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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2025, 08/07/2025, 07/01/2025, 11/19/2024, 10/10/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of Patent No. US 12,142,461.
Below is the table of comparison between claims in cases involved in this double patenting rejection.
Differences are underlined.
Subject Application Claim Text
Application # 18/912,366 (hereafter ‘366)
Conflicting Patent Claim Text
US Patent # 12,142,461 (hereafter ‘461)
1. A process power controller for a plasma processing tool, comprising: a process power source optimizer; a source predictor; a process uniformity controller, wherein the source predictor is communicatively coupled to the process power source optimizer and the process uniformity controller; and a bias power controller communicatively coupled to the source predictor.
1. A process power controller for a plasma processing tool, comprising: a process power source optimizer; a source predictor; [[and]] a process uniformity controller, wherein the source predictor is communicatively coupled to the process power source optimizer and the process uniformity controller; and a bias power controller comprising a process power bias optimizer, a bias predictor, and a process bias controller.
2. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the source predictor estimates a continuous influence to minimize transitory response.
2. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the source predictor estimates a continuous influence to minimize transitory response.
3. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the source predictor estimates a system response and behavior for optimized control performance.
3. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the source predictor estimates a system response and behavior for optimized control performance.
4. The process power controller of claim 3, wherein a feed forward and a feedback signal are used by the source predictor.
4. The process power controller of claim 3, wherein a feed forward and a feedback signal are used by the source predictor.
5. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the process power source optimizer is communicatively coupled to a process power optimizer actuator.
5. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the process power source optimizer is communicatively coupled to a process power optimizer actuator.
6. The process power controller of claim 5, wherein the process power optimizer actuator comprises variable reactance actuators.
6. The process power controller of claim 5, wherein the process power optimizer actuator comprises variable reactance actuators.
7. The process power controller of claim 6, wherein the variable reactance actuators are variable capacitors.
7. The process power controller of claim 6, wherein the variable reactance actuators are variable capacitors.
Regarding claim 1, all limitations of the subject application '366 are included in claim 1 of the stated patent ‘461.
Claims 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,674,933 B2 in view of Buchberger JR. et al. (Pub. No.: US 20070091541 A1), hereafter Buchberger.
Below is the table of comparison between claims in cases involved in this double patenting rejection. Differences are underlined.
Subject Application Claim Text
Application # 18/912,366 (hereafter ‘366)
Conflicting Patent Claim Text
US Patent # 12,142,461 (hereafter ‘461)
9. A plasma processing tool, comprising: a chamber; and a process power controller coupled to the chamber, the process power controller comprising: a process power source optimizer; a source predictor; a process uniformity controller, wherein the source predictor is communicatively coupled to the process power source optimizer and the process uniformity controller; and a bias power controller communicatively coupled to the source predictor.
1. A process power controller for a plasma processing tool, comprising: a process power source optimizer; a source predictor; [[and]] a process uniformity controller, wherein the source predictor is communicatively coupled to the process power source optimizer and the process uniformity controller; and a bias power controller comprising a process power bias optimizer, a bias predictor, and a process bias controller.
10. The plasma processing tool of claim 9, wherein the source predictor estimates a continuous influence to minimize transitory response.
2. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the source predictor estimates a continuous influence to minimize transitory response.
11. The plasma processing tool of claim 9, wherein the source predictor estimates a system response and behavior for optimized control performance.
3. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the source predictor estimates a system response and behavior for optimized control performance.
12. The plasma processing tool of claim 11, wherein a feed forward and a feedback signal are used by the source predictor.
4. The process power controller of claim 3, wherein a feed forward and a feedback signal are used by the source predictor.
13. The plasma processing tool of claim 9, wherein the process power source optimizer is communicatively coupled to a process power optimizer actuator.
5. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the process power source optimizer is communicatively coupled to a process power optimizer actuator.
14. The plasma processing tool of claim 13, wherein the process power optimizer actuator comprises variable reactance actuators.
6. The process power controller of claim 5, wherein the process power optimizer actuator comprises variable reactance actuators.
15. The plasma processing tool of claim 14, wherein the variable reactance actuators are variable capacitors.
7. The process power controller of claim 6, wherein the variable reactance actuators are variable capacitors.
17. A plasma processing tool, comprising: a chamber; and a process power controller coupled to the chamber, the process power controller comprising: a process power source optimizer; a source predictor; a process uniformity controller, wherein the source predictor is communicatively coupled to the process power source optimizer and the process uniformity controller; and a bias power controller comprising a process power bias optimizer, a bias predictor, and a process bias controller
1. A process power controller for a plasma processing tool, comprising: a process power source optimizer; a source predictor; [[and]] a process uniformity controller, wherein the source predictor is communicatively coupled to the process power source optimizer and the process uniformity controller; and a bias power controller comprising a process power bias optimizer, a bias predictor, and a process bias controller.
18. The plasma processing tool of claim 17, wherein the source predictor estimates a continuous influence to minimize transitory response.
2. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the source predictor estimates a continuous influence to minimize transitory response.
19. The plasma processing tool of claim 17, wherein the source predictor 20. The plasma processing tool of claim 17, wherein the process power source optimizer is communicatively coupled to a process power optimizer actuator.
3. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the source predictor estimates a system response and behavior for optimized control performance.
20. The plasma processing tool of claim 17, wherein the process power source optimizer is communicatively coupled to a process power optimizer actuator.
5. The process power controller of claim 1, wherein the process power source optimizer is communicatively coupled to a process power optimizer actuator.
Regarding claim 9, patent ‘461 (claim 1) recites all the limitations except the following feature as discussed below.
Patent ‘461 does not teach a chamber.
Buchberger teaches a chamber (a reactor chamber100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Patent ‘461 in view of Buchberger to incorporate a chamber for a workpiece in a plasma reactor having an electrostatic chuck for supporting the workpiece within a reactor chamber (Buchberger, Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, patent ‘461 (claim 1) recites all the limitations except the following feature as discussed below.
Patent ‘461 does not teach a chamber.
Buchberger teaches a chamber (a reactor chamber100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Patent ‘461 in view of Buchberger to incorporate a chamber for a workpiece in a plasma reactor having an electrostatic chuck for supporting the workpiece within a reactor chamber (Buchberger, Abstract).
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 8 and 16 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the process power bias optimizer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the process power bias optimizer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchberger JR. et al. (Pub. No.: US 20070091541 A1), hereafter Buchberger.
Regarding claim 1, Buchberger teaches a process power controller (FIG. 1, FIG. 7, 40 & 45 and paragraph [0051], “An RF bias generator 40 produces power in the HF band (e.g., 13.56 MHz). Its RF bias impedance match element 45”) for a plasma processing tool (FIG. 1, a plasma reactor includes a reactor chamber 100), comprising:
a process power source optimizer (paragraph [0055], “FIG. 4 is an enlarged view corresponding to FIGS. 1-3 showing how the sleeve 50 can be divided into three sections, namely a top section 52, a middle section 54 and a bottom section 56. The length and dielectric constant of the sleeve top section 52 is selected and fixed to optimize the HF bias power deposition exclusively, and the lengths and dielectric constants of the remaining sleeve sections 54, 56 are then selected to optimize VHF source power deposition by the overhead electrode while leaving the HF bias power deposition optimized);
a source predictor (FIG. 23A, thermal model 288, and paragraph [0116]); and
a process uniformity controller (FIG. 2-3, sleeve 50 and paragraph [0054], “The sleeve 50 can include additional features facilitating the foregoing improvement in VHF power deposition while simultaneously solving a separate problem, namely improving the uniformity in the electric field created by the RF bias power”), wherein the source predictor is communicatively coupled to the process power source optimizer and the process uniformity controller (FIG. 1-7); and a bias power controller communicatively coupled to the source predictor (paragraph [0105], “a common RF bias power source may be employed to apply different levels of RF bias power to the inner and outer mesh electrodes 15a, 15b”).
Regarding claim 2, Buchberger further teaches the source predictor estimates a continuous influence to minimize transitory response (paragraph [0116], “the thermal model 288 through the master processor 232 so that the master processor 232 can perform any arbitration that may be necessary. Inputs corresponding to the current process conditions are received at an input 289 of the thermal model. Based upon these inputs, the thermal model 288 generates a time-evolving spatial temperature distribution, T(z,t) that may be exploited to predict steady state temperatures or searched for temperature control settings that could result in achieving a desired temperature”).
Regarding claim 3, Buchberger further teaches the source predictor estimates a system response and behavior for optimized control performance (paragraph [0116], “the thermal model 288 generates a time-evolving spatial temperature distribution, T(z,t) that may be exploited to predict steady state temperatures or searched for temperature control settings that could result in achieving a desired temperature”).
Regarding claim 4, Buchberger further teaches a feed forward and a feedback signal are used by the source predictor (FIG. 23A,23B, 289, 263).
Regarding claim 5, Buchberger further teaches the process power source optimizer is communicatively coupled to a process power optimizer actuator (FIG. 1-4, RF conductor 25, as electrode).
Regarding claim 6, Buchberger further teaches the process power optimizer actuator comprises variable reactance actuators (paragraph [0002], “the electrode capacitance is matched to the plasma reactance at a plasma-electrode resonant frequency”).
Regarding claim 7, Buchberger further teaches the variable reactance actuators are variable capacitors (FIG. 5-6) and paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Buchberger teaches a plasma processing tool, comprising:
a chamber (a reactor chamber100); and
a process power controller (FIG. 1, FIG. 7, 40 & 45 and paragraph [0051], “An RF bias generator 40 produces power in the HF band (e.g., 13.56 MHz). Its RF bias impedance match element 45”) coupled to the chamber, the process power controller comprising: a process power source optimizer (paragraph [0055], “FIG. 4 is an enlarged view corresponding to FIGS. 1-3 showing how the sleeve 50 can be divided into three sections, namely a top section 52, a middle section 54 and a bottom section 56. The length and dielectric constant of the sleeve top section 52 is selected and fixed to optimize the HF bias power deposition exclusively, and the lengths and dielectric constants of the remaining sleeve sections 54, 56 are then selected to optimize VHF source power deposition by the overhead electrode while leaving the HF bias power deposition optimized);
a source predictor (FIG. 23A, thermal model 288, and paragraph [0116]);
a process uniformity controller (FIG. 2-3, sleeve 50 and paragraph [0054], “The sleeve 50 can include additional features facilitating the foregoing improvement in VHF power deposition while simultaneously solving a separate problem, namely improving the uniformity in the electric field created by the RF bias power”), wherein the source predictor is communicatively coupled to the process power source optimizer and the process uniformity controller (FIG. 1-7); and a bias power controller communicatively coupled to the source predictor (paragraph [0105], “a common RF bias power source may be employed to apply different levels of RF bias power to the inner and outer mesh electrodes 15a, 15b”).
Regarding claim 10, Buchberger further teaches the source predictor estimates a continuous influence to minimize transitory response (paragraph [0116], “the thermal model 288 through the master processor 232 so that the master processor 232 can perform any arbitration that may be necessary. Inputs corresponding to the current process conditions are received at an input 289 of the thermal model. Based upon these inputs, the thermal model 288 generates a time-evolving spatial temperature distribution, T(z,t) that may be exploited to predict steady state temperatures or searched for temperature control settings that could result in achieving a desired temperature”).
Regarding claim 11, Buchberger further teaches the source predictor estimates a system response and behavior for optimized control performance (paragraph [0116], “the thermal model 288 generates a time-evolving spatial temperature distribution, T(z,t) that may be exploited to predict steady state temperatures or searched for temperature control settings that could result in achieving a desired temperature”).
Regarding claim 12, Buchberger further teaches a feed forward and a feedback signal are used by the source predictor (FIG. 23A,23B, 289, 263).
Regarding claim 13, Buchberger further teaches the process power source optimizer is communicatively coupled to a process power optimizer actuator (FIG. 1-4, RF conductor 25, as electrode).
Regarding claim 14, Buchberger further teaches the process power optimizer actuator comprises variable reactance actuators (paragraph [0002], “the electrode capacitance is matched to the plasma reactance at a plasma-electrode resonant frequency”).
Regarding claim 15, Buchberger further teaches the variable reactance actuators are variable capacitors (FIG. 5-6) and paragraph [0057]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M KAISER whose telephone number is (571)272-9612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m.-6 p.m..
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, Abdullah Ryami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/SYED M KAISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831