DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 02/04/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendments to the claims do not distinguish patentably over the previously applied Long et al reference, for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0116656.
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 (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 (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 (the direct-drive radiofrequency signal generator formed by the combination of input section 202 and output section 204);
a second terminal (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 (TCP Coil); and
a reactive circuit (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) into a shaped-sinusoidal signal (see paragraphs [0087] through [0088] of Long et al) in route from the first terminal to the second terminal.
As to the new limitations added to claim 1, i.e., the reactive circuit including a variable capacitor and a fixed capacitor, the variable capacitor 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 connected to the first terminal at a first fixed capacitor end and connected to the second terminal at a second fixed capacitor end, these new limitations do not distinguish patentably over Long et al, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that a variable capacitor--such as variable capacitor C shown in figure 3A of Long et al--is typically formed using a variable capacitor in parallel with a fixed capacitor, three examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Wyse et al (see figures 3C and 3D), Kim et al (see figures 3C and 4) and Harada et al (see figures 8(A) and 8 (B)), the motivation for forming Long et al's variable capacitor C using a variable capacitor in parallel with a fixed capacitor being a simple specific for broad substitution, i.e., Long et al's figure 3A shows a generic variable capacitance C and Wyse et a, Kim et al and Harada et al show specific examples of how such a variable capacitor can be implemented in an actual circuit.
As to claim 2, although Long et al does not disclose that the reactive circuit 206 shown in figure 3A provides a reactance within a range extending from about -2500 ohms to about -10 ohms, this limitation does not distinguish patentably over Long et al, the reason being that it has long been held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955). As also held by the courts, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The same applies to the limitations in claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 19, 21, 23 and 26, i.e., discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955), and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 5, note paragraph [0129] of Long et al which indicates that one or more shunt capacitors can be connected to capacitor 322A, i.e., capacitor 322A is a variable capacitor and the plurality of shunt capacitors are fixed capacitors (because Long et al does not indicate that the shunt capacitors are also variable), note that such shunt capacitors will inherently be connected between ground and either the left-hand terminal or right-hand terminal of capacitor 322A, i.e., the variable capacitor 322A and the fixed shunt capacitor(s) will be in parallel with each other.
As to claim 10, although Long et al does not disclose a capacitor connected between a ground return end of the coil and a reference ground potential, such does not distinguish patentably over figure 3A of this reference, 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 capacitor between a ground return end of a coil and a reference ground potential, three examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Vinogradov et al (note capacitor 38 shown in figure 4), Yamazawa et al (note capacitor 220 shown in figure 3), and Suzuki et al (note capacitor 25 shown in figure 1), the motivation for adding such a capacitor between a ground return end of coil TCP Coil and a reference ground potential is to achieve the well-known advantages obtained by using such a capacitor.
As to claim 12, although Long et al does not disclose that the above-noted second terminal is connected to multiple separate windings of the coil, such does not distinguish patentably over figure 3A of this reference, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to connect a radiofrequency output signal to multiple separate windings of a coil within a plasma chamber, two examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by USP 9,293,353 in figure 1B and USPAP 2012/0073757 in figure 29, the motivation for connecting the above-noted second terminal in figure 3A of Long et al to multiple separate windings of the coil within plasma chamber 104 is to achieve the well-known advantages associated with such connections.
As to claims 13 and 14, although Long et al does not disclose the claimed capacitance setting control and stepper motor for enabling adjustment of the capacitance setting, such does not distinguish patentably over figure 3A of this reference, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to adjust the capacitance of a variable capacitor in this manner, two examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Gahan et al (see paragraph [0063]) and Maw et al (see paragraph [0040]), the motivation for using such a capacitance setting control and stepper motor in the Long et al ‘656 figure 3A circuitry is to achieve the well-known advantages associated with such a capacitance setting control and stepper motor.
As to claim 15, although Long et al does not disclose that the reactive circuit is disposed within an enclosure and that the system includes a cooling fan, such does not distinguish patentably over figure 3A of this reference, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to include a circuit component within an enclosure for the well-known purpose of being cooled by a cooling fan, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claim 16, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
As to claims 17, 18 and 20, the limitations of these claims will be inherent during the operation of the Long et al figure 3A circuitry, i.e., it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claims 22, 24 and 25, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1, 16-18 and 20.
Action is Final
3. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
4. 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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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 2842 February 16, 2026