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.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 2 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 9-20 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by previously relied on references below.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Alberti fails to disclose or teach the tubes are separated by an air gap, that the cooling channels of Alberti are wholly encased by or formed out of the solid structural material of the Faraday shield.
Examiner disagrees, and notes that the tubes of Alberti (340) are functioning as a Faraday shield as claimed (see para. [0041] where the coolant is in direct contact with the Faraday shield) and are not in a solid material (the tubes embedded in a solid material is another embodiment shown in Fig. 3D, which is different from the embodiment in Fig. 3C), and if Applicant considers an air gap to be just the shield being atop the lid, Alberti explicitly discloses this in Fig. 3C which is an isometric view of the Faraday shield on the chamber lid (para. [0021]).
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein two adjacent tubes of the plurality of tubes that form the heat transfer fluid pathway are separated by an air gap,” in the claim. Applicant does not appear to have support for “an air gap.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
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, 3-8 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 "wherein two adjacent tubes of the plurality of tubes that form the heat transfer fluid pathway are separated by an air gap" in the claims. It is unclear what is meant by “air gap” (which is not referenced or disclosed). 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), wherein the conductive structure (304) comprises a plurality of tubes (340 [cooling channels]) arranged in a pattern that forms switchback path (364/368) that traverses around a surface of the chamber lid (300, para. [0045]), the pattern (340) comprising a heat transfer fluid pathway (340) configured to circulate a heat transfer fluid through the conductive structure (304, para. [0040]), wherein two adjacent tubes (364/368) of the plurality of tubes (364/368) that form the heat transfer fluid pathway are separated by an air gap (see Fig. 3C), and wherein the plurality of tubes function as a faraday shield (304/340, para. [0041-0044]).
Claim 2: (Cancelled).
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]) .
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 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