DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/24/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapoor et al (USP 10,622,962) in view of Kobayashi (USPAP 2026/0074149).
As to claim 1, Kapoor et al discloses, in figure 5,
an apparatus, comprising:
an RF power splitter (claimed RF power splitter reads on the RF power splitter in figure 5 of Kapoor et al which splits the input node 520 into four individual outputs, or the RF power splitter in figure 5 of Kapoor et al which splits the input node 522 into four individual outputs) configured to electrically couple to an RF power supply (the claimed RF power supply reads on Kapoor et al’s RF power supply LF In or Kapoor et al’s RF power supply HF In), wherein the RF power splitter comprises a plurality of outputs, the plurality of outputs comprising three or more outputs (as noted above, each of Kapoor et al’s power splitters comprises four individual outputs);
a plurality of RF impedance matches (the claimed plurality of RF impedance matches read on the RF impedance matches shown in figure 5 of Kapoor et al which are formed by the various capacitors and inductors), the plurality of RF impedance matches comprising three or more RF impedance matches (note that there is a respective RF impedance match coupled to each of the above-noted switches S1 through S4, i.e., at least four different RF impedance matches in figure 5 of Kapoor et al), wherein each of the plurality of RF impedance matches is electrically coupled to a different one of the plurality of outputs of the RF power splitter (note that each of Kapoor et al’s RF impedance matches formed by the various capacitors and inductors is electrically coupled to a different one of the plurality of outputs of Kapoor et al’s power splitter);
a plurality of switches (the claimed plurality of switches read on switches S1 through S4 shown in figure 5 of Kapoor et al), the plurality of switches comprising three or more switches (note that there are four switches S1 through S4 in figure 5 of Kapoor et al), wherein each of the plurality of switches is along a different one of a plurality of RF cables that couple each of the plurality of outputs of the RF power splitter to a different one of the plurality of RF impedance matches (although not disclosed by Kapoor et al, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to use RF cables to couple an RF power supply to a plasma processing apparatus which receives power from the RF power supply); and
a controller (the claimed controller reads on Kapoor et al’s controller 110) communicatively coupled to the plurality of switches.
Not disclosed by Kapoor et al are the limitations in claim 1 that the controller is communicatively coupled to the plurality of RF impedance matches wherein the controller is configured to tune the plurality of RF impedance matches to a matched input using a reflective switching scheme in which power is reflected back to the RF power splitter for only one of the plurality of outputs of the RF power splitter at a time.
Kobayashi discloses, in figure 2, using a controller (controller 60, controller 430 and/or controller 540) which is communicatively coupled to an RF impedance match (RF impedance match 510), wherein the controller is configured to tune the RF impedance match to a matched input using a reflective switching scheme in which power is reflected back to an RF power supply, i.e., when power output from Kobayashi’s RF power supply 410 and received by Kobayashi’s plasma processing apparatus is reflected back to the RF power supply 410 and such reflected power is detected by Kobayashi’s sensor 420.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the above-noted teachings in Kapoor et al and Kobayashi such that the system control 110 shown in figure 5 of Kapoor et al receives the outputs of respective sensors coupled between Kapoor et al’s power source and the respective plasma processing apparatuses which receive the respective output signals OUT#1 through OUT#4, note that such a combination of Kapoor et al and Kobayashi will result in a controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of switches S1 through S4 and the plurality of RF impedance matches formed by the above-noted capacitors and inductors. Note also that such a combination will result in the controller being configured to tune Kapoor et al’s RF impedance matches to a matched input using a reflective switching scheme in which power is reflected back to Kapoor et al’s power splitter, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized from Kapoor et al’s teachings that switches S1 through S4 could obviously be switched one at a time, two at a time, three at a time, or all four simultaneously. For example, for the situation where just the leftmost plasma processing apparatus is to receive power output OUT #1, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously know that just switch S1 should be used to provide power thereto from Kapoor et al’s RF power supply, and the other three switches S2 through S4 should not be used to provide power to the three remaining plasma processing apparatuses. Similarly, for the situation where only the plasma processing apparatus at the far right is desired to be driven by the RF power supply, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that just switch S4 should obviously be used to couple the RF power supply to that plasma processing apparatus, and similarly for the two switches S2 and S3 in the middle. On the other hand, if it was desired to simultaneously power all four of the plasma processing apparatuses in figure 5 of Kapoor et al, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that all four switches S1 through S4 should obviously be activated so that power is provided from Kapoor et al’s RF power supply to all four of the plasma processing apparatuses.
As to claim 2, the claimed plurality of plasma chambers are the four unillustrated plasma processing apparatuses in figure 5 of Kapoor et al which receive the four respective power output signals OUT #1 through OUT #4, note that each of Kapoor et al’s impedance matches is electrically coupled to a different respective one of such plasma processing apparatuses in figure 5 of Kapoor et al.
As to claims 5 and 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the power splitter shown in figure 5 of Kapoor et al could obviously be either a single stage splitter or a multi-stage splitter, both of which were old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, each having its own advantages over the other.
As to claim 7, as noted above, Kapoor et al’s figure 5 shows at least four RF impedance matches formed by corresponding ones of the above-noted capacitors and inductors.
As to claims 8 and 9, one of ordinary skill in the art also would have easily recognized that any number of plasma processing apparatuses could be used in Kapoor et al’s figure 5, and if there were an odd number of plasma processing apparatuses, there would obviously be a corresponding odd number of RF impedance matches, whereas if there were an even number of plasma processing apparatuses, there would obviously be a corresponding even number of RF impedance matches.
As to claims 10 and 11, as noted above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that in figure 5 of Kapoor et al, just one of the RF matches could obviously be switched, just two of the RF matches could obviously be switched, just three of the RF matches could obviously be switched, or all four of the RF matches could obviously be switched, without patentable distinction, i.e. as a routine design expedient for one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 12 and 15-20, the limitations of these method claims would have been obvious for the same reasons indicated above with regard to apparatus claims 1, 2 and 5-11 (the limitation in claims 19 and 20 of allowing for time domain adjustment of the reactor deposition thickness, without wafer swapping or tuning gas flow for power insensitive plasma processes, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from Kapoor et al as modified above using the teachings of Kobayashi because (1) adjustment of deposition thickness during plasma processing without wafer swapping or tuning gas flow for power insensitive plasma processes was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention and (2) any plasma processing apparatus will inherently “allow” time domain adjustment of reactor deposition thickness as long as it does not include any mechanism which would prevent such time domain adjustment of reactor deposition thickness).
Double Patenting
3. Claims 1, 2, 5-12 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,738,455. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are all anticipated by, or would have been obvious in view of, what is recited in the claims of the ‘455 patent i.e., the claimed RF power splitter, RF power supply, RF impedance matches, and power sensors using a reflective switching scheme in which power is reflected back to the RF power splitter are all anticipated by the claims of the ‘455 patent, and the limitations directed to using an RF power splitter with three or more outputs, using three or more impedance matches and three or more switches all would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons noted above in the rejection based on Kapoor et al in view of Kobayashi, as would the limitation directed to switching only one of the plurality of outputs of the RF power splitter at a time, again for the reasons noted above in the rejection based on Kapoor et al in view of Kobayashi.
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 October 3, 2026
