DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 13-23 in the reply filed on 08/12/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 21 and 22 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.
Claim 21 requires that a degree of opening of a pressure control valve is used “instead of the pressure measured by a pressure gauge”. Initially, no pressure gauge was previously required for the pressure but the claims may not alter the scope of a previous claim. The claim makes no actual requirement of how the degree of opening is “used” specifically, it lacks any specific relation to the EEDF if that is what is desired.
Claim 22 requires an electron energy probability function while claim 13 requires the electron energy distribution function, this is an improper change of scope.
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.
Claims 13, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hadid (2011/0000896).
Hadid teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising a control device and configured to plasmarize a gas, see Figs. 1, 15 and 16, and
- wherein the control device includes:
- a measurer to measure an electron energy distribution function, see [0068] wherein a probe is inserted to measure electron energy distribution,
- the system further comprises a “parameter changer” in that the nanopulse voltages are changed and the electron energy distribution function is measured for the various voltages. The claim requires that the parameter changer changes parameters during process so that the measured function approaches a target function – the teachings include [0069-70] that the function is controllable by the parameter changer to reach a desired target as defined by the desired process (exemplified as in SOI applications). The parameter changer is broadly interpreted as a controller that effects a change in such parameters, and it is understood that the voltage is changed by such a controller.
Regarding claim 20, it is initially noted that the parameters of claim 20 do not require that the parameter is the changed parameter, but as the voltage is changed per above, that would be considered at least a portion of a “recent recipe” as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, the teachings include control of the pressure [0043] and therefore necessarily the pressure control valve is “used”. The claim isn’t limiting on limiting the degree of opening or what it is used for and it is necessary that the pressure control valve is controlled in some manner for achieving such subatmospheric pressure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 and 23 are 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. Setsuhara (2006/0057854) teaches control of the electron energy distribution function in the plasma using process conditions [0086]. Paterson (7,264,688) teaches a system wherein electron energy distribution function is changed by controlling power level. The prior art of record teaches measuring the electron energy function distribution as above and also teaches various means of controlling the function, but lacks any description of an actual target.
More specifically, the prior art generally teaches the ability to control the value but not the targeting of a specific value, measurement of the same and targeting the setpoint.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights