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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazawa (JP 2007-273915).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Yamazawa a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a vacuum chamber; a substrate-supporting stage that is disposed inside the vacuum chamber and is connected to a first high-frequency power supply circuit that supplies a high-frequency power at a first frequency; a counter electrode that is disposed in opposite to the stage and is connected to a second high-frequency power supply circuit that supplies a high-frequency power at a second frequency; and a resonant circuit that is connected between a power supply line for connecting the stage and the first high-frequency power supply circuit and a ground potential and allows high-frequency current at the second frequency from the counter electrode to pass therethrough. (Paragraphs 0019-0032, Fig. 1, Fig. 6; Paragraph 0029 - High-order harmonics such as the fundamental wave of the high frequency power for plasma generation and the harmonic high frequency power with respect to the fundamental wave pass through the filter 62 and are supplied to the variable impedance unit 60 in the variable impedance circuit 40 described above; Paragraph 0031 – Here, the fundamental wave of the high frequency power for plasma generation supplied to the upper electrode 20, the harmonics of the fundamental wave of the high frequency power for plasma generation, and the high frequency power for bias supplied to the lower electrode 12 are fundamental)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Regarding claim 2, Yamazawa teaches wherein the resonant circuit is adjusted so that a resonant frequency between a substrate surface on the stage to the ground potential is the second frequency. (Paragraph 0031)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
Regarding claim 3, Yamazawa teaches wherein the resonant circuit is an LC series resonant circuit including a coil and a capacitor. (Figs. 2-6)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
Regarding claim 6, Yamazawa teaches further comprising an earth shield provided between a peripheral surface of the counter electrode and an inner wall surface of the vacuum chamber. (Paragraph 0021; Fig. 1 – annular shield 21)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
Regarding claim 7, Yamazawa teaches wherein the second frequency is a frequency higher than the first frequency. (Paragraph 0029 – 13.56 MHz, 60 MHz)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
Regarding claim 8, Yamazawa teaches further comprising a gas supply line for supplying an etching gas or a gas for deposition into the vacuum chamber. (Fig. 1 – 31, 32)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa (JP 2007-273915) in view of Hammond, IV et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0261431 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first high-frequency power supply circuit includes an impedance matching circuit that is connected to a first high-frequency power supply, a filter circuit that shields an input with the high-frequency power at the second frequency that is applied to the power supply line, and a voltage measurement part that is connected between the impedance matching circuit and the filter circuit and measures a high-frequency voltage that is output to the stage from impedance matching, and the resonant circuit is connected to the power supply line between the stage and the filter circuit.
Regarding claim 4:
Yamazawa teaches the first high-frequency power supply (Fig. 6) circuit includes an impedance matching circuit (item 35) that is connected to a first high-frequency power supply (item 36), a filter circuit that shields an input with the high-frequency power at the second frequency that is applied to the power supply line (62b, 62c), and the resonant circuit is connected to the power supply line between the stage and the filter circuit. (Fig. 6 – item 60a for example).
Hammond, IV et al. teach a voltage measurement part that measures a high-frequency voltage and adjusts the capacitor. (Paragraph 0050; Figs. 5, 6)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Hammond, IV et al. is that it allows for controlling RF voltage. (Paragraph 0050)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Yamazawa by utilizing the features of Hammond, IV et al. because it allows for controlling RF voltage applied.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa in view of Hammond, IV et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Marakhtanov et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0260567 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the capacitor is a variable capacitor capable of adjusting a capacitance value, the plasma processing apparatus further comprising a control unit that controls a capacitance value of the capacitor so that a voltage value measured by the voltage measurement part becomes minimum.
Hammond, IV et al. teach a control unit for controlling a variable capacitor as discussed above.
Marakhtanov et al. teach controlling to reach a minimum voltage. (Paragraphs 0065, 0090)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The combination of Hammond, IV et al. and Marakhtanov et al. teach a control method for the plasma processing apparatus, the resonant circuit being an LC series resonant circuit including a coil and a variable capacitor, comprising: measuring a high-frequency voltage at the first frequency that is input to the stage; and controlling a capacitance value of the variable capacitor so that the high-frequency voltage becomes minimum. (See Hammond, IV et al. and Marakhtanov et al. discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Marakhtanov et al. is that it allows for operating in the resonant point. (Paragraph 0065)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Marakhtanov et al. because it allows for operating in the resonant point.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights