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 .
This final office action is responsive to Applicants' response filed on 07/30/26. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination and are pending for the reasons indicated herein below.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/26have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Brouk's ion current calculation drives a current source, not a duration. As set forth above, Brouk's calculated ion current is used to set the magnitude of the compensation current IC to narrow or widen the IEDF. No passage of Brouk connects the calculated ion current to the duration of the portion between the pulses, and no passage of Brouk connects it to surface charge accumulation on the substrate. Because § 102 requires the recited elements to be arranged as claimed, a reference that computes the same physical quantity and applies it to a different actuator for a different purpose does not anticipate.
Examiner respectively disagrees: The duration of the ion current comes from the current source itself. Claim does not mention any specific duration. See ¶126, “.. ion current is calculated over an interval t …”
Applicant argues: The cited support does not disclose adjusting the inter-pulse duration. The Office Action supports this limitation with the parenthetical "[function of 1212 per 92]." Applicant has reviewed paragraph [0092] of Brouk in its entirety. That paragraph discloses two things, neither of which is the claimed adjustment. First, it teaches that the two gate drive signals V2 and V4 be applied to switches T1 and T2 such that the time each pulse is applied at Vout is short compared to the time T between pulses, yet long enough to induce a positive voltage at the substrate surface to attract electrons-a teaching directed to the duration of the pulse, and directed to electron attraction rather than to charge regulation. Second, it teaches that changing the gate voltage level between the pulses makes it possible to control the slope of the voltage applied at Vout between the pulses. Slope is not duration. Paragraph [0092] does not mention surface charge, does not mention ion current, and does not adjust the duration of the portion between the pulses.
An assertion that the claimed control is a "function of 1212"-reference numeral 1212 being Brouk's controller-is not a disclosure of that control. Every programmable controller in the art could be programmed to execute countless control laws; that universal capability is not a disclosure of any of them. The claim requires a controller configured to perform the recited adjustment, and Brouk must be shown to disclose such a controller. Brouk's enumerated computed quantities do not include surface charge accumulation. Brouk
is unusually explicit about what its measurements enable it to compute. Paragraphs [0154]-[0161] and Equations 4 through 8 set out ion energy, IEDF width, sheath capacitance, Debye sheath distance, the electric field in the sheath, plasma density, effective mass of ions, and the DC potential of the substrate, and paragraph [0161] recites the fundamental plasma parameters that Brouk's disclosure enables one to measure directly. Accumulated surface charge on the substrate appears nowhere in that enumeration.
Examiner respectively disagrees: The function of 1212 is to drive the current output of 1206, which charges the 1204. As applying current to a material modifies its current the charge state. See ¶200 which further explains adjusting charge states to 2111.
Applicant argues claim 9 and 15:
First, the factual premise is absent from Brouk. Brouk does not disclose that the arc detection component 222 detects, measures, or reports a current. Brouk discloses that component 222 detects an arc in the plasma chamber, and that controller 212 responds by carrying out arc management functions-either altering the drive-control signals 232', 232" so that the waveform applied at output 236 extinguishes arcs in the plasma, or simply interrupting those drive-control signals so that the application of power at output 236 is interrupted. Brouk 11 [0080], [0085]. An arc detector that triggers extinguishment or shutdown is not an instrument that computes accumulated charge on a substrate surface. Claim 15, as amended, recites the corresponding method: providing a waveform comprising pulses and a portion between the pulses; calculating surface charge accumulation on a substrate on the support; and adjusting a duration of the portion between the pulses based on the calculation of surface charge accumulation. Claim 15 is patentable over Brouk for the reasons set forth above, which apply with equal force to the method.
Applicant further submits that the inherency rationale offered for the method claims cannot supply the missing steps. The Office Action states that under MPEP § 2112.02, if a prior art device in its normal and usual operation would necessarily perform the method claimed, the method is anticipated, and on that basis declines to repeat the apparatus analysis for the method claims. That rationale is unavailable here for two independent reasons. Inherency requires necessity. "Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." MPEP § 2112(IV). Claim 15 requires an affirmative computational act-calculating surface charge accumulation-and a control act keyed to the result of that computation. Hardware that has never been programmed to compute a quantity does not compute it in its normal and usual operation, and a system whose inter-pulse interval is set by ion transit time and switch protection (Brouk 11 [0089], [0107]) does not necessarily vary that interval in response to a quantity it never computes. Brouk's apparatus, operating exactly as Brouk describes, samples Vo, computes a slope, computes an ion current, and drives the compensation current toward that ion current to hold the substrate voltage substantially constant between the pulses. Brouk 11 [0134], [0137]-[0140]. That is not the claimed method; it is a different method aimed at a different result.
Brouk's apparatus lacks the controller functionality that the present specification describes for carrying out the claimed method-namely, computation of accumulated surface charge and adjustment of the duration of the portion between the pulses in response to that computation. Because the antecedent apparatus rejection does not reach the amended limitations of claim 1, the derivative method rejection cannot stand either.
Examiner respectively disagrees: The arc is a product that is based on the surface charge. Thus, the claim follows the structure of Brouk since the arc is based on the accumulative charge one of ordinary skill in the art can also interpret that the adjustments are based on the surface charge accumulation. It should be noted that all functions produced from the structure of Brouk are based from all components and parameters. Because the electrical parameters on the chamber are configured to dynamically be influenced by the controller which is dependent on the control’s input parameters. Making the entire structure based on all components and parameters.
Applicant argues:
Second, even accepting the premise, the inference is the Office's and not Brouk's. That current is the time derivative of charge is a general statement of physics; it is not a teaching in the reference. Supplying such an inference to bridge a gap in the disclosure converts the rejection into something other than anticipation. Under §102 the reference must describe the claimed subject matter without the need for picking, choosing, and combining.
The cited support for the adjusting step contains no such teaching. The Office supports the adjusting limitation of claim 9 with "[function of 212 per 180-181]." Paragraph [0080] introduces FIG. 2 and does no more than name components: the switch mode bias supply 206 used to apply power to the substrate to effectuate desired ion energies, the ion energy control component 220, the arc detection component 222, the controller 212, and the waveform memory 224. Paragraph [0081], as noted above, states only that this arrangement is logical and that the components may be combined, further separated, or otherwise connected without changing the basic operation of the system. Neither paragraph refers to surface charge, to the portion between the pulses, or to the duration of that portion, let alone to adjusting that duration on the basis of a computed charge. A roster of components followed by a statement that they may be rearranged is not a disclosure of the recited instructions.
Brouk's own instruction set is directed to a different calculation and a different actuator.
The Office relies on Brouk's claim 36 for the recited storage medium. Claim 36 is instructive, but it does not help the rejection. It recites instructions for a method of monitoring an ion current: sampling the modified periodic voltage function given an ion current compensation having a first value, sampling it again given a second value, determining a slope of the modified periodic voltage function as a function of time, and calculating a third value of the ion current compensation at which a constant voltage on the substrate will exist for at least one cycle. Brouk's instructions therefore compute a compensation current, and they drive the system toward a constant substrate voltage. They do not compute surface charge accumulation, and the quantity they adjust is a current, not a duration.
The recited steps are linked, and the link is absent. Claim 9 does not merely recite two independent steps; it requires that the duration adjustment be made based on the calculation of surface charge accumulation. Even if some charge-related quantity could be extracted from Brouk by inference, Brouk's disclosed responses to sensed conditions are to extinguish or interrupt on detection of an arc (1 [0085]) or to adjust the ion current compensation and the power supply voltage (11 [0130], [0132]). Brouk never lengthens or shortens the interval between the pulses in response to a computed charge. The claimed feedback relationship is nowhere present in the reference.
Examiner respectively disagrees: See equation 1, ¶126 infers to charge movement or charge accumulation and feedback that is used to enter controller adjust the surface charge amount based on the accumulated charge. In Brouk the value of the capacitance is known, and it is known what surface is capacitively referred to. Then one of ordinary skill in the art can use equations to refer to a surface charge amount.
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 1-7, 9-10, 14-16 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brouk et al. (US 20120318456 A1)
Regarding claim 1. Brouk teaches a system comprising: a power supply [fig 12, 1202 w/ 1260, ¶81] to provide a waveform to an electrical node [see 1210 w/ 1208] of a substrate support [1208], the waveform comprising pulses [¶92, fig 15A-C] and a portion [i.e. portions in between pulses] between the pulses; and at least one controller [1212] to control the power supply to adjust surface charge accumulation on the substrate by adjusting a duration of the portion between the pulses based on a calculation of ion current [function of 1212 per ¶92 and ¶126].
Regarding claim 2. Brouk teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the power supply [power supply consists of fig 3 structure] comprises: a first power supply [output of 1206] to provide the pulses; and a second power supply [output of 1260] to provide current to modify a slope [¶128] of the portion between the pulses.
Regarding claim 3. Brouk teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one controller is adapted to: adjust a step of the pulses to establish an initial substrate voltage [voltage applied to substrate per dv/dt]; and adjust a magnitude of the current to control a deviation of the substrate voltage from the initial substrate voltage [¶172].
Regarding claim 4. Brouk teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first power supply comprises a DC power supply [see fig 13 w/ fig 16, Vbus] and at least one switch [see mosfets in fig 16] that couples the DC power supply to the electrical node, and responsive to the at least one switch being closed, a peak voltage of a pulse is produced at the electrical node before the pulse drops by a voltage step [¶128].
Regarding claim 5. Brouk teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the second power supply is coupled to the electrical node via an inductor [inductor in fig 16].
Regarding claim 6. Brouk teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one controller is adapted to calculate surface charge accumulation based upon ion current impacting the substrate [function of 1212].
Regarding claim 7. Brouk teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the at least one controller [1362, ¶128] is adapted to calculate the ion current based on at least one of current or voltage of the waveform.
Regarding claim 9. Brouk teaches a non-transitory and tangible processor readable storage medium, encoded with processor executable instructions [claim 36], the instructions comprising instructions for: providing a waveform to a support [fig 2, 206], the waveform comprising pulses and a portion between the pulses [i.e. portions in between pulses]; calculating surface charge [222, current detected by arc detection can imply the surface charge since current is time-rate of charge] accumulation on a substrate [210] positioned on the support [208]; and adjusting a duration of the portion between the pulses based on the calculation of surface charge accumulation [function of 212 per ¶80-¶81, based on arc being based on surface charge].
Regarding claim 10. Brouk teaches the non-transitory and tangible processor readable storage medium of claim 9 comprising instructions for calculating ion current from measurements of the waveform [using optimal feedback];
wherein the instructions for calculating the surface charge accumulation comprise instructions for calculating the surface charge accumulation based upon the calculated ion current [function of optional feedback and 222].
Regarding claim 14. Brouk teaches the non-transitory and tangible processor readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions comprise instructions to maintain a duration of each of the pulses constant while adjusting the duration of the portion between the pulses [function of controller].
Regarding method claims 15-16 and 20, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device "inherently performs the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8,11-13 and 17-19 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, and if the claim objections stated above were overcome.
Examiner Note
The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan Perez whose telephone number is (571)272-8837. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. (7:30 – 5:00).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Crystal Hammond, can be reached on (571) 270-1682. The fax phone 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRYAN R PEREZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights