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 claims 1-12, 24-25 in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II (process), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/02/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-12, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170084432 to Valcore, JR in view of US 20060278521 to Stowell.
Claims 1, 24, 6, 7: Valcore, JR discloses a substrate processing system comprising: a generator (configured to supply radio frequency (RF) power to an electrode (146 [electrostatic chuck], Fig. 2) arranged in a processing chamber (112 [plasma chamber]) and including: a first RF source (“x MHz RF generator”) supplying at least part of the RF power at a first frequency (para. [0070]); a second RF source (“y MHz RF generator”) supplying at least part of the RF power at a second frequency that is greater than the first frequency (para. [0070]); and a matching network (112 [impedance matching network]) including an input connected to the first RF source (“x MHz RF generator”) and the second RF source (“y MHz RF generator”) and an output connected to the electrode (146, Fig. 2);
a sensor (152 and/or 186 [voltage and current probe]) configured to sense a parameter of the RF power at the first frequency (para. [0094-0095]); and a controller (180 [host system]) configured to compensate variations (interpreted as adjusting) in one of a deposition rate and an etching rate of an etch or deposition process of a substrate (119 [work piece]) arranged on a substrate support (146, para. [0070]) by:
causing the sensor (152/186) to sense the parameter at least one of prior to processing the substrate and after a predetermined period (interpreted as any period) after the processing of the substrate begins (para. [0106]); and adjusting the RF power for the substrate during the processing of the substrate based on the parameter sensed for the substrate (at least para. [0126], [0136]).
However Valcore, JR does not explicitly disclose the compensation due to variations in bulk resistivity of a substrate. Yet Valcore, JR teaches the sensor sensing the measured RF voltage, to determine an ion energy, which is a function of RF voltage and DC bias potential (para. [0106]).
Stowell teaches a link between ion energy (EV) and film quality (bulk resistance), in that when ion energy is low, the film quality can be lower indicating that bulk resistance is high (para. [0061]) which is controlled also through the frequency, for the purpose of controlling film quality through controlling the ion energy during processing (para. [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Stowell with motivation to control film quality through controlling the ion energy during processing.
Claims 2, 25: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the parameter is selected from a group consisting of an RF voltage, an RF current and an RF phase angle at a first frequency (para. [0094-0095], Valcore, JR).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the parameter comprises an RF voltage at a first frequency (para. [0094-0095], Valcore, JR).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the first frequency is less than or equal 2 MHz (where any values between the provided range are considered, para. [0070], Valcore, JR).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the first frequency is in a range from 300 kHz to 500 kHz (where any values between the provided range are considered, para. [0070], Valcore, JR).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the second frequency is in a range of 2 MHz to 120 MHz (where any values between the provided range are considered, para. [0070], Valcore, JR).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the second frequency is 13.56 MHz (where any values between the provided range are considered, para. [0070], Valcore, JR).
Claim 11: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses wherein the processing of the substrate comprises one of: deposition of film on the substrate and the rate comprises a deposition rate (at least para. [0022-0023], [0145-0147]); and etching of film on the substrate and the rate comprises an etching rate (at least para. [0022-0023], [0145-0147]). It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell discloses disclose wherein the processing of the substrate comprises bevel deposition in a bevel etcher (para. [0342]). It is noted that the limitations are drawn to intended use of the apparatus. The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valcore, JR in view of Stowell as applied to claims 1-9, 11-12, 24-25 above, and further in view of US 20160372307 to Yang.
Claim 10: The apparatus of Valcore, JR in view of Stowell does not disclose wherein the sensor is connected between the matching network and the electrode.
Yang discloses wherein the sensor (181 [sensor device], Fig. 1) is connected between the matching network (151/152 [matching network]) and the electrode (136/154, para. [0028]) for the purpose of monitoring RF energy from one or both RF power sources to tune the plasma (para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor arrangement as taught by Yang with motivation to monitor RF energy from one or both RF power sources to tune the plasma.
Claims 13-23: (Withdrawn).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 24-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,057,295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims of the instant application is fully encompassed by the patent, rendering the instant application obvious over the patent mentioned above. It is further noted that the instant application is a continuation of US Patent No. 12,057,295.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718