DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on the first line of paragraph [0002], the word --and-- should be inserted after the comma, and on the second line of this paragraph --a-- should be inserted before "plasma". On the first line of paragraph [0003], the word "the" should be changed to --a--, and also in this paragraph, on line 3 thereof, "&" should be changed to --and--. On the first line of paragraph [0005], the word --for-- should be inserted after "apparatus", on the second line of this paragraph "&" should again be changed to --and--, and also on this line "Return" should be changed to --return--. On the first line of paragraph [0007], "embodiment there may be provided, a" should be changed to --embodiment, there may be provided a-- (and note that the same correction should also be made on the first line of paragraph [0008], [0009], [00011], [00012], [00013] and [00015]). On line 6 of paragraph [0007], the word --an-- should be inserted after "transmit", and on the penultimate line of this paragraph, "are" should be changed to --is--, i.e., each...is for purposes of proper grammatical form. On line 6 of paragraph [00011], the word --an-- should again be inserted after "transmit". On the second line of paragraph [00012] and the second line of paragraph [00013], the word "comprising" should be changed to --comprises--. On the second line of paragraph [00015], the word "comprises" should be changed to --comprising--, and on line 5 of this paragraph, it appears that the word "disposed" should be changed to --comprises--. On line 7 of paragraph [00015], the word "from" should apparently be changed to --in--, and note that the same change should also be made on the penultimate line of this paragraph. On the first line of paragraph [00016], the word "our" should be changed to --out--. On the last line of paragraph [00017], the word --the-- should be inserted before "illustrated". On the first line of paragraph [00021], the first occurrence of the word "the" should be changed to
--a--. On the second line of paragraph [00024], the comma after the word "which" should be deleted. On the first line of paragraph [00032], the first occurrence of "may be" should be changed to --is--. On the second line of paragraph [00036], it appears that "22" should be changed to --222--. On the second line of paragraph [00039], "would be" should be changed to --is--. On the second line of paragraph [00040], it appears that
--may be-- should be inserted after "323". On the first line of paragraph [00041], the word "moderation" should be changed to --modulation--. On line 4 of paragraph [00043], "would be grounded" should be changed to --is connected-- (and note that the same change should also be made on line 4 of paragraph [00044] and also on line 4 of paragraph [00045]). On the first line of paragraph [00046], the word --as-- should be inserted after "expressed" (and note that the same insertion should also be made on the first line of paragraph [00048]). On the first line of paragraph [00047], "among themselves" should be deleted. On the first line of paragraph [00048], "This same currents of" should be changed to --The equal currents--. On the first line of paragraph [00049], the word "paths" should be changed to --path--, and on the third line of this paragraph, the word "the" should be deleted. On the penultimate line of paragraph [00049], "end up to" should be changed to --terminate at-- (and note that the same change should also be made on the last line of this paragraph, both occurrences). On the third line of paragraph [00052], the word "path" should be changed to --paths--, and "to VI sensor and to variable impedance circuit" should be changed to --to the VI sensor and to the variable impedance circuit--. On line 5 of paragraph [00052], "different among themselves" should be changed to --unequal--. On the penultimate line of paragraph [00053], "clear" should be changed to --free of noise--. On the second line of paragraph [00054], the word --the-- should be inserted after "to". On the first line of paragraph [00056], "on" should be deleted, on line 3 of this paragraph "Given" should be changed to --Upon receiving--, and on the last line of this paragraph, "is true" should be deleted. On the first line of paragraph [00057], --result of the-- should be inserted before "decision", and "may be" should be changed to --is--, on the second line of this paragraph "be equal among themselves and if to be true" should be changed to
--change until they are equal to each other--, and on the last line of this paragraph, the word --the-- should be inserted after "of". On the first line of paragraph [00058], "would be" should be changed to --is--. On the first line of paragraph [00059], "arrangement of" should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 4-6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 8 of claim 1, it appears that the word "from" should be changed to --to--, i.e., as presently understood by the examiner, the RF signal is transmitted to the mesh, not from the mesh.
On line 10 of claim 1, it appears that the word "from" should be changed to
--through--, i.e., as presently understood by the examiner, the current which is measured by the VI sensor flows through the RF rod, not from the RF rod.
On the penultimate line of claim 1, the word "are" should be changed to --is--, i.e., each...is is the proper grammatical form that applicant should use.
On the second line of claim 4, "to be equal among themselves" should be changed to --to make them equal to each other--, if this is in fact what applicant means here.
On line 8 of claim 5, "RF signal from the connected mesh" should be changed to --an RF signal to the connected mesh--, if this is in fact what applicant means here.
On the penultimate line of claim 5, the word "are" should again be changed to
--is--, for purposes of proper grammatical form.
On the second line of claim 6, the word "noises" should be changed to --noise--, again for purposes of proper grammatical form.
On the second line of claim 8, "to be equal among themselves" should again be changed to --to make them equal to each other--, again for purposes of proper grammatical form.
On the first line of claim 9, the word "comprises" should be changed to
--comprising--, again for purposes of proper grammatical form.
On line 7 of claim 9, the word "from" should be changed to --along--, again for purposes of proper grammatical form.
On the penultimate line of claim 9, the word --the-- should be inserted before "variable", and also on this line, the word "from" should be changed to --along--.
On the second line of claim 10, the word "our" should be changed to --out--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On line 5 of claim 9, the recitation that each of the RF paths "disposed an RF rod" is not understood, i.e., it cannot be determined by the examiner what is meant by this recitation. It appears that applicant simply means that each of the RF paths comprises an RF rod, and if this is the case applicant should make an appropriate amendment to claim 9 so as to indicate such. Also in claim 9, on line 8 thereof, "deciding whether the monitored currents have the same value is true" is vague and indefinite, i.e., it cannot be determined what is meant by this recitation either. It appears that applicant simply means determining whether the monitored currents are equal to each other, and if this is the case applicant should make an appropriate amendment to claim 9 so as to indicate such. Also in claim 9, the last two lines are vague and indefinite as well, i.e., it cannot be determined by the examiner what is meant by this recitation. It appears that applicant simply means that the impedances of the variable impedance circuits are controlled, i.e., varied so as to make them equal to each other. If this is the case, applicant should make an appropriate amendment to claim 9 so as to indicate such.
Claim 10 is indefinite in view of its dependency on indefinite claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 1-10 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/from the connected mesh;
a Voltage-Current (VI) sensor (52, 60) connected to the RF rod and configured to measure a current through/from 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.
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 claim 3, the claimed controller reads on controller 62 shown in Yamazawa's figure 1.
As to claim 4, note that controller 62 of Yamazawa inherently changes the impedances of the above-noted RF paths to make them equal to each other, i.e., it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claims 5-10, 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).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
7. The prior art made of record 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 1-10 would have been obvious from figure 1 of Misra et al in view of Yamazawa, supra. The limitations of claims 1-10 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.
Conclusion
8. 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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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 2842 February 20, 2026