DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 8/4/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 15, and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 4, 9-10, 12-14, and 16-17 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
For clarity of the record, the Examiner submits herein the following interpretations regarding the newly added limitation of claims 1, 15, and 20: “wherein the at least one temperature control element is configured to act as a heat sink to provide a thermal conduction cooling path to transfer heat from the dielectric window to the Faraday shield when the at least one heating element is not energized or heated”.
Referring to US Pub. 2018/0240652 (original publication of the instant parent application), pars. [0022], [0024], [0056], [0058], and [0066] provide the only information regarding this “heat sink” limitation.
The disclosure describes where the temperature control element is not powered when this “heat sink” functionality is performed, thus the mere existence of the temperature control element appears to be the only structural limitation required of said temperature control element.
The disclosure also describes where the thermal contact between the dielectric window, temperature control element, and Faraday shield provides a thermally conductive pathway between the three elements, allowing the temperature control element to transfer heat as an intermediary from the dielectric window to the Faraday shield.
Thus, the disclosure only supports the interpretation where the temperature control element is “acting as” or “being used as” a heat sink only by virtue of the thermal mass of the element in thermal contact with the thermal mass of the Faraday shield and the thermal mass of the dielectric window.
No additional structure, material, or acts appear to be imparted to the “heat sink” limitation by the disclosure, thus if the prior art teaches the claimed temperature control element in the claimed position relative to the dielectric window and the Faraday shield, it is regarded as meeting this limitation of the 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny (US 2012/0152901) in view of Banna (US 2015/0191823), Li (US 2002/0100557), and DiPalma (US 4,070,083).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 20, Nagorny teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1, apparatus #100), comprising: a processing chamber ([0032] and Fig. 1, body of chamber with interior space #102); a pedestal located in the processing chamber configured to support a workpiece during processing (Fig. 1, pedestal #104 with substrate #106); a dielectric window forming at least a portion of the processing chamber (Fig. 1, dielectric window #110 with portions #112/#114); an inductive coupling element located proximate the dielectric window (Fig. 1, inductive element #140), the inductive coupling element configured to generate a plasma in the processing chamber when energized with radio frequency (RF) energy (par. [0033]); a Faraday shield located between the inductive coupling element and the processing chamber (Figs. 7-8, Faraday shield #150).
Nagorny does not teach at least one temperature control element in thermal communication with the Faraday shield, the at least one temperature control element comprises at least one heating element in contact with the dielectric window, and the at least one heating element comprises a central heating zone and a peripheral heating zone, wherein the first temperature control element is independently controllable relative to the second temperature control element, wherein the apparatus comprises: a first set of conductors configured to provide power to the at least one temperature control element, wherein the first set of conductors are coupled to the Faraday shield.
However, Banna teaches at least one temperature control element in thermal communication with the Faraday shield, the at least one temperature control element comprises at least one heating element and the at least one heating element comprises a central heating zone and a peripheral heating zone, wherein the first temperature control element is independently controllable relative to the second temperature control element (Banna – [0022] and Fig. 2, heater element #204 may be embedded inside the conductive base #202, coupled to RF shield #206); [0025]: heater elements in each spoke #308 of Fig. 3A may be individually controlled; Fig. 3A shows long spokes #308A and short spokes #208B, which would primarily influence a central region and peripheral region, respectively), wherein the apparatus comprises: a first set of conductors configured to provide power to the at least one temperature control element, wherein the first set of conductors are coupled to the Faraday shield (Banna – [0025] and Fig. 3A, connectors #322).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Regarding the limitations:
“wherein the at least one temperature control element is configured to act as a heat sink to provide a thermal conduction cooling path to transfer heat from the dielectric window to the Faraday shield when the at least one heating element is not energized or heated” (claim 1)
“wherein the at least one heating element, when not energized or heated, is configured to act as a heat sink to provide a thermal conduction path between the dielectric window and the Faraday shield to facilitate cooling of the dielectric window” (claims 15 and 21),
these limitations are met by the combination of Nagorny and Banna.
Nagorny teaches the claimed dielectric window and Faraday shield, but does not teach a temperature control element. Banna teaches a temperature control element located between a Faraday shield and a dielectric window (Fig. 2, #204+210 located between RF shield #206 and dielectric lid #120). As such, a PHOSITA would reasonably be motivated to add the temperature control element of Banna in between the Faraday shield and dielectric window of Nagorny.
In this configuration, all three elements would be in intimate thermal contact and, as such, would form a heat conduction pathway therebetween. In accordance, if the dielectric window of Nagorny were heated, the temperature control element of Banna would act as a heat conductive pathway to the Faraday shield, meeting the limitations of the claim.
Modified Nagorny does not teach a second set of conductors, the second set of conductors associated with a temperature sensor configured to generate one or more signals indicative of a temperature associated with the at least one temperature control element, wherein the second set of conductors are coupled to the Faraday shield.
However, Li teaches this limitation (Li – [0050] and Fig. 1, temperature sensor #136 coupled to heating assembly #130; see annotated Li Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature sensor assembly of Li in order to provide a controlled amount of heat energy to the heating element (Li – [0042]).
Modified Nagorny does not teach wherein at least one of the first set of conductors or the second set of conductors pass through a tube element to reduce strain on the first set of conductors and the second set of conductors.
However, DiPalma teaches wherein a conductors passes through a tube element to reduce strain (DiPalma – C2, L1 and Fig. 1, wires #13, cable #14 pass through stiff wire sheath #29).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise the tube elements of DiPalma in order to provide means for resisting the sharp bending of an electrical cable which would damage the cable and dangerously expose live wires (DiPalma – C2, L51-54).
(Examiner’s note: claim 20 contains the limitations of claim 11, which is rejected herein using Li. The rejection of claim 20 includes this rejection also, but is omitted herein for brevity).
Regarding claim 2, Nagorny teaches wherein the Faraday shield is located between the inductive coupling element and the dielectric window (see Figs. 1, 7).
Regarding claim 3, Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Banna teaches wherein the at least one temperature control element provides a thermally conductive path between the dielectric window and the Faraday shield (Banna – Fig. 2, #204 embedded in #202 forms a path between #206 and #120).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Banna teaches wherein the heating element has a shape that at least partially conforms to a shape of the Faraday shield (Banna – [0022]: shield #206 has the same plan form as the conductive base, which contains heater elements #204).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Nagorny teaches wherein the Faraday shield comprises one or more solid metal portions and plurality of leaf elements, each of the plurality of leaf elements coupled to at least one of the one or more solid metal portion via at least one radial spike element, the thin film heating element comprising a plurality of leaf elements, each leaf element coupled to a ring portion via at least one radial spike element (Fig. 8 identical to instant Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Nagorny modified by Banna does not teach wherein the apparatus comprises one or more control devices configured to control the delivery of power to the at least one temperature control element based at least in part on one or more signals indicative of the temperature of the Faraday shield.
However, Li teaches this limitation (Li – [0050] and Fig. 1, temperature sensor #136 coupled to heating assembly #130).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature sensor assembly of Li in order to provide a controlled amount of heat energy to the heating element (Li – [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Banna teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a power source configured to independently provide power to the central heating zone and the peripheral heating zone (Banna – [0025]: heater elements in each spoke #308 of Fig. 3A may be individually controlled via AC power supply #123).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Regarding claim 19, Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Banna teaches a central and peripheral heating zone, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more control devices (Banna – [0049]: controller #140 controls all components of the apparatus #100), wherein the one or more control devices are configured to control power to the central and peripheral heating zones (Banna – [0025]: heater elements in each spoke #308 of Fig. 3A may be individually controlled).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Modified Nagorny does not teach wherein the one or more control devices are configured to receive one or more signals indicative of a temperature, wherein the one or more control devices control power based at least in part on the one or more signals indicative of a temperature.
However, Li teaches this limitation (Li – [0050] and Fig. 1, temperature sensor #136 coupled to heating assembly #130 to adjust temperature).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature sensor assembly of Li in order to provide a controlled amount of heat energy to the heating element (Li – [0042]).
Modified Nagorny does not teach wherein the one or more control devices are configured to receive one or more signals indicative of a temperature associated with the second heating zone, wherein the one or more control devices are configured to control power to the second heating element based at least in part on the one or more signals indicative of a temperature associated with the second heating zone (Li appears to only teach one sensor, thus only one zone is measured).
However, the only difference between the prior art of record (particularly, the multi-zone heater of Banna and the sensor/control method of Li) and this limitation is merely a second sensor the same as/similar to that of Li.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise additional Li sensors as a matter of obvious duplication of parts to achieve a known result (detection of multiple zones for temperature control, where Banna already establishes multiple heater zones as set forth above). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny (US 2012/0152901), Banna (US 2015/0191823), Li (US 2002/0100557), and DiPalma (US 4,070,083), as applied to claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 15, and 18-20 above, further in view of Ni (CN 104717817A, using the machine translation as provided in parent application 15/896,124).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 15, and 18-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Nagorny does not teach wherein the heating element is a polyimide thin film heating element or is a silicon rubber sheet heating element.
However, Ni teaches wherein a heating element is a thin film polyimide heating element (Ni – pg. 4, lines 15-17).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the heating element of modified Nagorny to comprise the polyimide heating element of Ni in order to utilize a smaller volume, resist deformation, and bend more easily (Ni, pg. 4, lines 15-17).
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, 15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,749,509 in view of Li (US 2002/0100557), and DiPalma (US 4,070,083).
The Examiner notes that the ‘509 patent issued from the parent application of the instant application, numbered 15/896,124. The instant application is a CON of the ‘124 application, not a DIV, thus the protections afforded under 35 U.S.C. 121 do not apply. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 1362, 86 USPQ2d 1001, 1007-1008 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 15, and 20, claim 10 of the ‘509 patent recites a plasma processing apparatus with processing chamber, pedestal, dielectric window, inductive coupling element, Faraday shield, at least one temperature control element, but does not recite the first and second set of conductors or the tube element.
As set forth in detail herein, Li teaches the first and second set of conductors and DiPalma teaches the tube element (see at least the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections of claims 1, 15, and 20 (Remarks, pgs. 8-9) have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Principally, the Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant is assigning too much patentable weight to the limitation: “wherein the at least one temperature control element is configured to act as a heat sink to provide a thermal conduction cooling path to transfer heat from the dielectric window to the Faraday shield when the at least one heating element is not energized or heated” in light of the disclosure as a whole.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the instant disclosure only provides basis for the above limitation as functional language, not structural language.
As is detailed in the Claim Interpretation section herein, the above limitation can be met by the prior art if it teaches the structural features of the claimed temperature control element and the position of said element thermally connecting the dielectric window and the Faraday shield. The Examiner respectfully submits the prior art of record suitably teaches these features, and thus fully meets the above limitation.
Applicant seeks an explicit recitation of the heat sink functionality of the temperature control element disclosed by Banna, but such a recitation is not required because the heat sink functionality is not a structural limitation of the claim. Instead, this functionality arises due to the nature and placement of the temperature control element, not because said element is configured in any additional way to perform the recited function.
As is set forth in the body of the rejection: In the configuration of the proposed combination apparatus (Nagorny modified by Banna), all three elements (dielectric window, temperature control element, Faraday shield) would be in intimate thermal contact and, as such, would form a heat conduction pathway therebetween. In accordance, if the dielectric window of Nagorny were heated, the temperature control element of Banna would act as a heat conductive pathway to the Faraday shield, meeting the limitations of the claim.
Despite this, the Examiner submits Beverly (US Pub. 2012/0132647) as an evidentiary reference where the authors describe a resistive coil as functioning as a heat sink for a metal cooktop in contact with said coil, illustrating the claimed functionality in the same way as the instant Application.
Applicant’s allegation of hindsight reasoning (Remarks, pg. 9) is not persuasive.
First, Applicant downplays the Examiner’s art-provided technical motivations as “general motivations” in an attempt to disparage said motivations.
Next, Applicant fails to present any reasoned discussion why the motivations provided by the Examiner are either: 1) not applicable from a technical perspective, or 2) derived solely from the Applicant’s disclosure.
Finally, Applicant uses the arguments above as basis for concluding that the Examiner-supplied motivations “appears to derive from the insights of Applicant’s specification rather than from the cited art itself”, and requests the Examiner withdraw of the §103 rejections on these grounds.
Applicant’s allegations are not persuasive, therefore, since they lack any reasoned rebuttal of the Examiner’s position and amount to mere conclusory statements.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights