DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (2/27/2024), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) are pending and being examined.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a phase shifter coupled between the control input and the sensor; the phase shifter being configured to adjust a phase of the feedback signal to provide a conditioned feedback signal at the control input”.
This and similar limitations in claims 10 and 16 are not clear.
It appears that the phase of the feedback refers to the phase of the sensor signal. It is noted that phase refers to phase angle between two sinusoidal signals. Signal from the sensor would however be a single sinusoidal wave. Therefore, the phase of the sensor is unclear. If the phase refers to phase of the sensor with respect to some other parameter, it should be explained.
Further the claim recites a phase shifter applied to the phase of the sensor to provide a conditioned feedback signal. This limitation is also unclear since the type of conditioning and phase shifting is unclear.
In view of the specification, the feedback appears to adjust the frequency of the oscillator when the load changes. The specification states that the feedback implements a phase-controlled oscillator which is also called a phase shift oscillator which controls the frequency of the oscillator by applying phase shift to the feedback. How, this phase shift is determined on the basis of sensor signal to controls the frequency is also unclear.
Claim 9 recites “an impedance transformer with flat frequency characteristics”. This is also unclear.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (US 10515781) in view of Andres et al (US 5416447).
Long et al disclose A resonant oscillator circuit (Fig 6) comprising:
an amplifier (144 and 146) comprising a control input and a power output configured to deliver RF power to a resonant load (134); and a feedback circuit comprising a sensor (640, 642) coupled to the RF power and configured to generate a feedback signal using the RF power.
Regarding the phase shifter coupled between the control input and the sensor, it is noted that sensor signal and phase offset determined from it is used as feedback to adjust the oscillator frequency (Col 1 line 32-40, and 59-65 and Col 7 lines 37-50).
Long et al do not explicitly disclose phase shifter. However, it is implicit from the discussion in Long that a change in plasma impedance would change the phase angle between the voltage and current and would require phase shift applied to the frequency input.
Andres et al discloses an oscillator (10) and amplifier (19) and disclose phase shifter (18) and amplitude regulator (15) in the feedback loop on the basis of directional coupler 14.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to adjust phase and amplitude of the feedback signal to control the frequency in order to maintain resonant load in various plasma conditions.
Regarding claims 2 and 3 the phase shifter could be fixed or variable (Andres et al Col 4 lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 4 sensor could be a voltage (Long 642) or current (Long 640) or directional coupler (Andres 14).
Regarding claim 5 and 13 amplitude regulator is disclosed (Andres 15).
Regarding claim 6 controller is disclosed (Long, 54, para 6, 14, 17, 33, 37 etc.)
Regarding claim 7 pulsing circuit is disclosed (Long, para 14).
Regarding claims 9 and 14 impedance transformer as understood to be an impedance before or after the switching network. Corresponding impedance will be 144 and 146 or network comprised of C4, L5, C5, L6, L8 and C7 in Long.
Claim 10 is rejected with claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11 the controller would be a digital device and therefore monitor and control parameters every microsecond (Long, Para 44).
Regarding claim 12 phase shifter would be analog as in Andres et al since it could be from varactor diode and controlled electronically (Col 4 lines 50- Col 5 line 3).
Claims 8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (US 10515781) in view of Andres et al (US 5416447) and John Charles Peer (US 3939380).
Regarding claims 8, 15, 16 and 17, Long et al in view of Andres et al do not particularly disclose that the switching amplifier is operated as class D amplifier.
John Charles Peer discloses amplifier transistor 12 operated as class D amplifier with DC bias applied to its base (R13 and 14) and teach that class D configuration increases efficiency (Abstract and Col 1 lines 6-31 and Col 2 lines 16-36).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to operate transistor amplifiers in class D for the sake of increased efficiency.
Claims 18-19 are directed to the placement of the sensor. It is noted that the prior art of Long et al and Andres et al disclose sensor placed logically as claimed. Physically it would be obvious to place it according to convenience. It is noted that rearrangement of parts was considered obvious.
Regarding claim 20 as claim 7, pulsing circuit is disclosed (Long, para 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dean Nicholson (US 11012033) discloses a resonant oscillator circuit (Fig 3) comprising:
an amplifier (330) comprising a control input and a power output configured to deliver RF power to a resonant load (346); and a feedback circuit comprising a sensor (340) coupled to the RF power and configured to generate a feedback signal using the RF power and a phase shifter (351) coupled between the control input and the sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights