NON FINAL REJECTION
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 .
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 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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.
Claims 66-84 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. US11476089 B2 (patent089) in view of US11742182 B2 by Koshimizu et al (Koshimizu).
Referring to Claim 65, Patent089 recites, A plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber; a stage configured to support a substrate provided in the chamber; a first power supply connected to the stage and configured to apply a first waveform having a cycle determined in advance; a second power supply configured to supply a second waveform that oscillates at a cycle shorter than the cycle of the first waveform; and controller circuitry configured to control the first power supply and the second power supply, wherein the controller circuitry is configured to: (a) control the first power supply to apply the first waveform to the stage, (b) control the second power supply to supply the second waveform, (see patent 089 claim 19 column 29- 51) and But claim 19 is silent on (c) set a frequency that is a reciprocal of the cycle of the second waveform at a first phase of a third cycle of the first waveform after first and second cycles of the first waveform, based on at least a degree of reflection of the second waveform at a first phase of the first cycle of the first waveform and a degree of reflection of the second waveform at the first phase of the second cycle after the first cycle of the first waveform.
However, Koshimizu reference teaches set a frequency that is a reciprocal of the cycle of the second waveform at a first phase of a third cycle of the first waveform after first and second cycles of the first waveform, based on at least a degree of reflection of the second waveform at a first phase of the first cycle of the first waveform and a degree of reflection of the second waveform at the first phase of the second cycle after the first cycle of the first waveform ( See Fig 3, 4 column 7 line 24-32).
Hence, it is obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application, to incorporate the teachings in to claim 1 and recites adjusting the second wave form. Hence, it is obvious non-statutory double patenting.
Referring to claims 66-81 are rejected by claim 1 of US Patent 089 in view of Koshimizu reference.
Referring to claim 82, claim 1 recites A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program for causing a computer to execute a process for a plasma processing apparatus, the process comprising: applying, by a first power supply, a first waveform having a cycle determined in advance; supplying, by a second power supply, a second waveform that oscillates at a cycle shorter than the cycle of the first waveform; and setting a frequency that is a reciprocal of the cycle of the second waveform at a first phase of a third cycle of the first waveform after first and second cycles of the first waveform, but fail to recite the limitation based on at least a degree of reflection of the second waveform at a first phase of the first cycle of the first waveform and a degree of reflection of the second waveform at the first phase of the second cycle after the first cycle of the first waveform.
However, Koshimizu reference teaches 1.based on at least a degree of reflection of the second waveform at a first phase of the first cycle of the first waveform and a degree of reflection of the second waveform at the first phase of the second cycle after the first cycle of the first waveform.
Hence, it is obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application, to incorporate the teachings in to claim 1 and recites adjusting the second wave form. Hence, it is obvious non-statutory double patenting.
Referring to claim 83, claim 25 recites: A power supply system for a plasma processing apparatus, the power supply system comprising: a first power supply connected to the stage and configured to apply a first waveform having a cycle determined in advance; and a second power supply configured to supply a second waveform that oscillates at a cycle shorter than the cycle of the first waveform, the second power supply being controlled to set a frequency that is a reciprocal of the cycle of the second waveform at a first phase of a third cycle of the first waveform after first and second cycles of the first waveform (See claim 25),
But Claim 25 is silent on based on at least a degree of reflection of the second waveform in a first phase of the first cycle of the first waveform and a degree of reflection of the second waveform at the first phase of the second cycle after the first cycle of the first waveform.
Hence, it is obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application, to incorporate the teachings in to claim 21 and recites adjusting the second wave form. Hence, it is obvious non-statutory double patenting.
Referring to claims 84 are rejected by claim 21 of US Patent 089 in view of Koshimizu reference.
Conclusion
Claims 66-84 are rejected on obvious non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5.30 PM.
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.
/SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU/Examiner, Art Unit 2844 03/07/2026