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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites “The apparatus of claim 10, in which the RF antenna is disposed in the non-conductive substrate”. This does not further limit claim 10 which already states that the RF antenna is disposed in the substrate, and which depends on claim 2 stating that the substrate is non-conductive.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 7,777,179 B2) in view of Hoekstra (US 20170247248 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an apparatus for obtaining ion energy distribution measurements in a plasma processing system (Abstract) comprising:
A substrate (diagnostic substrate 700, fig. 7B);
A plurality of ion energy sensors (720 and 730, fig. 7B) each having associated control circuitry (722, 724, 732, 734, col. 13 lines 62-col. 14 line 8) disposed in the substrate.
Chen does not teach a conductive enclosure disposed in the substrate and surrounding each ion energy sensor and associated control circuitry such that the substrate at least partially surrounds the conductive enclosure.
Hoekstra teaches that it is known in the art to surround a sensor and associated circuitry formed on a substrate with a conductive enclosure to protect against electromagnetic interference ([0022-0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Chen to have as conductive enclosure surrounding the sensor and circuitry as taught by Hoekstra, in order to protect the circuitry and ion sensor of Chen from external electronic interference in a known manner with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches that the substrate is semiconducting (silicon, col. 2 line 17).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches that the substrate is silicon.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hoekstra and in further view of Tedeschi (US 10,083,883 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Chen and Hoekstra teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Chen and Hoekstra do not teach that the substrate is non-conductive.
Tedeschi teaches a substrate (606) for a plasma system having embedded sensors, wherein the substrate may be non-conductive (col. 15 lines 50-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate of Chen and Hoekstra to be made of non-conductive material as taught by Tedeschi, as a matter of selecting a known substrate material for use as a sensor substrate in a plasma processing system based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07 [R-01.2024]) .
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hoekstra and in further view of Funk (US 8,816,281 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Chen and Hoekstra teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Chen and Hoekstra do not teach that the substrate is conductive.
Funk teaches a substrate for a plasma system having embedded sensors (claim 1), wherein the substrate may be conductive (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate of Chen and Hoekstra to be made of conductive material as taught by Funk, as a matter of selecting a known substrate material for use as a sensor substrate in a plasma processing system based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07 [R-01.2024]) .
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches an insulating layer (370, fig. 4) between the substrate (350) and the sensor (300). It would have been obvious to place the conductive enclosure of Hoekstra above the insulating layer of Chen in order to closely surround the sensor without interfering with the other parts of the substrate.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hoekstra and in further view of Sun (US 8,104,342 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Chen and Hoekstra teach all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Chen and Hoekstra do not teach a semi-conducting cover on a surface of the substrate.
Sun teaches a sensor substrate for a plasma processing apparatus having a semi-conducting cover on a surface of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Chen and Hoekstra to have the cover of Sun, in order to ensure the proper thickness and flatness of a substrate in the system for simulation of the effects of the plasma on a production wafer as described by Sun (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Sun teaches that the semiconducting cover is silicon (col. 4 line 28).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches that the ion energy sensors measure energy distribution at a first surface of the substrate (measures ions incident the on top surface) and Sun teaches that the cover is provided at a second surface of the substrate (may be below substrate, fig. 1D).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hoekstra and Tedeschi and in further view of Sun.
Regarding claim 10, Chen, Hoekstra and Tedeschi teach all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Chen, Hoekstra and Tedeschi do not teach an RF antenna disposed in the substrate outside the conductive enclosure.
Sun teaches a sensor substrate for a plasma device having an RF antenna disposed in the substrate (transceiver 134; may be RF, col. 5 lines 50-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Chen et al to have the antenna of Sun in order to provide sensor data to an outside system in real time. It would further have been obvious to put the RF antenna outside the conductive enclosure as the conductive enclosure would block the RF signal.
Regarding claim 11, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the RF antenna to the control circuity of Chen (which includes RF filter 142 for reading out measurements, fig. 2) in order to provide sensor data to the antenna.
Regarding claim 12, the RF antenna shown by Sun is disposed in the substrate (fig. 1) which is non-conductive as argued by Tedeschi, above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hoekstra and in further view of Lee (US 20080032427 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Chen, Hoekstra, Tedeschi and Sun teach all the limitations of claim 12 as described above. The references do not teach that each ion energy sensor and associated circuitry are provided on a circuit board.
Lee teaches an ion energy sensor having electronic integrated into a circuit board ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Chen et al. to have the electronics provided on a circuit board as taught by Lee, as a known means of integrating electronic elements as described by Lee with no unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881