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 in the reply filed on July 14, 2026, is acknowledged.
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.
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 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scullin et al. (US 2022/0076933 A1), hereinafter “Scullin”, and further in view of Denieffe, K., et al. "Retarding field energy analyser ion current calibration and transmission." Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 44.7 (2011): 075205, hereinafter “Denieffe”.
Regarding claim 11, Scullin teaches a method for measuring a plasma property with a sensor device (abstract, Figs. 1, 2), comprising:
inserting the sensor device (Fig. 2a, ref 201, paragraph [0098]) for measuring the plasma property into a chamber (ref 105paragraphs [0095]-[0096]), wherein the sensor device comprises a sensor (as shown in Figs. 1, 2; paragraph [0098]) .
Scullin is silent regarding measuring an ion transmission value with the sensor; and applying a scaling factor to the ion transmission value, wherein the scaling factor is determined through a calibration process.
However, Denieffe teaches a method for measuring a plasma property with a sensor (abstract) including measuring an ion transmission value with the sensor (pages 2-3, Sec. Experimental configuration); and applying a scaling factor to the ion transmission value, wherein the scaling factor is determined through a calibration process (pages 4-6, Sec. 3, RFEA calibration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Scullin with the teaching of Denieffe by including measuring an ion transmission value with the sensor; and applying a scaling factor to the ion transmission value, wherein the scaling factor is determined through a calibration process in order to calibrate the measurements made with a retarding field energy analyzer.
Regarding claim 13, Scullin teaches wherein the sensor is a retarding analyzer sensor (paragraphs [0005], [0146]-[0147]), but silent regarding a retarding energy analyzer sensor.
However, Denieffe teaches a retarding energy analyzer sensor (page 1, Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Scullin with the teaching of Denieffe by including wherein the retarding analyzer sensor is a retarding energy analyzer sensor as the RFEA has a small size and low cost, page 1, Introduction.
Regarding claim 15, Scullin teaches wherein the sensor device has a form factor compatible with automated movement throughout a processing tool (paragraphs [0006], [0096]-[0097], ref 107).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scullin and Denieffe as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Osawa et al. (US 2017/0010214 A1), hereinafter “Osawa”.
Regarding claim 12, Scullin is silent regarding wherein the scaling factor and the ion transmission value are multiplied with each other.
However, Osawa teaches an optical calibration method (abstract) including wherein the scaling factor and the ion transmission value are multiplied with each other (paragraph [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Scullin with the teaching of Osawa by including wherein the scaling factor and the ion transmission value are multiplied with each other in order to properly calibrate the system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scullin and Denieffe as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Soyemi et al. (US 2007/0112258 A1), hereinafter “Soyemi”.
Regarding claim 16, Scullin teaches wherein the sensor device comprises a plurality of sensors (Fig. 2(a), ref 201, paragraphs [0098]-[0099]), but is silent regarding wherein a different scaling factor is applied to each of the plurality of sensors.
However, Soyemi teaches calibration of a sensor (abstract) including wherein a different scaling factor is applied to each of the plurality of sensors (paragraphs [0012]-[0013], [0086], [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Scullin with the teaching of Soyemi by including wherein a different scaling factor is applied to each of the plurality of sensors in order to more accurately calibrate the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of calibrating a device sensor, the method comprising, among other essential elements, inserting the device sensor into the calibration system; measuring a transmission value of the amount of light from the light source that is transmitted through the device sensor towards the photonic detector; and calculating a scaling factor for the device sensor, wherein the scaling factor equalizes the transmission value of the device sensor to the reference transmission value of the reference sensor, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim. Claims 2-10 are dependent from claim 1 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring a plasma property with a sensor device, the method comprising, among other essential elements, wherein the calibration process uses a light source and a photonic detector to determine a transmission value of an amount of light from the light source that is transmitted through the sensor, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 11 and the above claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Russ (US 2012/0305756) teaches a conventional sensor calibration device, but does not include the above cited inventive limitations.
Heil (US 2014/0103808) teaches a conventional device for measuring plasma with a sensor, and could be combined with prior art of record to render claim 11 obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights