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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected (Species Groups II, III), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/16/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “conductive structure” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Conductive structure (at least one coil, faraday or ICP, para. [0065], [0048]) in at least claims 1-8.
Thermally conductive material (thermal gasket or a graphite sheet or the like, para. [0051]) in at least claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a conductive structure" in the claims. It is unclear if the conductive structure (which is not referenced) is an inductive coil(s), a faraday shield, a heater, or some other structure. Examiner interprets as a Faraday shield. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a particular pattern" in the claim. It is unclear what the “particular pattern” means, and if the particular pattern is the heat transfer fluid pathway, or something else. Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230245854 to Alberti.
Claim 1: Alberti discloses a system comprising: a plasma-based processing chamber (128 [processing chamber], Fig. 1, 3A) enclosing a processing region (inside 128), the processing chamber (128) comprising a first portion including sidewalls (312 [sidewalls]) and a bottom (bottom of 128) and a second portion including a chamber lid (300 [dielectric window]);
a substate support (132 [substrate support], Fig. 1) within the processing chamber (128) and configured to retain a first substrate (134 [substrate]) in the processing region of the chamber (inside 128); and a conductive structure (304 [Faraday shield], Fig. 3A/3B) proximate to the chamber lid (300) on an exterior side of the processing chamber (exterior of 128), the conductive structure (304) forming a particular pattern (340), the pattern (340) comprising a heat transfer fluid pathway (340 [cooling channels]) configured to circulate a heat transfer fluid through the conductive structure (304, para. [0040]).
Claim 2: Alberti discloses wherein the conductive structure (304, Fig. 3A/3B, Alberti) is a tubular pathway (304) forming a fluid pathway (340) that is shaped in a switchback path (364/368) that traverses around a surface of the chamber lid (300, para. [0045]).
Claim 3: Alberti discloses wherein the conductive structure (304, Fig. 3A/3B, Alberti) has a diameter that is less than a chamber lid diameter (diameter of 300) such that the conductive structure (304) only overlaps a central region of the chamber lid (see Fig. 3A).
Claim 7: Alberti discloses further comprising a thermally conductive material (thermal adhesive, para. [0039], Alberti) positioned between the conductive structure (304) and the chamber lid (300, para. [0039]).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberti as applied to claims 1-3, 7 above.
Claim 4: Alberti discloses (claim 4) having the fluid pathway (340, Fig. 3A/3B, Alberti) formed within the body of the coil (304, para. [0040]).
However Alberti does not disclose (claim 4) wherein the conductive structure is a flat coil.
Yet Alberti teaches that the cooling channels can have a shape (i.e. cross section) can be configured for the purpose of having a uniform residence time of the coolant across different zones of the cooling channels (para. [0044]).
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 optimization of shape of the channels as taught by Alberti with motivation to have a uniform residence time of the coolant across different zones of the cooling channels.
Claim(s) 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberti as applied to claims 1-3, 7 above, and further in view of US 20110297320 to Sakka.
Claims 5, 8: Alberti does not disclose (claim 5) wherein the conductive structure comprises a first flat coil and a second flat coil, each flat coil having the fluid pathway formed within the body of the respective first and second flat coil, the first flat coil being inset within the second flat coil and separated by a specified distance; (claim 8) wherein the conductive structure is a flat coil having the fluid pathway formed within the body of the flat coil, and wherein the conductive structure is electrically coupled to a power source such that, when powered, the flat coil passes radio frequency energy into the processing region of the processing chamber.
Sakka discloses (claim 5) wherein the conductive structure (8 [Faraday shield], Fig. 9) comprises a first flat coil (8a [first faraday shield]) and a second flat coil (8b [second faraday shield]), the first flat coil being inset within the second flat coil and separated by a specified distance; (claim 8) and wherein the conductive structure (8a/8b) is electrically coupled to a power source (10 [high frequency power supply], Fig. 1) such that, when powered, the flat coil (8a/8b) passes radio frequency energy into the processing region of the processing chamber (inside 2 vacuum processing chamber]) for the purpose of independently controlling the faraday shield voltage to thereby suppress chipping of portions of the window while removing reaction products disposed on the inner wall of the window (para. [0041]).
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 two-shield configuration and power supply as taught by Sakka with motivation to independently control the faraday shield voltage to thereby suppress chipping of portions of the window while removing reaction products disposed on the inner wall of the window.
The apparatus of Alberti in view of Sakka discloses (claim 5) each flat coil (8a/8b, Fig. 9, Sakka) having the fluid pathway (340, Fig. 3a/3b, Alberti) formed within the body (304) of the respective first and second flat coil (8a/8b, Fig. 9, Sakka); (claim 8) wherein the conductive structure (304, Fig. 3a/3b, Alberti) is a flat coil (8a/8b, Fig. 9, Sakka) having the fluid pathway (340, Fig. 3a/3b, Alberti) formed within the body of the flat coil (304).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberti as applied to claims 1-3, 7 above, and further in view of US 20220415619 to Long.
Claim 6: Alberti does not disclose wherein the conductive further comprises one or more electronic heaters and, wherein the conductive structure operates as a Faraday shield.
Long discloses wherein the conductive structure (154 [Faraday shield], Fig. 1) further comprises one or more electronic heaters (117 [heating elements], para. [0031]) and, wherein the conductive structure (154) operates as a Faraday shield (154), for the purpose of ensuring proper plasma processing and workpiece uniformity (para. [0031]).
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 electronic heaters as taught by Long with motivation to ensure proper plasma processing and workpiece uniformity.
Claims 9-20: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150020969 discloses a Faraday shield (108, Fig. 2D/2E) having internal plenum channels within the body of the shield (108) to flow air through (para. [0059]). US 20090236315 discloses a shielded lid heater (180, Fig. 2A) having a heater element (204), conductive base (202) for uniform heat transfer, RF shield (206), and thermal insulator (208, para. [0036-0039]) .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights