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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claims are directed to a process, a statutory category of invention.
The analysis cannot be streamlined because when viewed as a whole, the eligibility of the claims are not self-evident. The claims recite mental steps “calculating,” “deriving,” or “generating” without integrating the results of the determining into a positive step. In other words, all possible uses of the determining are preempted.
STEP 2A – Prong One
Claim 1 recites calculating, which is a mental process (“calculating a first correlation between a measured voltage from an impedance control circuit and an ion incident angle above the ring assembly” and “calculating a second correlation between the measured voltage and an impedance around the ring assembly”). The cited calculating is a mathematical concept. Mathematical concepts are abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.
STEP 2A – Prong Two
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements in claim 1 are: etching a substrate by generating a plasma in the substrate treating device; and controlling an impedance of the impedance control circuit using the first correlation and the second correlation according to wear of the ring assembly by the plasma. These additional steps are cited at a high level of generality, and merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, that of etching and wear of the ring assembly. MPEP 2106.05(h).
STEP 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites etching a substrate by generating a plasma. Plasma etching is old and routine. (Gu et al, US 2018/0102238 A1, Figure 1, [0049]). Controlling an impedance according to wear of a ring assembly is also known. (Ichino et al, US 2010/0203736 A1, abstract).
When considered in combination, these steps recite to etch and control an impedance. The steps merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, that of etching and controlling the impedance, using routine and conventional techniques.
As to the remaining dependent claims and newly added claims, these also recite mathematical concepts, mental processes or limitations that are well known in the art of deposition and etching. Claim 2 recites repeating etching and controlling the impedance according to wear, which like claim 1 are old and routine. Claim 3 recites the result of the control and adds no meaningful limitation to the claim. Claims 4-5 provide further details of the mathematical concept, which remain abstract ideas. Claim 6 recites details about the mathematical concept, but the claim still remains a mathematical concept. Claim 7 recites generating a lookup table, which can be done in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, which is a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Mental processes are abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Claim 8 recites controlling at a high level of generality and thus merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, that of etching and wear of the ring assembly. Claims 9-10 recite details of the impedance control circuit which are old and routine. (Gu et al, US 2018/0102238 A1, Fig. 2, [0027], Fig. 3A-3B). Claim 11 also recites old and routine details of the apparatus (Gu et al, Fig. 1, [0012]).
For the reasons described above, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, last line, the term “wear of the ring assembly by the plasma” is unclear. Does this refer wear as a result of the plasma etching of a substrate limited to the etching recited in claim 1, wear that has occurred over etching of several substrates, or to future wear? The metes and bound of the claim are thus unclear.
In claim 2, last two lines, the term “wear of the ring assembly by the repeating etch process” is unclear. Does this refer wear as a result of repeated plasma etching of a substrate limited to the etching recited in claims 1-2, wear that has occurred over repeated etching of several substrates, or to future wear? The metes and bound of the claim are thus unclear.
In claim 3, it is unclear whether compensation is a positive method step, or merely the result of controlling the impedance.
In claim 8, “a substrate treating time” is unclear. Does this refer to treating of only the substrate as recited in claim 1, time as a result of etching several substrate, or future treating time? The metes and bound of the claim are thus unclear.
Claims 4-7 and 9-11 fail to cure the indefiniteness of the base claim, and are therefore also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao et al (CN 109961998 A) is cite to show controlling plasma etching by adjusting impedance to reduce focus ring wear.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights