller, as discussed in detail above.
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The limitation of "issue an alert based on the information output by the output part or a change in the information," as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. “alert part”). That is, other than reciting “alert part,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “issue an alert based on the information output by the output part or change in the information” in the context of the claim encompasses the user mentally acknowledging after doing mental calculations that the resulting information or change is out of bounds. The limitations are described with high generality. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Prong Two of revised Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim only recites one additional element- using a “alert part” (i.e. a part of a process controller) to perform the issuing of an alert based on outputted information or change in the information. The “alert part” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, there is no further action/application after the alert is issued. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B see MPEP 2106.05). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an “alert part” to perform issuing an alert based on outputted information or change in information amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I. Judicial Exceptions) without significantly more. The claim recites “the parameter calculator calculates, for the predetermined cycle, the heat input amount by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part.”
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The limitation “the parameter calculator calculates, for the predetermined cycle, the heat input amount by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "parameter calculator" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “the parameter calculator calculates, for the predetermined cycle, the heat input amount by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally calculating (or calculating with pen and paper). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the above claim 18 limitations recite abstract ideas. see Prong one of 2106.04 (a)(2) in MPEP 2106.04).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B see MPEP 2106.05). As currently claimed, the step of calculating is not integrated into a particular machine or manufacture (see MPEP 2106.05(b), Section I). The claim further recites “the measurement part measures, at a predetermined cycle, the power supplied to the heater in the unignited state and the ignited state.” Regarding the "measurement part" (interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as discussed in detail above as comprising a part of the process controller), the measurement part takes measurements that are then used by the parameter calculator; this limitation is considered mere data gathering. Mere data gathering in a general way is not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus claim 18, is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I. Judicial Exceptions) without significantly more. The claim recites “the parameter calculator calculates, whenever the plasma processing is performed, the heat input amount by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part.”
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The limitation “the parameter calculator calculates, whenever the plasma processing is performed, the heat input amount by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "parameter calculator" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “the parameter calculator calculates, whenever the plasma processing is performed, the heat input amount by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally calculating (or calculating with pen and paper). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the above claim 19 limitations recite abstract ideas. see Prong one of 2106.04 (a)(2) in MPEP 2106.04).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B see MPEP 2106.05). As currently claimed, the step of calculating is not integrated into a particular machine or manufacture (see MPEP 2106.05(b), Section I). The claim further recites “the measurement part measures, whenever plasma processing is performed, the power supplied to the heater in the unignited state and the ignited state.” Regarding the "measurement part" (interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) as discussed in detail above as comprising a part of the process controller), the measurement part takes measurements that are then used by the parameter calculator; this limitation is considered mere data gathering. Mere data gathering in a general way is not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus claim 19, is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I. Judicial Exceptions) without significantly more. The claim recites “a changing part (which is interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller) changes, based on the information indicating the plasma density distribution, a target temperature of a temperature of the workpiece for each of the division regions of the mounting surface.”
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The limitation “a changing part (which is interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller) changes, based on the information indicating the plasma density distribution, a target temperature of a temperature of the workpiece for each of the division regions of the mounting surface,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a changing part” (which is interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of “a changing part,” the process of “changes, based on the information indicating the plasma density distribution, a target temperature of a temperature of the workpiece for each of the division regions of the mounting surface” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally adjusting the input parameter (i.e. target temperature) based on the results of mental calculations performed in claim 22. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 22 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Prong Two of revised Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim only recites one additional element- using a “changing part” (i.e. a part of a process controller) to perform the change of a target temperature. The “changing part” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106. 04(d).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The claim 22 limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a process controller/”changing part” to perform the step of a target temperature amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I. Judicial Exceptions) without significantly more. The claim recites “a changing part (which is interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller) changes, based on the information indicating the plasma density distribution, a concentration of the ejected gas for each of the division regions of the upper electrode.”
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The limitation “a changing part (which is interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller) changes, based on the information indicating the plasma density distribution, a concentration of the ejected gas for each of the division regions of the upper electrode,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a changing part” (which is interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of “a changing part,” the process of “changes, based on the information indicating the plasma density distribution, a concentration of the ejected gas for each of the division regions of the upper electrode” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally adjusting the input parameter (i.e. concentration of the ejected gas for each of the division regions of the upper electrode) based on the results of mental calculations performed in claim 23. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 23 recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Prong Two of revised Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim only recites one additional element- using a “changing part” (i.e. a part of a process controller) to perform the change of a concentration of the ejected gas for each of the division regions of the upper electrode. The “changing part” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106. 04(d).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: The claim 23 limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 23 further recites an upper electrode configured to eject a gas from a plurality of division regions of the upper electorde which is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to represent well understood, routine, and conventional parts/structures in the field of plasma processing apparatus (see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d), wherein the limitations regarding limitations changing a concentration of the ejected gas is not integrated into a particular machine or manufacture (see MPEP 2106.05(b), Section I). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a process controller/”changing part” to perform the step of changing a concentration of ejected gas amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 23 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is directed to a plasma detection method. This lies within one of the four enumerated categories (i.e. apparatus) of patentable subject matter (See MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1).
However, determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 in Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis does not end the analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (i.e. mathematical formula, equations, or performance of limitation in the mind), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection (See MPEP 2106.03 Section I).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I Judicial exceptions) without significantly more. Specifically, claim 29 recites "calculating a heat input amount from the plasma by using the measured supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state" and “outputting information based on the calculated heat input amount.”
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: claim 29 limitation of "calculating a heat input amount from the plasma by using the measured supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. More specifically, the limitation of "calculating a heat input amount from the plasma by using the measured supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state,” as drafted, in the context of the claim encompasses the user/a person mentally calculating the heat input amount. Similarly, the limitation of “outputting information based on the calculated heat input amount," as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. More specifically, “outputting information” in the context of this claim element encompasses the user/the person thinking/mentally outputting the information or outputting information using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the above claim 14 limitations recite an abstract idea (see Prong one of 2106.04 (a)(s) in MPEP2106.04).
Regarding Prong Two of revised Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, once the calculation is performed and the information is outputted, the claim recites no further action/application of the calculated information. Although claim 29 recites additional elements including controlling a power supplied to a heater and measuring supplied power the judicial exception regarding the “calculating a heat input amount… and “outputting information…” are not integrated into practical application because the calculation is performed and the information is output and then there is no recitation as being used in any manner to control or adjust operation of any part of the plasma state detection method. (note: claim 29 recitation of “controlling power supplied to a heater…adjust a temperature of a mounting surface…measuring supplied power” is not tied to the recitations of the above discussed judicial exceptions). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106. 04(d).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: claim 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B see MPEP 2106.05). As currently claimed, the step of calculating a heat input amount and outputting information is not integrated into a particular machine or manufacture (see MPEP 2106.05(b), Section I). Claim 29 recites a heater and a stage, which are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to represent well understood, routine, and conventional parts/structures in the field of plasma processing apparatus (see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d), wherein the limitations regarding limitations calculating a heat input amount and outputting information do not further describe how the steps of calculating a heat input amount and outputting information are not integrated into the method to amount to something significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 29 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. This lies within one of the four enumerated categories (i.e. apparatus) of patentable subject matter (See MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1).
However, determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 in Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis does not end the analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (i.e. mathematical formula, equations, or performance of limitation in the mind), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection (See MPEP 2106.03 Section I).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea (judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.4 I Judicial exceptions) without significantly more. Specifically, claim 30 recites "calculating a heat input amount from the plasma by using the measured supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state" and “outputting information based on the calculated heat input amount.”
Regarding step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis: claim 30 limitation of "calculating a heat input amount from the plasma by using the measured supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. More specifically, the limitation of "calculating a heat input amount from the plasma by using the measured supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state,” as drafted, in the context of the claim encompasses the user/a person mentally calculating the heat input amount. Similarly, the limitation of “outputting information based on the calculated heat input amount," as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. More specifically, “outputting information” in the context of this claim element encompasses the user/the person thinking/mentally outputting the information or outputting information using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the above claim 14 limitations recite an abstract idea (see Prong one of 2106.04 (a)(s) in MPEP2106.04).
Regarding Prong Two of revised Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, once the calculation is performed and the information is outputted, the claim recites no further action/application of the calculated information. Although claim 30 recites additional elements including controlling a power supplied to a heater and measuring supplied power the judicial exception regarding the “calculating a heat input amount… and “outputting information…” are not integrated into practical application because the calculation is performed and the information is output and then there is no recitation as being used in any manner to control or adjust operation of any part of the plasma state detection method. (note: claim 30 recitation of “controlling power supplied to a heater…adjust a temperature of a mounting surface…measuring supplied power” is not tied to the recitations of the above discussed judicial exceptions). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106. 04(d).
Regarding step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis: claim 30 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B see MPEP 2106.05). As currently claimed, the step of calculating a heat input amount and outputting information is not integrated into a particular machine or manufacture (see MPEP 2106.05(b), Section I). Claim 30 recites a heater and a stage, which are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to represent well understood, routine, and conventional parts/structures in the field of plasma processing apparatus (see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d), wherein the limitations regarding limitations calculating a heat input amount and outputting information do not further describe how the steps of calculating a heat input amount and outputting information are not integrated into the non-transitory computer readable storage medium to amount to something significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 30 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 14, 20, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2008/0170969 A1 hereinafter “Yoshioka”) in view of Kofuji et al. (US 2009/0310645 A1 hereinafter “Kofuji”) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2016/0378092 A1).
Regarding independent claim 14, Yoshioka teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising plasma etching apparatus 100, Fig. 1, para. [0035],[0103]) comprising:
a stage (comprising sample stage/sample placement electrode 113, Fig. 1 and 2A, para. [0036], [0038]) provided with a heater (comprising heater film 124 including 124C, 124M and 124E, Fig. 2A, para. [0049]-[0051]) configured to adjust a temperature of a mounting surface (surface of dielectric material film 123, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C, para. [0051]) on which a workpiece (comprising sample 112, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C) as an object to be plasma-processed is placed (para. [0038], [0043],[0059]-[0060]);
a heater controller (comprising temperature controller 120 including 128 and 127, Fig. 2A, para. [0060]) configured to control power supplied to the heater (comprising 124C, 124M, 124E, Fig. 2A) such that the heater has a set (i.e. predetermined) temperature (para. [0038], [0043],[0059]-[0060]);
a measurement part (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a component of a controller capable of performing the claimed functions or equivalents thereof) (comprising control computing unit 127, Fig. 2A and 4, para. [0083]) configured to measure/monitor the supplied power (to the heater, see Fig. 4 having heater power Qhe, Qhm, Qhc, as input parameters to 127; para. [0083]) in an unignited state (i.e. no plasma, Fig. 10A and 10C) in which plasma is not ignited and an ignited state (i.e. plasma ignition from t1 to t4 in Fig. 10A and 10C) and configured to control the power supplied to the heater (comprising 124C, 124M, 124E, Fig. 2A) such that a temperature of the heater becomes constant (i.e. stabilized, para. [0102], See Fig. 6C and 10C) by using the heater controller (comprising 120 including 128 and 127, Fig. 2A, para. [0059]-[0060]);
a parameter calculator (comprising control computing unit 128, Fig. 5, para. [0059]-[0060],[0084]) configured to calculate the heat input amount from the plasma (i.e. Qpc, Qpm, Qpe, Fig. 3) (para.[0082] discloses the plasma heat input amount can be determined theoretically computed or based on real machine data as fit parameters; see also para. [0084], [0093],[0108], [0112]-[0114]).
See annotated side by side Fig. 10A and 10C showing relationship of plasma ignition, temperature of wafer, and heater output with respect to time.
PNG
media_image1.png
825
979
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoshioka does not explicitly teach the parameter calculator specifically calculates the heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power in the unignited and the ignited state as measured by the measurement part; and an output part (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a component of a controller capable of performing the claimed functions or equivalents thereof) configured to output information based on the heat input amount calculated by the parameter calculator.
However, Yoshioka does teach calculating/determining the heat input amount from the plasma by theoretically computing or based on real machine data as fit parameters (para. [0082]) but does not specifically teach how the heat input amount is determined.
Further, Kofuji teaches calculating a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power in the unignited state (i.e. without plasma) and the ignited state (i.e. with plasma) as measured by the measurement part (comprising temperature sensor 15a, 15b, 15c, Fig. 7, para. [0039]) (para. [0062]-[0066], see also Fig. 3). Kofuji teaches that such a configuration enables feedback control of the heater electric power to quickly and stably control the wafer/workpiece temperature (para. [0073]-[0075]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the parameter calculator (i.e. by programming calculations) to calculate a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power of the heater in the unignited state and the ignited state as measured by the measurement part because Kofuji teaches that such a configuration can enable feedback control of the heater electric power to quickly and stably control the wafer/workpiece temperature (Kofuji: para. [0073]-[0075]).
Yoshioka in view of Kofuji as applied above does not explicitly teach an output part (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a component of a controller capable of performing the claimed functions or equivalents thereof) configured to output information based on the heat input amount calculated by the parameter calculator.
However, Yoshioka does teach that the temperature/heater controller (comprising 120 including control computing unit 128, Fig. 1) includes function such as outputting instructions for making the power output from the heater power supply 118 a predetermined value (para. [0059]).
Additionally, Yamamoto teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising processing system 10 including processing apparatus 100, Fig. 2, para. [0045]-[0047], [0055]) including a controller (comprising control apparatus 200, Fig. 1; computer 90, Fig. 17, para. [0147]-[0155]) wherein the controller includes an output part (comprising input/output interface 97, Fig. 17, para. [0148]) configured to output information to a display (para. [0152]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an output part (i.e. a part of a process controller) and configure the output part to output information based on the heat input amount calculated by the parameter calculator because Yoshioka teaches/suggests a controller part configured to output instructions for making the power output from the heater power supply to a predetermined value and Yamamoto further teaches a controller having an output part configured to output information to a display which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand enable an operator to monitor the plasma processing of a substrate from an output such as a display.
Regarding claim 19, see discussion regarding claim interpretation in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 as applied above.
Yoshioka further teaches the measurement part (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a component of a controller capable of performing the claimed functions or equivalents thereof) (comprising control computing unit 127, Fig. 2A and 4, para. [0083]) configured to measure/monitor, whenever plasma processing is performed, the supplied power (to the heater, see Fig. 4 having heater power Qhe, Qhm, Qhc, as input parameters to 127; para. [0083]) in an unignited state (i.e. no plasma, Fig. 10A and 10C) in which plasma is not ignited and an ignited state (i.e. plasma ignition from t1 to t4 in Fig. 10A and 10C) and configured to control the power supplied to the heater (comprising 124C, 124M, 124E, Fig. 2A).
Regarding limitation “wherein the parameter calculator calculates, whenever the plasma processing is performed, the heat input amount by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part,” since the combination (specifically see teachings of Kofuji as applied above) already teaches the parameter calculates the heat input amount from the plasma by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part, as discussed in claim 14 rejection above it would be obvious that the parameter calculator would be meet claim 19 limitation of calculating whenever the plasma processing is performed in order to calculate the relevant parameters during plasma processing for suitable plasma processing control.
Regarding claim 20, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 as applied above.
Yoshioka further teaches wherein the ignited state in which plasma is ignited is a transient state (i.e. immediately after t1 after plasma ignition in Fig. 10A and 10C) in which the power supplied to the heater decreases after plasma is ignited (Fig. 10C shows that after plasma ignition at t1 the power supplied to heater decreases).
Regarding independent claim 30, Yoshioka teaches a plasma state (i.e. no plasma, plasma ignition) detection method/program/operation (para. [0082]-[0083], [0101], [0109]- [0114]) that causes a computer (comprising temperature controller 120, Fig. 2A, para. [0060], [0082]-[0084]) to execute a series of processes, wherein the series of processes include:
controlling power supplied to a heater (comprising heater film 124 including 124C, 124M and 124E, Fig. 2A, para. [0049]-[0051]) such that a temperature of the heater becomes constant (i.e. stabilized, para. [0102], See also Fig. 6C and 10C and (para. [0038], [0043],[0059]-[0060]), the heater (comprising 124C, 124M, 124E, Fig. 2A) being provided in a stage (comprising sample stage 113, Fig. 1 and 2A, para. [0036], [0038]) and configured to adjust a temperature of a mounting surface (surface of dielectric material film 123, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C, para. [0051]) on which a workpiece (comprising sample 112, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C) as an object to be plasma-processed is placed (para. [0038], [0043],[0059]-[0060]), and
measuring supplied power (see Fig. 4 having heater power Qhe, Qhm, Qhc, as input parameters to 127; para. [0082], [0083]) in an unignited state (i.e. no plasma, Fig. 10A and 10C) in which plasma is not ignited and an ignited state in which plasma is ignited (i.e. t1 to t4 shown in Fig. 10A and 10C);
calculating the heat input amount from the plasma (i.e. Qpc, Qpm, Qpe, Fig. 3) (para.[0082] discloses the plasma heat input amount can be determined theoretically computed or based on real machine data as fit parameters);
outputting information (i.e. signal to heater power supply 118) based on the calculated heat input amount (i.e. as shown in Fig. 5, heater inputs Qhc, Qhm, and Qhe are calculated by the control computing unit 128) (para.[0059]-[0060], [0084], [0093],[0108]-[0114]).
Yoshioka does not explicitly teach the calculation of the heat input from the plasma is by using the measured supplied power (to the heater) in the unignited state and the ignited state; and a non-transitory storage medium.
However, Yoshioka does teach calculating/determining the heat input amount from the plasma by theoretically computing or based on real machine data as fit parameters (para. [0082]) but does not specifically teach how the heat input amount is determined.
Further, Kofuji teaches calculating a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power in the unignited state (i.e. without plasma) and the ignited state (i.e. with plasma) as measured by the measurement part (comprising temperature sensor 15a, 15b, 15c, Fig. 7, para. [0039]) (para. [0062]-[0066], see also Fig. 3 and para. [0032]-[0035]). Kofuji teaches that such a configuration enables feedback control of the heater electric power to quickly and stably control the wafer/workpiece temperature (para. [0073]-[0075]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the parameter calculator (i.e. by programming calculations) to calculate a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power of the heater in the unignited state and the ignited state as measured by the measurement part because Kofuji teaches that such a configuration can enable feedback control of the heater electric power to quickly and stably control the wafer/workpiece temperature (Kofuji: para. [0073]-[0075]).
Yoshioka in view of Kofuji as applied above does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
However, Yamamoto teaches a control apparatus (comprising 200, Fig. 1 and 5; comprising computer 90, Fig. 17; para. [0045],[0079], [0148]-[0155]) comprising a computer (comprising 90, Fig. 17) including non-transitory storage medium (comprising random access memory 92, ROM 93, auxiliary memory device 94, recording medium 99, Fig. 17, para. [0148]-[0150],[0153]) to store processing recipes/program and control a plasma processing apparatus to perform a process on a workpiece (semiconductor wafer W, Fig. 2) (para. [0045],[0148]-[0155]).
Additionally, Yoshioka does teach a controller (comprising temperature controller 120, Fig. 1) configured to execute processes (para. [0038], [0059]-[0060]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide/configure the apparatus/controller of Yoshioka to include a non-transitory storage medium because Yamamoto teaches that such a configuration enables storing processing recipes/programs for processing a workpiece (para. [0045], [0148]-[0155]).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 22, 24, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2008/0170969 A1 hereinafter “Yoshioka”) in view of Kofuji et al. (US 2009/0310645 A1 hereinafter “Kofuji”) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2016/0378092 A1) as applied to claims 14, 19, 20, 30 above and further in view of Gaff et al. (US 2011/0143462 A1 hereinafter “Gaff”).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 as applied above.
Yoshioka further teaches wherein, in the stage (comprising 113, Fig. 1 and 2A), the heater (comprising 124 including 124C, 124M, and 124E, Fig. 2A) is individually provided for each of a plurality of division regions (i.e. central, middle and edge, para. [0051]) of the mounting surface (comprising surface of 123, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C), wherein the heater controller (comprising 120, Fig. 2A) is configured to control the supplied power for each heater (comprising 124C, 124M, 124E, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C) such that the heater provided for each of the division regions has the set temperature set for each of the division regions (i.e. center, middle, edge) (para. [0059]-[0060]), wherein the measurement part (comprising 127, Fig. 2A) is configured to control the supplied power by using the heater controller (comprising 120, Fig. 2A) such that the temperature of each heater (comprising 124C, 124M, 124E, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C) becomes constant (i.e. stabilized, para. [0102], See Fig. 6C and 10C), and is configured to measure/monitor the supplied power in the unignited state (i.e. no plasma, Fig. 10A and 10C) and the ignited state (i.e. t1 to t4 in Fig. 10A and 10C) for each heater, wherein the parameter calculator (comprising control computing unit 128, Fig. 5, para. [0059]-[0060],[0084]) is configured to calculate a heat input amount for each heater (i.e. Qhc, Qhm, Qhe, Fig. 5) {as understood from Fig. 4 and 5 and para. [0082]-[0084], the measurement part 127 monitors/measures the heat input from the plasma and a heat input from various power sources including the heater power for each region and then performs a calculation which outputs a temperature which is then in turn used by computing unit 128 to calculate a difference in a set temperature and the calculated/measured temperature and outputs a control to adjust the power of the heater power supply}.
Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto as applied above do not explicitly teach the parameter calculator calculates a heat input amount for each heater by using the supply power in the unignited state and the ignited state for each heater measured by the measurement part, and wherein the output part is configured to output information indicating plasma density distribution based on the heat input amount for each heater calculated by the parameter calculator.
However, Kofuji teaches calculating the heat input amount for each heater by using the supply power in the unignited state (i.e. without plasma) and the ignited state (i.e with plasma) for each heater (i.e. center, middle, edge region) measured by the measurement part (comprising temperature sensor 15a, 15b, 15c, Fig. 7, para. [0039]) (para. [0032]-[0035], [0039], [0053]-[0060], [0062]-[0066], see Fig. 3). Kofuji teaches that such a configuration enables feedback control of the heater electric power to quickly and stably control the wafer/workpiece temperature (para. [0073]-[0075]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the parameter calculator to calculate a heat input amount for each heater by using the supply power in the unignited state and the ignited state for each heater measured by the measurement part because Kofuji teaches that such a configuration enables feedback control of the heater electric power to quickly and stably control the wafer/workpiece temperature (para. [0073]-[0075]).
Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto as applied above do not explicitly teach wherein the output part is configured to output information indicating plasma density distribution based on the heat input amount for each heater calculated by the parameter calculator.
However, both Yoshioka and Yamamoto teach that heat from plasma raises the temperature of the substrate during plasma processing (Yoshioka: Fig. 3 para. [0061]-[0082]; Yamamoto: para. [0088]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that higher density plasma over a region of a substrate would increase the heat of a corresponding substrate surface region.
Additionally, Gaff teaches that plasma density distribution (i.e. profile) affects substrate temperature profile which in turn affects substrate processing uniformity (para. [0008]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the output part to output information indicating plasma density distribution because Gaff teaches that the plasma density distribution affects a substrate temperature profile which in ultimately affects substrate processing wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a configuration would enable an operator of the plasma processing apparatus to view the outputted plasma density distribution and potentially make process adjustments based on the outputted plasma density distribution for enabling optimized/uniform plasma processing of a substrate. Regarding limitation “based on the heat input amount for each heater calculated by the parameter calculator,” Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto as applied above in claim 14 already teaches outputting the heat input amount for the heater wherein Yoshioka further teaches a plurality of heaters and that heat input amount for the heater calculated by the parameter calculator includes the heat input contribution from the plasma and the heat input amount for each heater (Yoshioka: para. [0082]-[0084] See Fig. 3, 4, 5) and Kofuji also teaches calculating the heat input amount for each heater by using the supply power in the unignited state (i.e. without plasma) and the ignited state (i.e with plasma) for each heater (i.e. center, middle, edge region) measured by the measurement part (comprising temperature sensor 15a, 15b, 15c, Fig. 7, para. [0039]) (para. [0032]-[0035], [0039], [0053]-[0060], [0062]-[0066], see Fig. 3), thus limitation “based on the heat input amount for each heater calculated by the parameter calculator” would be met by the combination.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji, Yamamoto and Gaff teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as applied above including outputting information indicating plasma density distribution.
Yoshioka further teaches that the controller (120, Fig. 2A) includes a changing part (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller) (comprising 128A, 128B, 128C, Fig. 5) configured to change a control parameter of plasma processing (i.e. output power of the heater power supply, see Fig. 10C) (para. [0059]-[0060], [0084][0108][0114], see also claim 5 and 6).
Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto and Gaff as applied above do not explicitly teach “based on the plasma density distribution such that the plasma processing on the workpiece is equalized.”
However, Gaff teaches that plasma density distribution (i.e. profile) affects substrate temperature profile which in turn affects substrate processing uniformity (para. [0008]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the changing part/controller to change a control parameter (i.e. heater power supply output) of the plasma processing based on the plasma density distribution such that the plasma processing on the workpiece is equalized because Gaff teaches the plasma density distribution affects the substrate temperature which can be controlled by the heater power and the substrate temperature affects substrate processing uniformity.
Regarding claim 22, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji, Yamamoto and Gaff teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as applied above.
Yoshioka further teaches that the changing part (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a process controller) (comprising 128A, 128B, 128C, Fig. 5) configured to change a target temperature of a temperature of the workpiece for each of the division regions of the mounting surface (para. [0059]-[0060], [0084], [0100],[0108][0114], see also claim 5 and 6).
Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto and Gaff as applied above do not clearly and explicitly teach that the change is “based on the information indicating the plasma density distribution.”
However, Gaff teaches that plasma density distribution (i.e. profile) affects substrate temperature profile which in turn affects substrate processing uniformity (para. [0008]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the changing part/controller to change a control parameter such as a target temperature of each heater based on the plasma density distribution because Gaff teaches the plasma density distribution affects the substrate temperature which can be controlled by the heater power and the substrate temperature affects substrate processing uniformity.
Regarding claim 24, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji, Yamamoto and Gaff teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as applied above.
Yoshioka further teaches wherein, in the stage a temperature sensor (comprising temperature monitors 126c, 126m, 126e, Fig. 3) configured to detect the temperature of the heater is provided in each of the division regions (i.e. center, middle, edge) of the mounting surface (para. [0058]-[0059]; examiner explains since the temperature monitors/sensors 126,c, 126m, 126 e are placed near the heater the temperature monitors/sensors are configured to measure the temperature of the heater).
Regarding claim 26, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji, Yamamoto and Gaff teaches all of the limitations of claim 24 as applied above.
Yoshioka further teaches wherein the temperature sensor (comprising 126c, 126m, 126e, Fig. 3) is provided between the heater (comprising 124 c, 124m, 124e, Fig. 2C) and a coolant (comprising coolant channel 122C and 122E, Fig. 2C) (para. [0058] discloses the temperature sensors/monitors are disposed above layer 125 which is shown in Fig. 2C as between the heater 124 and above the coolant channel 122).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2008/0170969 A1 hereinafter “Yoshioka”) in view of Kofuji et al. (US 2009/0310645 A1 hereinafter “Kofuji”), Yamamoto et al. (US 2016/0378092 A1) as applied to claims 14, 19, 20, 30 above and further in view of Oh (US 2004/0235304 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji, and Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 above but does not explicitly teach an alert part (interpreted under U.S.C. 112f as comprising a part of a programmable process controller configured to perform the claimed functions, or equivalents thereof) configured to issue an alert based on the information output by the output part or a change in the information.
However, Oh teaches a controller (comprising multivariate analysis unit 100 including control unit 107, Fig. 2, para. [0052]) configured to issue an alert based on the information output by the output part or change in the information (i.e. a tolerance value between expected/ set value and an actual measurement) (para. [0052],[0078]). Oh teaches that such a configuration can enable identifying an abnormality among the control parameters and sending out an alarm/alert or stop the plasma processing apparatus (para. [0052],[0078]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide an alert part of a processing controller configured to issue an alert based on the information output by the output part or a change in the information (i.e. exceeding a tolerance value between a calculated/predicted parameter values and an actual measurement value) because Oh teaches such a configuration enables alerting an operator of a processing abnormality or stop plasma processing if needed (Oh: para. [0052],[0078]).
Claim(s) 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2008/0170969 A1 hereinafter “Yoshioka”) in view of Kofuji et al. (US 2009/0310645 A1 hereinafter “Kofuji”), Yamamoto et al. (US 2016/0378092 A1) as applied to claims 14, 30 above and further in view of Mannan (2012) Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volumes 1-3 - Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control (4th Edition) - 19.9.2 Monitoring Interval.
Regarding claim 18, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 14 as applied above and already teaches that the measurement part measures the power supplied to the heater in the unignited state and the ignited state, and the parameter calculator calculates the heat input amount by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part but does not explicitly teach “at a predetermined cycle” (i.e. a sampling/monitoring interval or rate).
However, Mannan teaches (page 1795 “19.9.2 Monitoring Interval”) that control systems and have continuous monitoring/sampling or periodic or interval monitoring (i.e. “at a predetermined cycle”). Mannan teaches that monitoring of the signal depends on the nature of the signal and that continuous monitoring can be expensive and the choice of monitoring interval is a compromise between expense and the ability to detect a failure in a timely manner.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller having the measurement part and the parameter to measure, at a predetermined cycle (i.e. sampling interval/monitoring interval), the power supplied to the heater in the unignited state and the ignited state, and configure the parameter calculator to calculate, for the predetermined cycle (i.e. sampling interval), the heat input amount by using the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state measured by the measurement part because Mannan teaches that providing a monitoring interval is a known measurement protocol in control systems which can be less expensive than continuous monitoring.
Regarding claim 21, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji and Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 20 as applied above but does not teach wherein the measurement part measures the power supplied to the heater in the transient state twice or more.
However, Mannan teaches (page 1795 “19.9.2 Monitoring Interval”) that control systems and have continuous monitoring/sampling or periodic or interval monitoring. Mannan teaches that monitoring of the signal depends on the nature of the signal and that continuous monitoring can be expensive and the choice of monitoring interval is a compromise between expense and the ability to detect a failure in a timely manner. In other words, Mannan teaches that the monitoring interval or the number of times that a measurement is made (or sampled or recorded) or how often a measurement is made is a result-effective variable that affects costs and the ability to suitably/effectively detect a failure using the control system.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the number of times that a measurement is made or sampled or recorded because Mannan teaches that the monitoring interval (i.e. the number of times a measurement is made in a give period of time) is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to affect the cost of operation and the suitability/effectiveness of detecting a failure using the control system.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2008/0170969 A1 hereinafter “Yoshioka”) in view of Kofuji et al. (US 2009/0310645 A1 hereinafter “Kofuji”), Yamamoto et al. (US 2016/0378092 A1), Gaff et al. (US 2011/0143462 A1 hereinafter “Gaff”) as applied to claims 15, 16, 22, 24, 26 above and further in view of Tsujimoto et al. (US 2016/0056021 A1 hereinafter “Tsujimoto”).
Regarding claim 23, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji, Yamamoto, and Gaff teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 16 as applied above but does not explicitly teach an upper electrode configured to eject a gas from a plurality of division regions of the upper electrode, wherein the changing part changes, based on the information indicating the plasma density distribution, a concentration of the ejected gas for each of the division regions of the upper electrode.
However, Yoshioka teaches that the apparatus can use different plasma generating means including an electrostatic coupling means (i.e. capacitively coupled plasma) instead of a microwave plasma generating means (para. [0040]).
Further, Tsujimoto teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising 100, Fig 1) including an upper electrode (comprising 120, Fig. 1) configured to generate plasma in the region between the substrate support (comprising susceptor 105 and electrostatic chuck 111, Fig. 1) (para. [0025], [0039],[0041]), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Tsujimoto teaches a capacitively coupled plasma processing apparatus.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plasma generating means to be a capacitively coupled plasma generating means with an upper electrode because Yoshioka already teaches/suggests using a different plasma generating means including a capacitively coupled/electrostatic coupled plasma generating means instead of a microwave plasma generating means and because Tsujimoto teaches an upper electrode configuration as a suitable plasma generating configuration which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a capacitively coupled/electrostatic coupled plasma generating configuration suitable for generating plasma for processing a substrate.
Further, Tsujimoto teaches the upper electrode (comprising 120, Fig. 1) is configured to eject a gas from a plurality of division regions (comprising buffer chambers 143a, 143b, 143c, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0069]) of the upper electrode and the apparatus is configured with a controller (comprising 130, Fig. 1, para. [0067]) configured to adjust the gas concentration (i.e. mass flow rate of processing gases) of the ejected gas for each of the division regions of the upper electrode (comprising 120, Fig. 1)(para. [0074]-[0075], [0109]-[0110]). Tsujimoto teaches that the gas concentration affects the concentration of active plasma species (i.e. radicals) and ultimately the processing/etching rate or uniformity (para.[0003], [0005], [0108]-[0110]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the controller including the change part to adjust/change based on the information indicating the plasma density distribution, a concentration of the ejected gas for each of the division regions of the upper electrode because Tsujimoto teaches that the gas concentration affects the plasma density/concentration (i.e. radical concentration) and ultimately the processing uniformity of the substrate/workpiece.
Claim(s) 25, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2008/0170969 A1 hereinafter “Yoshioka”) in view of Kofuji et al. (US 2009/0310645 A1 hereinafter “Kofuji”), Yamamoto et al. (US 2016/0378092 A1), Gaff et al. (US 2011/0143462 A1 hereinafter “Gaff”) as applied to claims 15, 16, 22, 24, 26 above and further in view of Roberts et al. (US 2019/0153600 A1 having effectively filed date of 17 Nov 2017 and hereinafter “Roberts”).
Regarding claim 25, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji, Yamamoto, and Gaff teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 24 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the temperature sensor is attached to the heater.
Examiner further explains in light of instant application para. [0030] the type of sensor that is attached to the heater is a sensor disposed in a wire through the heater to detect a temperature from a resistance value obtained by measuring a voltage and current applied to the heater.
Further, Roberts teaches a sensor configured to measure a voltage and current to determine a resistance of the resistive heater and calculate/determine the temperature of respective heater zones based on a change in resistance caused by an associated change in temperature (para. [0035]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the temperature sensor to be attached to the heater such as a current and/or voltage sensor type because Roberts teaches this is an known suitable alternative configuration of a temperature sensor capable of determining temperatures in respective heater zones (Roberts: para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 27, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji, Yamamoto, and Gaff teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 15 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein, in the stage, the mounting surface is divided into a plurality of regions along a circumferential direction.
However, Roberts further teaches a stage (comprising substrate support 104, Fig. 1B) comprising a mounting surface (see Fig. 1B) divided into a plurality of regions along a circumferential (i.e. azimuthal) direction (para. [0028]). Roberts teaches that such a configuration enables azimuthal tuning for increased temperature controllability (para. [0033]-[0034]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the mounting surface to be divided into a plurality of regions along a circumferential/azimuthal direction because Roberts teaches that such a configuration enables increase temperature controllability in the azimuthal/circumferential direction (Roberts: para. [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 28, Yoshioka in view of Kofuji, Yamamoto, Gaff and Roberts teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 27 above but does not explicitly teach wherein radial widths of the plurality of regions closer to an outer periphery of the mounting surface are reduced.
However, Roberts further teaches wherein radial widths of the plurality of regions (comprising outer edge zone segments 156-1, 156-2, 156-3, 156-4, Fig. 1B, para. [0028]) closer to an outer periphery of the mounting surface are reduced (para. [0028]-[0029]). Roberts teaches that such a configuration enables/facilities fine tuning at the outer edge of the substrate/workpiece (para. [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure radial widths of the plurality of regions closer to an outer periphery of the mounting surface to be reduced because Roberts teaches that such a configuration enables/facilities fine tuning at the outer edge of the substrate/workpiece (Roberts: para. [0029]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2008/0170969 A1 hereinafter “Yoshioka”) in view of Kofuji et al. (US 2009/0310645 A1 hereinafter “Kofuji”).
Regarding independent claim 29, Yoshioka teaches a plasma state (i.e. no plasma, plasma ignition) detection method (para. [0082]-[0083], [0101], [0109]- [0114]) that causes a computer (comprising temperature controller 120, Fig. 2A, para. [0060], [0082]-[0084]) to execute a series of processes including:
controlling power supplied to a heater (comprising heater film 124 including 124C, 124M and 124E, Fig. 2A, para. [0049]-[0051]) such that a temperature of the heater becomes constant (i.e. stabilized, para. [0102], See also Fig. 6C and 10C and (para. [0038], [0043],[0059]-[0060]), the heater (comprising 124C, 124M, 124E, Fig. 2A) being provided in a stage (comprising sample stage 113, Fig. 1 and 2A, para. [0036], [0038]) and configured to adjust a temperature of a mounting surface (surface of dielectric material film 123, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C, para. [0051]) on which a workpiece (comprising sample 112, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C) as an object to be plasma-processed is placed (para. [0038], [0043],[0059]-[0060]), and
measuring supplied power (see Fig. 4 having heater power Qhe, Qhm, Qhc, as input parameters to 127; para. [0082], [0083]) in an unignited state (i.e. no plasma, Fig. 10A and 10C) in which plasma is not ignited and an ignited state in which plasma is ignited (i.e. t1 to t4 Fig. 10A and 10C);
calculating the heat input amount from the plasma (i.e. Qpc, Qpm, Qpe, Fig. 3) (para.[0082] discloses the plasma heat input amount can be determined theoretically computed or based on real machine data as fit parameters);
outputting information (i.e. signal to heater power supply 118) based on the calculated heat input amount (i.e. as shown in Fig. 5, heater inputs Qhc, Qhm, and Qhe are calculated by the control computing unit 128) (para.[0059]-[0060], [0084], [0093],[0108]-[0114]).
Yoshioka does not explicitly teach that the heat input amount from the plasma is calculated by using the measured supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state.
However, Yoshioka does teach calculating/determining the heat input amount from the plasma by theoretically computing or based on real machine data as fit parameters (para. [0082]) but does not specifically teach how the heat input amount is determined.
Further, Kofuji teaches calculating a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power in the unignited state (i.e. without plasma) and the ignited state (i.e. with plasma) as measured by the measurement part (comprising temperature sensor 15a, 15b, 15c, Fig. 7, para. [0039]) (para. [0062]-[0066], see also Fig. 3 and para. [0032]-[0035]). Kofuji teaches that such a configuration enables feedback control of the heater electric power to quickly and stably control the wafer/workpiece temperature (para. [0073]-[0075]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the parameter calculator (i.e. by programming calculations) to calculate a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power of the heater in the unignited state and the ignited state as measured by the measurement part because Kofuji teaches that such a configuration can enable feedback control of the heater electric power to quickly and stably control the wafer/workpiece temperature (Kofuji: para. [0073]-[0075]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 14, 20 of instant Application 18/164117 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2 teaches all of the limitations claim 14, 20 of instant application 18/164117 including a plasma processing apparatus comprising a stage, a controller configured to control a power supplied to the heater such that the heater has a set temperature, measure the supplied power to the heater in an unignited state and an ignited state including a transient state, calculate a heat input amount from the plasma based on the supplied power in the unignited state and the ignited state(i.e. transient state), and output information based on the heat input amount calculated by the controller (i.e. parameter calculator of the controller). Further, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2 narrow in scope than the instant application claims 14, 20, requiring the output information to include plasma density distribution information and changing a control parameter of the plasma processing.
Claim 14, 15 of instant Application 18/164117 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,2 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1, 2 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2 teaches all of the limitations claim 14, 15 of instant application 18/164117 including in the stage, the heater is individually provided for each of a plurality of division regions of the mounting surface, controlling the power to supplied to each heater such that the heater provided for each of the division regions has a set temperature set for each of the division regions, controlling the supplied power such that the temperature of each heater becomes constant, measuring the power supplied in the unignited state and the ignited state (i.e. transient state of the ignited state), calculating the heat input amount for each heater by using the supply power in the unignited state and the ignited state for each heater, and outputting information indicating plasma density distribution based on the heat input amount from the plasma for each heater calculated.
Claim 14, 16 of instant Application 18/164117 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1, 2 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2 teaches all of the limitations claim 14, 16 of instant application 18/164117.
Claim 14, 17 of instant Application 18/164117 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1, 4 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2 teaches all of the limitations claim 14, 17 of instant application 18/164117.
Claim 29 of instant Application 18/164117 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1, 4 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2 teaches all of the limitations claim 29 of instant application 18/164117 and is narrower in scope, further requiring changing a control parameter.
Claim 30 of instant Application 18/164117 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1, 4 of U.S. Patent No. US11935731B2 teaches all of the limitations claim 29 of instant application 18/164117 and is narrower in scope, further requiring changing a control parameter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bise et al. (US 2013/0126486 A1) teaches an upper electrode divided into a plurality of different zones and configured to adjust gas concentration to adjust etching rate (abstract, Fig. 2, 5A, 5B, para. [0079]-[0084]).
Wong et al. (US 2016/0048111 A1) teaches a controller configured to repetitively sample all measurements from a group of sensors within a sampling time window less than one second (para. [0010]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716