CTFR 18/517,206 CTFR 87601 DETAILED ACTION This is the Office action based on the 18517206 application filed November 22, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on March 12, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretations The claims recite the term “ramping” in various places. According to Merriams-Webster dictionary, the verb “ramp” means “to increase, expand, or decrease especially quickly or at a constant rate —usually used with up or down”. According to Vocabulary.com, the verb “ramp” means “furnish with a ramp”. Therefore, for the purpose of examining, the term “ramping” will be interpreted as increasing or decreasing as furnished by a ramp. Accordingly “ramping up” has a different scope than “increasing" since ramping requires a continuous change from one stage to another. However, it is noted that in a manufacturing setting, changing a repetition frequency of a pulse Claim 16 recites the term “high aspect ratio opening”. The specification teaches that “(h)igh aspect ratio openings (e.g., openings with aspect ratios greater than 10:1, such as greater than 20:1 or greater than 50:1) can be trenches or holes with rectangular, square, circular (as in contacts) or any other regular or irregular shapes” ([0044] of published specification). For the purpose of examining this will be interpreted as a definition of this term. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-35 AIA Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18489416 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a bias power applied to a substrate holder can be considered a source power, and the claimed feature of changing a frequency is broader than the increasing the frequency in claims 1 and 10 of Application No. 18489416. Although claim 1 of Application No. 18489416 does not recite adjusting a neutral flux within the process chamber, such would be a natural result of the change in the frequency, as taught by Applicant . It is noted that multiple power sources may be applied to a substrate holder, and each of them may be considered a source power or a bias power, unless specifically identified. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. Similarly, Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12, 13 or 14 of copending Application No. 18489416 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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.. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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 1-4 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Lai et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170330764), hereinafter “Lai”: --Claims 1, 2, 3, 4: Lai teaches a method of plasma processing, comprisingproviding a substrate 516 positioning on a substrate support 518 in a process chamber, the chamber has a source RF power 504 (Fig. 5, [0038]) providing pulsing RF power at a first pulsing frequency to the chamber to generate a first plasma condition ([0005], Step 205 in Fig. 2);using the plasma for an ALE process or for plasma etching the substrate ([0041, 0065]), the treatment comprisestransitioning from the first plasma condition to a second plasma by ramping the pulsing frequency to a second pulsing frequency ([0007-0008, 0042], Steps 210a and b in Fig. 2), wherein the ramping occurs in about 1 second or less ([0009], Claim 6). Lai further discloses “This disclosure pertains to a method of transitioning from a first plasma condition to a second plasma condition. The method includes igniting a plasma in a plasma processing chamber using an RF power supply coupled to an impedance matching network, where the RF power supply operates in a first mode to provide a first plasma condition having a first plasma impedance. The method further includes ramping , prior to the RF power supply operating in a second mode, one or more of the following: (1) an RF power of the RF power supply to a selected RF power, (2) a duty cycle of the RF power supply to a selected duty cycle, and (3) a pulsing frequency of the RF power supply to a selected pulsing frequency . The method further includes maintaining the plasma in the plasma processing chamber using the RF power supply operating in the second mode to provide a second plasma condition having a second plasma impedance, where the second plasma impedance is substantially different than the first plasma impedance.” ([0008], emphasis added) and that “In addition or in the alternative, a pulsing frequency of the RF power supply can be ramped to a selected pulsing frequency prior to the RF power supply operating in a second mode . The pulsing frequency can relate to the number of pulses per unit time. In some implementations, the pulsing frequency can be ramped anywhere between about 10 Hz and about 200 kHz . In one example, the pulsing frequency can be ramped to a selected pulsing frequency prior to the RF power supply operating in the second mode without changing the RF power or duty cycle.” ([0042], emphasis added). Lai further discloses that the plasma may be transitioned from a continuous mode (pulse frequency = 0) to a pulsing mode or vice versa by ramping the duty cycle ([0034-0035, 0050], Fig. 1C), wherein the transition time may be more than 1 second ([0027]). It is noted that the transition from a continuous mode (pulse frequency = 0) to a pulsing mode (pulse frequency >0) requires ramping up the pulse frequency, whereas the transition from a pulsing mode (pulse frequency >0) to a continuous mode (pulse frequency = 0) to a requires ramping down the pulse frequency. Although Lai is silent about the ramping the pulsing frequency would adjust the neutral flux, changing a frequency of a power that generates a plasma would inherently change the amount of the neutral species in the plasma, as evidenced by Denpoh (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170256381, ([0047], Fig. 4)), and as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 6: Lai further teaches that the first plasma may be generated from a precursor gas, such as nitrogen or NF 3 ([0028, 0041]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 5, 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lai.--Claim 5: Lai teaches the invention as above. Lai further teaches that the first pulsing frequency may be 2-100 MHz, such as between about 1 MHz and about 100 MHz for a high frequency RF generator and about 2 Hz and about 100 kHz for a low frequency RF generator ([0037]), and that the pulsing frequency can be ramped anywhere between about 10 Hz and about 200 kHz ([0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to ramp the pulsing frequency from a first pulsing frequency of 2 KHz and about 100 kHz down to a second pulsing frequency of 10 Hz to 1 kHz in the invention of Lai.--Claims 8, 9: Lai teaches the invention as above. Lai further teaches that “(r)amped as used herein is defined as changing the conditions incrementally during exposure to plasma. In some implementations, ramping RF power can mean incrementally increasing or decreasing RF power from a first selected RF power to a second selected RF power during exposure to plasma.” ([0033]). Therefore, although Lai is silent about a manner of ramping the pulse frequency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to ramp the pulsing frequency from the first pulsing frequency down to the second pulsing frequency in a continuous, monotonic manner by incrementally decreasing the pulsing frequency. Claims 10-11 and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lai.--Claims 10, 11: Lai teaches a method of plasma processing, such as etching ([0003, 0009])comprisingproviding a substrate 516 positioning on a substrate support 518 in a process chamber, the chamber has a source RF power 504 (Fig. 5, [0038]) providing pulsing RF power at a first pulsing frequency to the chamber to generate a first plasma condition ([0005], Step 205 in Fig. 2);using the plasma for an ALE process or for plasma etching the substrate ([0041, 0065]), the treatment comprisestransitioning from the first plasma condition to a second plasma by ramping the pulsing frequency to a second pulsing frequency ([0007-0008, 0042], Steps 210a and b in Fig. 2), wherein the ramping occurs in about 1 second or less ([0009], Claim 6); Lai further discloses that the plasma may be transitioned from a continuous mode (pulse frequency = 0) to a pulsing mode or vice versa by ramping the duty cycle ([0034-0035, 0050], Fig. 1C), wherein the transition time may be more than 1 second ([0027]). It is noted that the transition from a continuous mode (pulse frequency = 0) to a pulsing mode (pulse frequency >0) requires ramping up the pulse frequency, whereas the transition from a pulsing mode (pulse frequency >0) to a continuous mode (pulse frequency = 0) to a requires ramping down the pulse frequency. Lai further teaches that “(r)amped as used herein is defined as changing the conditions incrementally during exposure to plasma. In some implementations, ramping RF power can mean incrementally increasing or decreasing RF power from a first selected RF power to a second selected RF power during exposure to plasma.” ([0033]), and that the plasma processing may comprise etching ([0027-0028]). Therefore, although Lai is silent about a manner of ramping the pulse frequency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to ramp the pulsing frequency from the first pulsing frequency down to the second pulsing frequency in a continuous, monotonic manner by incrementally decreasing the pulsing frequency while exposing the substrate to the plasma for the etching.--Claim 13: Lai further teaches that the first plasma may be generated from a precursor gas, such as nitrogen or NF 3 ([0028, 0041]).--Claim 14: Although Lai is silent about a changing of F/C neutral flux ratio during the continuous changing the pulsing frequency, because the process taught by Lai is the same as Applicant’s it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations to produce this effect in the invention of Lai, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. Claims 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lai in view of Miller et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20250098549), hereinafter “Miller”.--Claims 15, 16, 17: Lai teaches the invention as in claim 1, specificallyproviding a substrate 516 positioning on a substrate support 518 in a process chamber, the chamber has a source RF power 504 (Fig. 5, [0038]) providing pulsing RF power at a first pulsing frequency to the chamber to generate a first plasma condition ([0005], Step 205 in Fig. 2);using the plasma for an ALE process or for plasma etching the substrate ([0041, 0065]), the treatment comprisestransitioning from the first plasma condition to a second plasma by ramping the pulsing frequency to a second pulsing frequency ([0007-0008, 0042], Steps 210a and b in Fig. 2), wherein the ramping occurs in about 1 second or less ([0009], Claim 6), wherein the plasma may be transitioned from a continuous mode (pulse frequency = 0) to a pulsing mode or vice versa by ramping the duty cycle ([0034-0035, 0050], Fig. 1C), wherein the transition time may be more than 1 second ([0027]), and wherein the first plasma may be generated from a precursor gas, such as nitrogen or NF 3 ([0028, 0041]). It is noted that the transitioning from a continuous mode (pulse frequency = 0) to a pulsing mode (pulse frequency >0) requires ramping up the pulse frequency, whereas the transitioning from a pulsing mode (pulse frequency >0) to a continuous mode (pulse frequency = 0) to a requires ramping down the pulse frequency. Although Lai is silent about the ramping the pulsing frequency would control a balance of ion flux and neutral flux, changing a frequency of a power that generates a plasma would inherently change the amount of the neutral species (and would inherently change the ionic species since the amount of ionic species is the total amount of species subtracting the amount of neutral species) in the plasma, as evidenced by Denpoh (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170256381, ([0047], Fig. 4)), and as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. Furthermore, it has been established that where an examiner has reason to believe that a characteristic or functional limitation in a claim may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic the applicant is relying on for patentability. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). An examiner’s belief is reasonable where starting materials and processing of the prior art are so similar to those disclosed by the applicant that it appears that the claimed function or property would naturally result when conducting the process as taught in the prior art. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Best, at 1255. “Inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis’ where the limitation at issue is ‘the natural result of the combination of prior art elements'.'''’ Id. (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Lai further teaches that the method may be used in a lithographic patterning during fabrication of a semiconductor device (Fig. 3), including forming a photoresist mask having a pattern on a layer formed on a substrate then transferring the pattern into the layer by using a plasma-assist process ([0067]). Lai fails to teach the claimed feature of filling the pattern with a conductive material. Miller, also directed to a patterning during fabrication of a semiconductor device by using lithographic patterning, teaches that the patterning comprises forming a photoresist mask by using lithography on a substrate, then plasma etching the substrate through the mask to form a through-substrate-via (TSV) having an aspect ratio at least 10:1 ([0057-0059], Fig. 3A), then filling the TSV with copper to form an interconnection (Fig. 3F, [0068-0069], Step 410 and 412 in Fig. 4, Fig. 5A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the method taught by Lai to plasma etch a trench in a dielectric layer, then fill the trench with copper to form interconnect wiring because Lai teaches that the method may be used in a lithographic patterning during fabrication of a semiconductor device, including forming a photoresist mask having a pattern on a layer formed on a substrate then transferring the pattern into the layer by using a plasma-assist process, but fails to teach the claimed feature of filling the pattern with a conductive material, and Miller teaches that the method may include filling the trench with copper to form an interconnection.--Claim 18: Miller further teaches that the TSV may have a depth of about 50 um (Fig. 2B).--Claims 19, 20: Lai teaches the invention as above. Lai further teaches that “(r)amped as used herein is defined as changing the conditions incrementally during exposure to plasma. In some implementations, ramping RF power can mean incrementally increasing or decreasing RF power from a first selected RF power to a second selected RF power during exposure to plasma.” ([0033]). Therefore, although Lai is silent about a manner of ramping the pulse frequency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to ramp the pulsing frequency from the first pulsing frequency down to the second pulsing frequency in a continuous, monotonic manner by incrementally decreasing the pulsing frequency. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that “(t)he Office's rejection of claim 1 relies on inherency by asserting that the changing pulse repetition frequency in Lai inherently adjusts neutral flux even though Lai never mentions neutral flux, neutral radicals, or any relationship between pulse frequency and neutral species. However, the Office has failed to meet the requirements for establishing inherency by providing a rationale of evidence to show inherency. "The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic." MPEP § 2112(IV). "In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.' Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original)." Id.”, this argument is not persuasive. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. Furthermore, it has been established that where an examiner has reason to believe that a characteristic or functional limitation in a claim may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic the applicant is relying on for patentability . In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). An examiner’s belief is reasonable where starting materials and processing of the prior art are so similar to those disclosed by the applicant that it appears that the claimed function or property would naturally result when conducting the process as taught in the prior art. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Best, at 1255. “Inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis’ where the limitation at issue is ‘the natural result of the combination of prior art elements'.'''’Id. (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). In this case, Lai clearly teaches ramping the repetition frequency of the source RF pulse that is applied to the process chamber to create the plasma, as recited in claim 1:“This disclosure pertains to a method of transitioning from a first plasma condition to a second plasma condition. The method includes igniting a plasma in a plasma processing chamber using an RF power supply coupled to an impedance matching network, where the RF power supply operates in a first mode to provide a first plasma condition having a first plasma impedance. The method further includes ramping , prior to the RF power supply operating in a second mode, one or more of the following: (1) an RF power of the RF power supply to a selected RF power, (2) a duty cycle of the RF power supply to a selected duty cycle, and (3) a pulsing frequency of the RF power supply to a selected pulsing frequency . The method further includes maintaining the plasma in the plasma processing chamber using the RF power supply operating in the second mode to provide a second plasma condition having a second plasma impedance, where the second plasma impedance is substantially different than the first plasma impedance.” ([0008], emphasis added) and that “In addition or in the alternative, a pulsing frequency of the RF power supply can be ramped to a selected pulsing frequency prior to the RF power supply operating in a second mode . The pulsing frequency can relate to the number of pulses per unit time. In some implementations, the pulsing frequency can be ramped anywhere between about 10 Hz and about 200 kHz . In one example, the pulsing frequency can be ramped to a selected pulsing frequency prior to the RF power supply operating in the second mode without changing the RF power or duty cycle.” ([0042], emphasis added).--Regarding Applicant’s argument that “(i)n particular, the Office has confused changing a frequency of a power that generates a plasma with the changing of a repetition frequency of source power (SP) pulses that is actually recited by claim 1”, Lai clearly discloses in paragraphs [0004-0005] that “(i)n a CW mode, an RF power supply provides a continuous and constant amount of power to ignite or sustain a strong plasma, and such plasmas have been used in a variety of applications. RF power in the CW mode can be represented as sinusoidal waves having a certain frequency. The RF power supply can deliver power in the CW mode at any suitable frequency, which can be between about 200 KHz to about 200 MHz. Examples include 400 KHz, 2 MHz, 13.56 MHZ, 27 MHz, 60 MHz, 100 MHz, and 162 MHz. In a pulsing mode, the RF power supply modulates the power delivered to the plasma processing chamber to ignite or sustain a plasma, and such plasmas have been used in many applications. RF power in the pulsing mode provide power in pulses over a given period of time “T.” Typically, such pulses can be in the form of a square waveform. A duty cycle can refer to the percentage of on time (T on ) during the total of on time and off time, where T=T on +T off in a given cycle. The RF power supply can deliver power in the pulsing mode at any suitable duty cycles, such as between about 1% to 99%. The RF power can deliver power in the pulsing mode at a pulsing frequency between about 10 Hz and about 100 kHz.” Since Lai teaches all features of the plasma recited in claim 1, Examiner requests Applicant to provide the rational that the ramping up or down of the pulsing frequency of the source RF pulse (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0054] of Lai), that is applied to the process chamber to create the plasma, to transition from a first plasma condition to a second plasma condition, as explained in the Office action, would not produce a change in a neutral flux within the process chamber, as recited in claim 1; or tuning an ion/neutral flux ratio of the plasma, as recited in claim 10; or controlling a balance of ion flux and neutral radical flux, as recited in claim 15. Furthermore, Examiner requests Applicant to identify the missing essential element(s) in these claims that would cause those deficiencies. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 2 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 3 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 4 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 5 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 6 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 7 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 8 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 9 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 10 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 11 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 12 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 13 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/517,206 Page 14 Art Unit: 1713
Prosecution Insights