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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected (Group II, method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/17/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “165” has been used to designate both “electromechanical actuators” and referenced components in Fig. 9B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Blocking portions (extraction slits, para. [0062]) in at least claims 2-4, 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20160211156 to Singh.
Claim 1: Singh discloses a processing apparatus, comprising: a chamber (103 [reaction chamber], Fig. 1) operable to contain a plasma within a chamber volume (inside 103), the chamber (103) defined by a plurality of sidewalls (sidewalls of 103); a plate assembly (107 [ion extractor plate]) proximate a substrate (101 [substrate]), the plate assembly (107) comprising a plate (107) defining a plurality of apertures (109 [apertures]), wherein ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures (109, para. [0038]) and are delivered to the substrate at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from the substrate (101, para. [0036]); and
an actuator (“translational actuator,” para. [0091]) operable to dither the plate (107) and the substrate (101) relative to one another as the ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures (109, para. [0091-0092]).
Claim 2: Singh discloses wherein the plate (107, Fig. 1, 5A-5D, 6A-6B, Singh) further comprising a plurality of blocking portions (interpreted as areas with no apertures) to block the ions, and wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the plurality of apertures (para. [0075-0078]).
Claim 3: Singh discloses wherein each of the plurality of blocking portions (interpreted as areas with no apertures, Fig. 5A-5D, 6A-6B, Singh) comprises a straight portion (see Fig 5A-5D where there are “straight portions”).
Claim 4: Singh discloses wherein the plate (107, Fig. 1, 5A-5D, 6A-6B, Singh) comprises a series of peaks and valleys (127 [peaks], 129 [valleys], Fig. 1), and wherein a first aperture (602, Fig. 6A or 6B) of the plurality of apertures (602) is located between a first peak (127) and a first valley (129) of the series of peaks and valleys (Fig. 6A or 6B).
Claim 5: Singh discloses further comprising a power supply (757 [power supply], Fig. 7) operable to provide a pulsed bias signal to one or more of the following: the substrate, a shield ring adjacent the substrate, and the plate (750 [ion extractor plate] through 717 [substrate support], para. [0115]), wherein a duty cycle of the pulsed bias signal varies as the plate is dithered relative to the substrate as the ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures (109, para. [0109]).
Regarding the limitation “wherein a duty cycle of the pulsed bias signal varies as the plate is dithered relative to the substrate as the ions are extracted,” it is noted that the limitations are drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, which Singh is capable to perform as necessary (para. [0109], [0091-0092]). The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 8: Singh discloses wherein the plate assembly (107, Fig. 1, Singh) is located within the plasma chamber (inside 103, Fig. 1, para. [0030]).
Claim(s) 9-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20160211156 to Singh.
Claim 9: Singh discloses a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a plasma chamber (103 [reaction chamber], Fig. 1) operable to contain a plasma within a chamber volume (inside 103), the chamber (103) defined by a plurality of sidewalls (sidewalls of 103); a plate assembly (107 [ion extractor plate]) within the plasma chamber (103) wherein the plate assembly (107) is above a substrate (101 [substrate]), wherein the plate assembly (107) comprises a plate (107) defining a plurality of apertures (109 [apertures]), wherein ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures (109, para. [0038]) and are delivered to the substrate at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from the substrate (101, para. [0036]); and
an actuator (“translational actuator,” para. [0091]) operable to dither the plate (107) and the substrate (101) relative to one another as the ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures (109, para. [0091-0092]).
Claim 10: Singh discloses wherein the plate (107, Fig. 1, 5A-5D, 6A-6B, Singh) further comprising a plurality of blocking portions (interpreted as areas with no apertures) to block the ions, and wherein ion beamlets are extracted through the plurality of apertures (para. [0075-0078]).
Claim 11: Singh discloses further comprising a power supply (757 [power supply], Fig. 7) operable to provide a pulsed bias signal to one or more of the following: the substrate, a shield ring adjacent the substrate, and the plate (750 [ion extractor plate] through 717 [substrate support], para. [0115]), wherein a duty cycle of the pulsed bias signal varies as the plate is dithered relative to the substrate as the ions are extracted through the plurality of apertures (109, para. [0109]).
Regarding the limitation “wherein a duty cycle of the pulsed bias signal varies as the plate is dithered relative to the substrate as the ions are extracted,” it is noted that the limitations are drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, which Singh is capable to perform as necessary (para. [0109], [0091-0092]). The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 14: Singh discloses wherein the plate (107, Fig. 1, 5A-5D, 6A-6B, Singh) comprises a series of peaks and valleys (127 [peaks], 129 [valleys], Fig. 1), and wherein a first aperture (602, Fig. 6A or 6B) of the plurality of apertures (602) is located between a first peak (127) and a first valley (129) of the series of peaks and valleys (Fig. 6A or 6B), and wherein the first peak (127) and the first valley (129) are directly adjacent one another (Fig. 6A or 6B).
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) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160211156 to Singh as applied to claims 1-5, 8 above.
Claims 6, 7: Singh does not explicitly disclose (claim 6) wherein the actuator is operable to dither the plate repeatedly between a first position and a second position while the substrate remains in a stationary position, and wherein the power supply reduces the duty cycle when the plate is in the first position and the second position; (claim 7) wherein the power supply increases the duty cycle when the plate is moving between the first position and the second position.
However Singh teaches that the actuator is operable to move the plate towards and away from the stationary substrate support, which is interpreted as a first position and second position (para. [0091-0092]), and a controller (“system controller”) can be direct a power supply to the ion extractor plate and contain instructions to modify relevant parameters such as modifying the bias applied to the ion extractor plate, and the substrate support, etc. (para. [0128]) for the purpose of modifying the ion energy of ions traveling into the lower processing chamber during the etch process (para. [0128]).
It is also noted that majority of the limitations in claims 6 and 7 are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, see above case law in claim 5 regarding intended use, while being obvious rationale, in either case, not a patentable advance.
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 limitations above as taught by Singh with motivation to modify the ion energy of ions traveling into the lower processing chamber during the etch process.
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160211156 to Singh as applied to claims 9-11, 14 above.
Claims 12, 13: Singh does not explicitly disclose (claim 12) wherein the actuator is operable to dither the plate repeatedly between a first position and a second position while the substrate remains in a stationary position, and wherein the power supply reduces the duty cycle when the plate is in the first position and the second position; (claim 13) wherein the power supply increases the duty cycle when the plate is moving between the first position and the second position.
However Singh teaches that the actuator is operable to move the plate towards and away from the stationary substrate support, which is interpreted as a first position and second position (para. [0091-0092]), and a controller (“system controller”) can be direct a power supply to the ion extractor plate and contain instructions to modify relevant parameters such as modifying the bias applied to the ion extractor plate, and the substrate support, etc. (para. [0128]) for the purpose of modifying the ion energy of ions traveling into the lower processing chamber during the etch process (para. [0128]).
It is also noted that majority of the limitations in claims 6 and 7 are drawn to intended use of the apparatus, see above case law in claim 5 regarding intended use, while being obvious rationale, in either case, not a patentable advance.
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 limitations above as taught by Singh with motivation to modify the ion energy of ions traveling into the lower processing chamber during the etch process.
Claims 15-20: (Withdrawn).
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14 of copending Application No. 18/424470 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application render the claims of the instant application obvious. More specifically, although the language of the claims of the instant application and the copending application are not identical, the subject matter in the disclosure represented by the language of the aforementioned claims is the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10818472 discloses an electrode (620, Fig. 6) having a segmented surface (620) which includes a plurality of angled surfaces (621, c. 13, l. 55-67) which is biased by RF power. US 20160333464 to Likhanskii discloses an extraction assembly including a plurality of baffles (212, Fig. 2), and having surfaces arranged at a non-zero angle with respect to the X-Y plane (para. [0029]).
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