DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Claims 16-21 are Withdrawn
3. Claims 16-21, as now amended, are directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 16-21, as now amended, recite an invention which is substantially different from the original invention recited in claims 1-11, 13-15 and 22-26. Note that original claims 1-11, 13-15 and 22-26 have now been amended to include the limitations of a conductive structure connected to the second terminal, wherein the conductive structure includes a first conductive connector disposed on a first conductive structure end and a second conductive connector disposed on a second conductive structure end, the first conductive connector configured to connect to a first winding of a coil, the second conductive connector being configured to connect to a second winding of a coil (note that none of these limitations are included in the invention of amended claims 16-21), and amended claims 16-21 now include the separate and patentably distinct limitations of first and second direct-drive radiofrequency signal generators and corresponding first and second reactive circuits coupled between the respective outputs of the first and second direct-drive radiofrequency signal generators and the inner and outer coils (note that none of these limitations are included in the original invention of claims 1-11, 13-15 and 22-26). Applicant should also note that the search needed to determine if the invention of claims 1-11, 13-15 and 22-26 is patentable would be entirely different from the search needed to determine if the invention of claims 16-21 is patentable, and thus restriction between these two inventions is appropriate.
Moreover, because applicant has already received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention of claims 1-11, 13-15 and 22-26, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claims 1-11, 13-15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On line 9 of claim 1, "a coil" lacks clear antecedent basis, the reason being that a coil has already been recited on line 5 of claim 1, i.e., it cannot be determined by the examiner if the coil recited on line 9 is referring to the same coil set forth on line 5. If these two recitations of a coil are referring to the same coil, then "a coil" on line 9 of claim 1 should be changed to --the coil--.
Claims 2-11 and 13-15 are rejected as being indefinite in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 1-11, 13-15 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (USPAP 2019/0116656) in view of any one of Wyse et al (USP 9,667,211), Kim et al (USPAP 2001/0028435) and Harada et sl (USPAP 2018/0102768), and further in view of Todorow et al (USPAP 2014/0367046).
As to claim 1, Long et al discloses, in figure 3A,
a junction system for a radiofrequency power transmission system for a plasma processing chamber, comprising:
a first terminal (as indicated in the previous office action, the claimed first terminal can be read on any one of the source terminal of transistor 318A, the drain terminal of transistor 318B, the left-hand terminal of resistor 320, or the right-hand terminal of resistor 320) configured to connect to a radiofrequency signal supply pin (as indicated in the previous office action, the claimed radiofrequency signal supply pin can be read on the output pin of signal generator 306 or, alternatively, the output pin of input section 202 or, alternatively, the output pin of output section 204) connected to an output (output O1) of a direct-drive radiofrequency signal generator (as indicated in the previous office action, the claimed a direct-drive radiofrequency signal generator can be read on the direct-drive radiofrequency signal generator formed by the combination of input section 202 and output section 204);
a second terminal (as indicated in the previous office action, the claimed second terminal can be read on the output terminal of reactive circuit 206 or, alternatively, the input terminal of plasma chamber 104 or, alternatively, any terminal on line 110) configured to connect to a coil (as indicated in the previous office action, the claimed coil can be read on TCP Coil within plasma chamber 104); and
a reactive circuit (as indicated in the previous office action, the claimed reactive circuit can be read on reactive circuit 206 or, alternatively, capacitor 322A) connected between the first terminal and the second terminal, the reactive circuit configured to transform a shaped-amplified square waveform signal (see paragraphs [0020] through [0021] of Long et al) in route from the first terminal to the second terminal.
As to the limitations recited on the last five lines of claim 1, i.e., the reactive circuit including a variable capacitor and a fixed capacitor, where the variable capacitor is connected to the first terminal at a first variable capacitor end and connected to the second terminal at a second variable capacitor end, the fixed capacitor being connected to the first terminal at a first fixed capacitor end and connected to the second terminal at a second fixed capacitor end, although they are not disclosed by Long et al, such limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons indicated in the paragraph bridging pages 4-5 of the previous office action.
As to the new limitations added to claim 1, i.e., a conductive structure connected to the second terminal and including a first conductive connector disposed on a first conductive structure end and a second conductive connector disposed on a second conductive structure end, the first conductive connector configured to connect to a first winding of a coil, the second conductive connector configured to connect to a second winding of a coil, although they are not disclosed by Long et al, such limitations also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to connect such a conductive structure between the output terminal of a reactive circuit (such as Long et al's reactive circuit 206) and first and second windings of a coil (such as Long et al's coil TCP), one example of such a conductive structure being disclosed by Todorow et al, note figures 2 and 3 of this reference where the claimed conductive structure can be read on conductive structure 206, note that conductive structure 206 includes a first conductive connector disposed on a first conductive structure end, i.e., the first conductive structure end is the top end of conductive structure 206, note that it is disposed on a first conductive structure end (i.e., the top end of conductive structure 206), and note that conductive structure 206 also includes a second conductive structure end (i.e., the bottom end of conductive structure 206), note further that the top end and the bottom end of conductive structure 206 are connected to the top and bottom windings 308 and 310, respectively, of the coil 70, as shown in figure 3 of Todorow et al, note also the disclosure in this reference on lines 4-6 of paragraph [0033] wherein Todorow et al indicates that the output terminal of the matching circuit is coupled to conductor element 302, which itself is coupled to the conductive structure 206, i.e., this disclosure anticipates the limitation that the conductive structure is connected to the second terminal (as recited on line 6 of claim 1), and finally note what is indicated on lines 12-16 of paragraph [0034] of Todorow et al, i.e., each of the windings 242 of Todorow et al coil 70 is connected to the conductive structure 206 via a set screw, wire, metallic insert, spring, retaining ring, or other suitable locking mechanism, note that this disclosure anticipates the limitation in amended claim 1 of the above-noted first and second conductive connectors being disposed on the first and second ends, respectively, of the conductive structure, i.e., a first conductive connector will be included for connecting the top winding 308 to the conductive structure 206 and a second conductive connector will be included for connecting the bottom winding 310 to the conductive structure 206. The motivation for using the coil assembly shown in Todorow et al’s figures 2 and 3 in place of coil TCP in figure 3A of Long et al is a simple specific-for-broad substitution or, alternatively, to obtain the inherent advantages which would be obtained when using the Todorow et al coil assembly in place of Long et al’s coil TCP.
As to claim 22, all of the limitations of this method claim would have been obvious from figure 3A of Long et al as modified by the above-noted secondary references, i.e., using the same reasoning as noted above in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 2-11, 13-15 and 23-26, all the limitations of these claims are either anticipated by or would have been obvious from Long et al’s figure 3A as modified above, i.e., for the reasons indicated on pages 5 through 8 of the previous office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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: none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the junction system as recited in claim 1, with the further limitations that the conductive structure comprises a vertically oriented first portion connected to a U-shaped horizontally oriented second portion, the second portion including the first conductive structure end and the second conductive connector, the second portion connected to the second portion between the first conductive structure end and the second conductive connector, as recited in claim 27.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 May 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights