DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (2/7/2024), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-26) 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 1-26 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 “an impedance transforming circuit configured to operate above resonance and to alter a slope of a tuning space of the second RF matching circuit to reduce reflected power”
This limitation is not fully clear, especially the underlined part. It appears to be related to the recitation in claims 14 and 17 as discussed below.
Claim 14 and 17 include the limitation “wherein a rate of change of a real component of the resistance of the second RF matching circuit relative to a frequency of the second RF source is greater than zero.”. This limitation is not understood since resistance does not depend upon frequency. It is noted that the total impedance will depend upon frequency so that real part of the impedance with respect to total impedance will vary with frequency but will always be non-zero. It is however unclear how this recitation further limits these claims.
It is further noted that “the resistance” has no antecedent basis.
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 1-3, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20180294566) in view of Kwon et al (US 20160126069).
Wang et al disclose regarding claims 1 and 17, an RF matching network (Fig 2-120) connected to an RF generator of a plasma processing system, comprising:
a first RF matching circuit configured to receive an output of a first RF source operating at a first RF frequency (125);
a second RF matching circuit configured to receive an output of a second RF source operating at a second RF frequency that is greater than the first RF frequency (123); second frequency to generate plasma compared to first for bias will generally be greater. This is more explicitly disclosed in Kwon (Para 13).
Wang et al disclose connecting RF power to upper or lower electrodes (Para 41).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 19 and 20 Wang et al disclose electrostatic chuck (para 4) and regrading claim 12 and 18, DC source for chucking.
Regarding the second RF matching circuit including an impedance transforming circuit configured to operate above resonance and to alter a slope of a tuning space of the second RF matching circuit to reduce reflected power the matching circuit adjusts (transforms) impedance to reduce reflected power.
Regarding RF output node this would be the electrode located in the processing chamber as more clearly disclosed in Kwon.
It would have been obvious before the filing date of this application to have second frequency greater and implement RF output node in Wang as more explicitly taught by Kwon.
Claims 4-11 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20180294566) in view of Kwon et al (US 20160126069) as applied to claims 1-3 and further in view of Tanaka et al (US 20030080824) and Marakhtanov et al (US 20170162368).
Regarding claim 4, 5, 21 and 22, Wang et al in view of Kwon et al do not disclose a transforming circuit of first to fifth impedance connected in the way claimed.
Marakhtanov et al disclose multifrequency RF power for plasma processing and disclose such transforming circuit being part of a matching circuit (Fig 2A) comprising impedances 206A, 206B, 206C, 204A and 204B connected as claimed.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 23-25, these are various implementations of the circuit containing impedances 206A, 206B, 206C, 204A and 204B.
Regarding this Tanaka discloses several configurations of matching circuits including L type in Fig 1, T type in Fig 2, Pi type in Fig 3 and teach that these basic tuning elements could be combined as in Fig 4 and discussed in (para 4-9) where it is taught that the tuning elements could be capacitors or inductors and could be combined in series or parallel. Number of tuning elements could determine tuning range. The tuning elements could be fixed or variable.
It is further noted that it is possible to transform T type network to Pi type and vice versa with different component values.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have used tuning in a large range by employing plurality of tuning elements as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, Wang et al in view of Kwon et al do not disclose a transforming circuit of T type configuration connected in the way claimed.
Marakhtanov et al disclose this configuration as comprised of L1, L2 and C2 of (Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 10 the claimed circuit is disclosed as a L type network of C3 and C4 which would be equivalent of two capacitors in parallel.
Regarding claim 11 and 26 claimed network would be a series network of C4 and L3.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20180294566) in view of Kwon et al (US 20160126069) and Ni et al (US 20210057188).
Regarding claims 13-15 Wang et al in view of Kwon et al do not disclose auto-tuning circuit (matching circuit) but do not disclose frequency tuning using claimed central frequency and frequency band around it.
Ni et al disclose plasma chamber and disclose a frequency matching where the central frequency is 60MHz and the band is 57-63 MHz (Para 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have used frequency tuning along with mechanical matching to take advantages of both type of tuning since frequency tuning is fast in a narrow range while mechanical tuning can have large range by employing plurality of tuning elements as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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. It is noted that claim 1 on which this claim depends needs to be amended to remove sec 112 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
McKinzie lll et al (US 20070197180) discloses a matching network with five impedances connected as claimed in claim 4.
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