DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 06/03/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendments to the claims do not distinguish patentably over the previously applied prior art, and therefore the rejection under 35 USC 103 based on Yamazawa is maintained and repeated, as set forth below.
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, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0236492.
As to claim 1, Yamazawa discloses, in figure 1,
a plasma modulation apparatus (the claimed plasma modulation apparatus is the entire figure 1 of Yamazawa) for use in a substrate processing system (just a statement of intended use), the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of radio frequency (RF) paths (a first RF path is from DC power supply 154 through impedance circuit 48, through current sensor 52, through transmission line 50, and ending at first mesh 42, and a second RF path is from DC power source 156 through impedance circuit 56, through current sensor 60, through transmission line 58 and ending at second mesh 44) connected to N different meshes (42, 44), wherein a susceptor (12) of the substrate processing system is divided into the N different meshes and N is an integer equal to or greater than 2,
wherein each of the RF paths comprises:
an RF rod (although Yamazawa does not disclose the use of RF rods as the transmission lines 50 and 58, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that transmission lines in plasma modulation apparatuses, such as Yamazawa's transmission lines 50 and 58, are typically formed as rods, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner) connected to one of the N different meshes and configured to transmit an RF signal to the connected mesh;
a Voltage-Current (VI) sensor (52, 60) connected to the RF rod and configured to measure a current through the RF rod; and
a variable impedance circuit (48, 56) connected to the VI sensor and configured to change and impedance of the RF path and further configured to be grounded (note figure 2 of Yamazawa which shows that variable impedance circuits 48 and 56 are grounded),
wherein each of the RF paths is grounded separately and each of the RF paths corresponds to a different mesh, respectively; and
a controller (62) coupled to each of the variable impedance circuits and configured to control, based on the currents, the variable impedance circuits to cause at least one of impedances of the RF paths or the currents through the RF paths to be equal among the RF path (note that Yamazawa's controller 62 inherently or obviously performs the function of controlling, based on the currents detected by sensors 52 and 60, the variable impedance circuits 48 and 56 to cause either the impedances of the above-noted RF paths or the currents therethrough to be equal to each other, note what is indicated in paragraphs [0068] and [0069] of this reference, i.e., the disclosure by Yamazawa of making the impedances of the RF paths or the currents therethrough equal to each other, for the purpose of avoiding the mountain-shape plasma density distribution shown in figure 3 of this reference).
As to claim 2, although Yamazawa does not disclose the claimed RF filter, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use an RF filter to filter out noise from an RF transmission line (as noted above, Yamazawa's transmission lines 50, 58 could obviously be formed as RF rods), two examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Saeki et al and Criminale et al, cited on the attached PTO-892 form, note the RF filter formed by inductor 42 and capacitor 48 as shown in figure 1 of this Saeki et al, and note the RF filter 182 shown in figure 1 of this Criminale et al.
As to claims 5, 6, 9 and 10, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1-4 (the claimed showerhead and wafer of claim 5 are showerhead 72 and wafer W, respectively, shown in figure 1 of Yamazawa, and the steps of monitoring, deciding and changing of independent claim 9 will be either inherent or obvious during the operation of the Yamazawa figure 1 plasma modulation apparatus, i.e., controller inherently or obviously 62 performs the function of monitoring the currents of VI sensors 52 and 60, and it also inherently or obviously determines whether the monitored currents have the same value or not--if the currents detected by sensors 52 and 60 are different from each other, the controller 62 will inherently or obviously change the impedances of variable impedance circuits 48 and 56 to make them equal to each other--to the extent such is not the inherent function of Yamazawa's controller 62, making the currents flowing through the above-noted first and second paths would have been obvious for the purpose of providing uniform plasma processing across the entire surface of the substrate being processed, note the disclosure in paragraphs [0060] and [0061] of Yamazawa).
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that "Yamazawa does not disclose controlling variable impedance circuits, based on measured currents, to cause RF-path impedances or RF-path currents to be equal among the RF paths, and Yamazawa does not disclose the corresponding method step of determining that currents are unequal and changing the variable impedance circuits to cause the currents to be equal." This argument is not persuasive because, as noted above, Yamazawa's controller 62 inherently or obviously performs the function of controlling, based on the currents detected by sensors 52 and 60, the variable impedance circuits 48 and 56 to cause either the impedances of the above-noted RF paths or the currents therethrough to be equal to each other, note what is indicated in paragraphs [0068] and [0069] of this reference, i.e., the disclosure by Yamazawa of making the impedances of the RF paths or the currents therethrough equal to each other, for the purpose of avoiding the mountain-shape plasma density distribution shown in figure 3 of this reference.
Applicant further argues that "[t]he fact that equal impedances or equal currents might occur under some possible operating condition is insufficient to establish inherently...the asserted equality of impedances or currents is not necessarily present in Yamazawa and does not inherently flow from Yamazawa's operation...Yamazawa's control of leakage currents and current ratios can be performed with unequal RF-path impedances, and equality of those impedances is not a necessary result of Yamazawa's operation." This argument is not persuasive for the same reason noted above, i.e., Yamazawa's controller 62 inherently or obviously performs the function of controlling, based on the currents detected by sensors 52 and 60, the variable impedance circuits 48 and 56 to cause either the impedances of the above-noted RF paths or the currents therethrough to be equal to each other, note what is indicated in paragraphs [0068] and [0069] of this reference, i.e., the disclosure by Yamazawa of making the impedances of the RF paths or the currents therethrough equal to each other, for the purpose of avoiding the mountain-shape plasma density distribution shown in figure 3 of this reference.
Applicant further argues that "Yamazwa's independent current-ratio control does not provide a reason to replace that control with the claimed equalization control...Yamazawa controls respective currents to desired values, and Yamazawa does not teach or suggest that those desired values are the same." This argument is not persuasive for the same reason noted above, i.e., Yamazawa's controller 62 inherently or obviously performs the function of controlling, based on the currents detected by sensors 52 and 60, the variable impedance circuits 48 and 56 to cause either the impedances of the above-noted RF paths or the currents therethrough to be equal to each other, note what is indicated in paragraphs [0068] and [0069] of this reference, i.e., the disclosure by Yamazawa of making the impedances of the RF paths or the currents therethrough equal to each other, for the purpose of avoiding the mountain-shape plasma density distribution shown in figure 3 of this reference.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
4. The prior art made of record in the previous office action and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 1 of Misra et al shows a plasma modulation apparatus similar to that discussed above in Yamazawa, i.e., it includes a sensor 180, variable impedance circuit 400-1, and a controller 178 for the purpose of detecting current in a transmission line from a mesh to an RF power source. Misra et al does not disclose a plurality of different meshes, each with its own sensor and variable impedance circuit, but such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the above-noted teachings in Yamazawa, i.e., the limitations of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 would have been obvious from figure 1 of Misra et al in view of Yamazawa, supra. The limitations of claims 1, 2, 5,6, 9 and 10 also would have been obvious from figure 2 of Jeon et al, figure 4 of Hammond IV et al, figure 4A of Lee, figure 3 of Banna et al, and figure 1 of Park et al, i.e., each of these further references shows a plasma modulation apparatus with a plurality of different meshes, each having its own RF path and variable impedance circuit. From the above-noted teachings in Yamazawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a VI sensor in each of the RF paths in Jeon et al, Hammond IV et al, Lee, Banna et al and Park et al, for the purpose of monitoring the currents through each of the paths and, if they are detected to be unequal, they could obviously be adjusted in order to make them equal using a controller, as taught by Yamazawa, supra--the motivation for making the currents through the individual paths equal is, as noted above, so that the plasma processing of the substrate will be uniform across the entire surface thereof.
Action is Final
5. 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.
Conclusion
6. 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 June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights