DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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: Temperature controller (cooling element or heating element, para. [0057]) in at least claim s 7, 13, 19 . 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. 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 § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim(s) 1 -2 , 3, 5, 8, 10 -12 , 1 4-17 , 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180330951 to Kulshreshtha in view of US 20140057447 to Yang . Claims 1 -2 , 5, 10 , 1 5 -17 : Kulshreshtha discloses (claim s 1, 10, 15) a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a plasma processing chamber (100 [chamber], Fig. 1) ; a substrate holder (128 [substrate support]) disposed in the plasma processing chamber (100) , the substrate holder (128) being a lower electrode (128) of the plasma processing chamber (100) ; a radio frequency (RF) electrode (142 [showerhead assembly]) disposed above the substrate holder (128) within the plasma processing chamber (100) , the RF electrode (142) being an upper electrode (142) of the plasma processing chamber (100, para. [0027]) ; an RF power source (165 [RF power source], Fig. 1) electrically coupled to the RF electrode (142) through an impedance matching circuit (173 [ impedance matching circuit ]) , and a direct current (DC) power source ( 176 [DC power supply]) separate from the RF power source (165) and electrically coupled to the RF electrode (165) through an RF choke (177 [low pass filter], Fig. 1) ; (claim 2) wherein the DC power source (176) is electrically coupled to the RF electrode (142) through the RF choke (177) ; (claim 5 , 17 ) wherein: the RF electrode (142) is an upper electrode (142) disposed over the substrate holder (128) ; the DC power source (176) is electrically coupled to the substrate holder (128) through the RF choke (177, para. [0023]) . However Kulshreshtha does not disclose the RF power source being configured to supply continuous wave RF power to the RF electrode, the continuous wave RF power comprising a frequency greater than 60 MHz or very high frequency (VHF); (claim s 10, 16) the DC power source being configured to supply continuous wave DC power to the RF electrode, the continuous wave DC power being supplied concurrently with the continuous wave RF power ; (claim 2) and further configured to supply the continuous wave DC power to the plasma processing chamber by supplying the continuous wave DC power to the RF electrode ; (claim 5 ) and further configured to supply the continuous wave DC power to the plasma processing chamber by supplying the continuous wave DC power to the substrate holder; and the DC power applies a negative DC voltage to the substrate holder . Yang discloses a RF power source (355 [RF power supply], Fig. 3) being configured to supply continuous wave RF power to the RF electrode (315 /335 , para. [0051]) , the continuous wave RF power comprising a frequency greater than 60 MHz or very high frequency (VHF) (para. [0048]) ; the DC power source (360 [DC power supply], Fig. 3) being configured to supply continuous wave DC power to the RF electrode ( 315/335) , the continuous wave DC power being supplied concurrently with the continuous wave RF power (para. [0049 -0050 ]) ; (claim 2) and further configured to supply the continuous wave DC power to the plasma processing chamber by supplying the continuous wave DC power to the RF electrode (para. [0049-0050]) , (claim 5) and further configured to supply the continuous wave DC power to the plasma processing chamber by supplying the continuous wave DC power to the substrate holder; and the DC power applies a negative DC voltage to the substrate holder (para. [0049-0050]) , for the purpose of modulating the etch characteristics of the plasma (para. [0050]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Yang with motivation to modulate modulating the etch characteristics of the plasma . Claim s 3 , 11 : The apparatus of in Kulshreshtha view of Yang discloses the RF electrode (142, Fig. 1, Kulshreshtha ) is an upper electrode (142) disposed over the substrate holder (128) ; and the DC power applies a positive DC voltage to the upper electrode (para. [0059], [0070], Yang) . Claim s 8 , 14 , 20 : The apparatus of in Kulshreshtha view of Yang discloses wherein: the RF electrode (142, Fig. 1, Kulshreshtha ) is an upper electrode disposed over the substrate holder (128) ; and the RF electrode (142) is a direct carbon source (para. [0019] , “direct carbon source” is interpreted as a gas that contains carbon as disclosed in the instant specification, para. [0045] ) . Additionally, t he courts have held that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115. Claim 12 : The apparatus of in Kulshreshtha view of Yang discloses wherein the positive voltage is between 0 V and about 200 V (para. [0049-0050]) . Claim(s) 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulshreshtha view of Yang as applied to claim s 1 -2 , 3, 5, 8, 10 -12 , 1 4-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 20170141002 to Karim . Claim s 4 , 9 : The apparatus of in Kulshreshtha view of Yang discloses (claim 9) an upper electrode (142, Fig. 1, Kulshreshtha ) disposed over the substrate holder (128) , the upper electrode (142) being a direct carbon source (para. [0019]). The apparatus of in Kulshreshtha view of Yang does not disclose (claim 4) wherein: the RF electrode is the substrate holder; and the DC power applies a negative DC voltage to the substrate holder ; (claim 9 ) further comprising: wherein the RF electrode is the substrate holder . Karim discloses disclose (claim 4) wherein: the RF electrode (140A [pedestal], Fig. 1A-1B) is the substrate holder (140A) ; and the DC power applies a negative DC voltage to the substrate holder (Fig. 7, para. [0084]) ; (claim 9) further comprising: wherein the RF electrode (140A) is the substrate holder (140A, para. [0042]), for the purpose of receiv ing RF signals from the RF power supply during wafer processing (para. [0042]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Karim with motivation to receive RF signals from the RF power supply during wafer processing . Claim(s) 6, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulshreshtha view of Yang as applied to claim s 1 -2 , 3, 5, 8, 10 -12 , 1 4-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 20020005348 to Xu . Claims 6 , 18 : The apparatus of in Kulshreshtha view of Yang does not disclose wherein the DC power source is further configured to supply the continuous wave DC power to the plasma processing chamber through a wall of the plasma processing chamber using a DC power vacuum feedthrough. Xu discloses a DC power source (DC power source], para. [0027]) is further configured through a wall of the plasma processing chamber (108 [wall] of 102 [chamber]) using a DC power vacuum feedthrough (feedthrough [not shown but disclosed in para. [0027]) for the purpose of achieving substrate processing (para. [0027] , abstract ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feedthrough as taught by Xu with motivation to achieve substrate processing. Claim(s) 7, 13 , 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulshreshtha view of Yang as applied to claim s 1 -2 , 3, 5, 8, 10 -12 , 1 4-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 20200049547 to Spyropoulos . Claims 7 , 13 , 19 : The apparatus of in Kulshreshtha view of Yang does not disclose further comprising a temperature controller thermally coupled to the substrate holder and configured to cool a substrate supported by the substrate holder during plasma processing. Spyropoulos discloses a temperature controller (163/164/136 [temperature controller], Fig. 1) thermally coupled to the substrate holder (126 [substrate support]) and configured to cool a substrate supported by the substrate holder (126) during plasma processing (para. [0060]) for the purpose of selectively flowing coolant through the channels to cool the substrate support (para. [0060]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations as taught by Spyropoulos with motivation to selectively flow coolant through the channels to cool the substrate support . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7972 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 10am-6pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Gordon Baldwin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712725166 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Charlee J. C. Bennett/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718