Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 9/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 13-14, the limitation “not to change” should be amended to read “does not change” to correct grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “the AC current voltage” in line 7-8 is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the “AC voltage” previously recited or a different AC voltage. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the AC voltage”.
In claim 1, the limitation “the measured current flowing through the plasma” in line 15 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to the “current flowing through the plasma” previously recited or a different current flowing through the plasma because the claim does not describe measuring the current flowing through the plasma. This rejection may be overcome by amending the limitation to recite “the current flowing through the plasma” or by adding an additional limitation earlier in the claim stating that the current flowing through the plasma is measured.
In claim 2, the limitation “the same phase” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is not previous recitation of a same phase of the current flowing through the plasma and the voltage applied to the plasma. This rejection may be overcome by amending the limitation to recite “a same phase”.
In claims 13 and 14, the limitation “the voltage applied to the deposits” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a voltage applied to the deposits. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a voltage applied to the deposits” or “a change in a voltage applied to the deposits”.
Claims 3-12 and 15-16 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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) 1, 7, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 20050009347 A1) in view of Overzet (US 6097157 A).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto (US 20050009347 A1) teaches monitoring plasma and measuring plasma electron density (measuring a plasma state) in a plasma processing apparatus using an antenna probe 52a (probe device) and a measurement unit 54 (measuring circuit) that includes a vector reflection coefficient measuring unit 84 of a vector network analyzer 68 (signal transmitter) for transmitting (outputting) an electromagnetic signal/incident wave to the probe, which may be interpreted as an AC voltage because it has a power (which has a voltage) and frequency (indicating alternating current) (para 0028-0029, 0076, 0084-0091; Fig. 1, 3). Matsumoto also teaches a method of obtaining a first frequency characteristic of a complex reflection coefficient, which is obtained by measuring reflected current with the vector network analyzer when the electromagnetic signal (AC voltage) is sent to the probe (measuring a first current in the measuring circuit when the AC voltage is output from the signal transmitter to the probe device), when the plasma is off (state where no plasma is generated) (para 0032, 0086, 0091, 0151-0152; Fig. 21). Matsumoto also teaches measuring a second frequency characteristic, which is obtained by measuring reflected current with the vector network analyzer when the electromagnetic signal (AC voltage) is sent to the probe (measuring a second current in the measuring circuit when the AC voltage is output from the signal transmitter to the probe device), from the reflection coefficient measuring unit In a state where plasma exists in the chamber (state where plasma is generated in the plasma processing apparatus) (para 0043, 0086, 0091, 0154-0155; Fig. 20, 22). Matsumoto also teaches a phase difference measuring unit for measuring a phase difference between incident waves (the AC voltage) and reflected waves from the plasma (a current flowing through the plasma), wherein the measurement is performed in the vector network analyzer (by vector calculation) based upon the first and second current measurements (para 0005, 0028, 0039-0041, 0142). Matsumoto also teaches measuring a state of plasma density (plasma state) in the chamber based on the resonance frequency obtained from the incident and reflected current (measured current flowing through the plasma) (Abstract, para 0034-0035, 0086-0089).
Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach adjusting the AC voltage such that a voltage applied to the plasma becomes constant based on the phase difference. However, Overzet (US 6097157 A), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches that a probe inserted into a plasma chamber may regulate the plasma potential (voltage applied to the plasma) by rf biasing (adjusting the AC voltage) the probe to maintain a constant plasma potential in situations where the chamber walls are easily contaminated (Abstract, col 2 line 27-36, col 3 line 12-18, col 5 line 6-21, col 5 line 58-67, col 6 line 1-20, col 6 line 44-62, col 7 line 1-5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the AC voltage output by the probe of Matsumoto to improve the plasma processing such that a consistent plasma potential is maintained even when the walls of the chamber are contaminated. Additionally, the voltage adjustment of Matsumoto in view of Overzet is necessarily dependent/based on the phase difference between the applied voltage/bias (AC voltage) and the reflected wave current (current flowing through the plasma).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matsumoto and Overzet teaches an electron density of the plasma is determined (derived) based on the plasma resonance frequency obtained from the measuring of the reflected wave current (current flowing through the plasma) (Matsumoto para 0085-0089, 0094)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Matsumoto and Overzet teaches the first frequency characteristic, and thus the first current, is measured at various measurement locations (repeatedly measured periodically) in a state where the plasma is not generated (Matsumoto para 0086-0090, 0150-0153; Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Matsumoto and Overzet teaches the adjustment of the AC voltage is intended to maintain/stabilize the voltage applied to the plasma when the chamber is contaminated with layers/deposits (such that the voltage applied to the plasma does not change by the voltage applied to the deposits) (Overzet col 2 line 27-36, col 6 line 44-62).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Matsumoto and Overzet teaches the probe device 52a is installed at a hole 10a (opening) n a wall of a (processing) chamber 10 of the plasma processing apparatus via a cylindrical insulating retainer 65 and o-rings 58 (sealing member) configured to seal a gap between a vacuum space in the chamber and an atmospheric space outside the chamber (Matsumoto para 0076-0077, 0080, 0119; Fig. 1-2).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, and 11-12 of copending Application No. 18/429046 (see claims filed 1/31/2024) in view of Overzet (US 6097157 A).
Regarding claim 1, the reference application teaches a plasma measuring method for measuring a plasma state using a probe device disposed at a plasma processing apparatus and a measurement (measuring) circuit including a signal transmitter that outputs an AC voltage, the method comprising (A) measuring a first current in the measurement circuit when the AC voltage is output from the signal transmitter to the probe device in a state where no plasma is generated (plasma is not generated), (B) measuring a second current in the measurement circuit when the AC voltage is output from the signal transmitter to the probe device in a state where plasma is generated, and (C) measuring a current flowing through the plasma by vector operation (calculation) using the magnitude and phase of the current included in the first and second current (claim 1). The reference application also teaches calculating (measuring) the phase shift (phase difference) occurring in the measurement circuit (between the AC voltage and the current flowing through the plasma) (claims 1-3). The reference application also teaches that the plasma state is measured on the basis of the measured current flowing through the plasma (claim 4). The reference application fails to explicitly teach adjusting the AC voltage such that a voltage applied to the plasma becomes constant based on the phase difference. However, Overzet (US 6097157 A), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches that a probe inserted into a plasma chamber may regulate the plasma potential (voltage applied to the plasma) by rf biasing (adjusting the AC voltage) the probe to maintain a constant plasma potential in situations where the chamber walls are easily contaminated (Abstract, col 2 line 27-36, col 3 line 12-18, col 5 line 6-21, col 5 line 58-67, col 6 line 1-20, col 6 line 44-62, col 7 line 1-5), where the adjustment is necessarily dependent/based on the phase difference between the applied voltage/bias and the current of the plasma. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the AC voltage output by the signal transmitter of the reference application to improve the plasma processing such that a consistent plasma potential is maintained even when the walls of the chamber are contaminated.
Regarding claim 3, the reference application teaches the current flowing through the plasma is measured by subtracting the first current from the second current (claim 2).
Regarding claim 7, the reference application teaches deriving at least one of a plasma electron density, plasma electron temperature, or plasma ion density indicating the plasma state on the basis of the measured current flowing through the plasma (claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, the reference application teaches the first current is repeatedly measured regularly (periodically) or irregularly in a state where the plasma is not generated (claim 6).
Regarding claim 11, the reference application teaches the current flowing through the plasma is measured by subtracting the first current from the second current (claim 2), where the first current may be the latest measured first current (claim 11).
Regarding claim 13, Overzet teaches the adjustment of the AC voltage is intended to maintain/stabilize the voltage applied to the plasma when the chamber is contaminated with layers/deposits (such that the voltage applied to the plasma does not change by the voltage applied to the deposits) (Overzet col 2 line 27-36, col 6 line 44-62).
Regarding claim 15, the reference application teaches the probe device is installed in an opening formed in a wall of a processing container (chamber) of the plasma processing apparatus via a sealing member that seals between a vacuum space and an atmospheric space (claim 12).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action as well as the non-statutory double patenting rejections and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto (US 20050009347 A1) and Overzet (US 6097157 A) fail to teach “the current flowing through the plasma and the voltage applied to the plasma have the same phase” in combination with “the AC voltage is adjusted by using the phase difference as a phase difference between the voltage applied to the plasma and the AC voltage”, especially because the phase difference used in the rejection of claim 1 uses the reflected waves from the plasma as the “current flowing through the plasma” and not the current associated with the plasma voltage/potential. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the references to meet the claim limitations. Therefore, claim 2 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto (US 20050009347 A1) and Overzet (US 6097157 A) fail to teach “the current flowing through the plasma is measured by subtracting the first current from the second current”. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the references to meet the claim limitations. Therefore, claim 3 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto (US 20050009347 A1) and Overzet (US 6097157 A) fail to teach “after the AC voltage is adjusted in said (D), said (A) and said (B) are executed to newly measure the first current and the second current, and in said (C), the current flowing through the plasma is measured by subtracting the newly measured first current from the newly measured second current”. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the references to meet the claim limitations. Therefore, claim 5 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto (US 20050009347 A1) and Overzet (US 6097157 A) fail to teach “the current flowing through the plasma is measured by subtracting the latest measured first current from the measured second current”. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the references to meet the claim limitations. Therefore, claim 11 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 depend on claim 2 and thus would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ikeda (US 20190074166 A1) teaches a probe device and signal transmitter more similar to the embodiment of instant Fig. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794