DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement In light of the fact that two of the references cited below are assigned to the Assignee of the instant application, Applicant’s counsel should reconsider whether additional information disclosure statements are necessary to supplement the December 15, 2023 information disclosure statement. 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. Claim s 14 -17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20200402777) and Sawataishi (US 20210005427). As to claim 14 , Sasaki teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Title). Sasaki teaches a plasma processing chamber (Fig. 1, item 10) and a substrate support (Fig. 2) disposed in the plasma processing chamber . Sasaki teaches the substrate support including a base (Fig. 2, item 18 and [0018]), an electrostatic chuck (Fig. 2, item 20) and an edge ring (Fig. 1, item 26). Sasaki’s electrostatic chuck is disposed on the base , has a substrate support surface and a ring support surface, and the edge ring is disposed on the ring support surface to surround a substrate on the substrate support surface (Fig. 1, items 26, 20, 18). Sasaki teaches a substrate chuck electrode (Fig. 2, item 23) disposed below the substrate support surface in the electrostatic chuck (Fig. 2, item W). Sasaki teaches at least one ring chuck electrode (Fig. 2, item 27) disposed below the ring support surface (Fig. 2, item 202 and [0038]) in the electrostatic chuck . Additionally, Sasaki teaches a first bias electrode (Fig. 2, item 21) disposed in the electrostatic chuck and inherently having a first outer diameter . Sasaki teaches an equivalent to the claimed third bias electrode (Fig. 2, item 25) disposed in the electrostatic chuck and having an outer diameter greater diameter . Each of Sasaki’s bias electrodes is connected to a voltage pulse generator (21 connected to 62; 25 connected to 65) that are each radio frequency power supply that inherently gene rate voltage pulses (see [0031]). Sasaki is silent to the second bias electrode having a diameter between the diameter of the first bias electrode and second bias electrode. Sawataishi teaches a similar device where the area below the substrate contains a first electrode (Fig. 5B, item 211) like Sasaki, but also provides a second bias electrode (Fig. 5B, item 212) with a second diameter larger than the first diameter. In the combination, Sawataishi’s second bias electrode would be connected to another radio frequency power supply like Sasaki’s first bias electrode and equivalent to the third bias electrode (21 connected to 62; 25 connected to 65). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Sawataishi second bias electrode into Sasaki because this is a simple substitution of one electrode configuration (Sawataishi’s first and second electrode) for another (Sasaki’s single electrode) to obtain a predictable result. The prior art of Sasaki shows a device which differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of two electrodes for one. However, two electrode configurations were known from Sawataishi and one could have substituted the first and second electrode configuration to provide the predictable results already shown by Sawataishi. Alernatively, since the electrodes are bias electrodes, one would have found it obvious to incorporate the Sawataishi configuration into Sasaki motivated by providing a desired plasma configuration within the chamber. As to claim 15 , Sasaki teaches that the bias electrodes can have a bias applied by either DC voltage or radio frequency voltage ([0043]). In the case that DC voltage is used, there would necessarily be three DC power supplies configured to supply the DC signals to the first to third bias electrodes. Each DC power supply is capable and configured to apply a generated pulse. As to claim 1 6 , although Sasaki does not appear to specifically teach polarity, selection of either of the two alternatives (negative, positive) from this finite list would have been obvious. As to claim 17 , in the combination of Sawataishi with Sasaki, Sasaki provides a first bias electrode is disposed to vertically overlap with the substrate support surface , Sawataishi teaches a second bias electrode which vertically overlap s with the substrate support surface as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 , and Sasaki teaches a third bias electrode which vertically overlap s with the ring support surface (see Fig. 2) . Claims 1 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20200402777) and Sawataishi (US 20210005427) , and further in view of Yoshikawa (US 20110096461) . As to claim s 1 8 and 19 , Sasaki teaches a third bias electrode which is disposed at a position lower than the first bias electrode (see Fig. 2). Sawataishi teaches a second bias electrode, but does not specifically teach that the second bias electrode is between the first bias electrode and third bias electrode. Sasaki and Sawataishi also fail to teach the outer edge area overlapping with an inner edge of the previous bias electrode. Yoshikawa teaches placing a second bias electrode (Fig. 5A, item 17) at a height between a first bias electrode (Fig. 5A, item 16) and a third bias electrode (Fig. 5A, item 18). In the combination, one would have found it obvious to incorporate the Sawataishi second bias electrode at a height between the Sasaki first bias electrode and Sasaki third bias electrode. Additionally, Yoshikawa teaches that the outer edge of the first bias electrode (Fig. 5A, item 16) overlaps with the inner edge of the second bias electrode (Fig. 5A, item 17) and the outer edge of the second bias electrode overlaps with the inner edge of the third bias electrode (Fig. 5A, item 16). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Yoshikawa into the modified Sasaki apparatus motivated by adjusting the plasma within the chamber. A reasonable expectation of success would have been evident from the similarity of the apparatuses described in the cited references. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-13 and 20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Sasaki (US 20200402777) and Sawataishi (US 20210005427) are the most pertinent references. The application of these references in the rejection of claim 14 above generally indicates why these references are applicable to the claimed invention. R egarding claim 1 , despite teaching many of the structural features of the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 14 above), Sasaki and Sawataishi do not teach the claimed voltage adder. While voltage adders are known from references such as Nakayama (US 4,599,572), Kimura (US 5,909,137), Filipovski (US 6,348,818), Pae (US 20090237140), Tsuji (US 20110140941), these voltage adders are not in the Applicant’s field of endeavor and are not specifically disclosed as configured in the claimed manner. Additionally, there is no reasonable rationale for incorporating any of these voltage adder s into the combination of Sasaki and Sawataishi. Regarding claim 20 , despite teaching many of the structural features of the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 14 above), Sasaki and Sawataishi do not teach the claimed first-third voltage pulse generators configured to generate pulses having the claimed relative voltages levels, especially the second voltage pulse generator generating a fourth voltage level being a sum of the first voltage level and second voltage level and third voltage pulse generator generating a fifth voltage level being a sum of the first voltage level, second voltage level, and third voltage level. This configuration is specific and not taught by or obvious over the existing prior art. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4826 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christina Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1176 . 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. /MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742