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 Statements
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/13/25, 04/22/25, 05/12/25, 07/15/25 and 11/15/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3 of paragraph [0007], the word --is-- should be inserted after the second occurrence of "controller". On the second line of paragraph [0008], the word --wherein-- should be inserted after the comma. On the first line of paragraph [0014], --a-- should be inserted after "by". On the first line of paragraph [0025], "100" should be changed to --100A--, and note that the same change is also needed on lines 2 and 4 of this paragraph. On the first line of paragraph [0032], "100" should again be changed to --100A--, and note that the same change should also be made on line 4 of this paragraph. On line 3 of paragraph [0032], --a-- should be inserted before "signal". On the second line of paragraph [0034], "example corresponding substrate" should be changed to --example signal corresponding to substrate--. On line 6 of paragraph [0034], --a-- should be inserted before the word "signal". On the penultimate line of paragraph [0035], the word --the-- should be inserted at the beginning of the line before "waveform". On the last line of paragraph [0039], the word --the-- should be inserted before "ramp". On line 5 of paragraph [0041], the word --the-- should be inserted before "ratio", and on line 9 of this paragraph, the word --of-- should be inserted after "measure". On the second line of paragraph [0042], "100" should again be changed to --100A--. On line 15 of paragraph [0045], the word --when-- should be inserted after "about". On line 3 of paragraph [0048], "100" should be changed to --100B--. On lines 1 and 3 of paragraph [0051], "100" should be changed to --100A-C--. On line 3 of paragraph [0052], "100" should be changed to --100A--. On line 3 of paragraph [0059], the first occurrence of "and" should be changed to --an--, and on line 4 of this paragraph, a comma should be inserted after "implementation". On the penultimate line of paragraph [0059], a comma should be inserted after the word "example". On line 8 of paragraph [0060], a comma should be inserted at the end of the line after "Va)". On the second line of paragraph [0063],
--1000-- should be inserted after the second occurrence of "supply". On line 11 of paragraph [0063], the word --device-- should be inserted after "similar". On the second line of paragraph [0068], the comma after "implementations" should be deleted. On line 8 of paragraph [0070], the word "are" should be changed to --is--, and on line 14 of this paragraph, --a-- should be inserted before "single".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 14, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 6 of claim 1, the word --the-- should be inserted before "power", note that power reflected to the generator has already been recited on line 4.
On the first line of claim 2, the word --further-- should be inserted before "comprising", note that parent claim 1 already recites that the system comprises a generator and a controller, and therefore dependent claims reciting additional components of the claimed system should recite that the system further comprises such additional components. Also in claim 2, on the second line thereof, the word --the-- should again be inserted before "power".
On the second line of claim 3, the word --the-- should again be inserted before "power".
On line 4 of claim 5, the word "comprising" should be changed to --comprise--, note the use of the word "wherein" on the first line of this claim, i.e., wherein..the instructions comprise instructions. Also in claim 5, on line 6 thereof, the word --the-- should again be inserted before "power".
On lines 2 and 5 of claim 6, the word --the-- should again be inserted before "power".
On the second line of claim 14, the word --wherein-- should be inserted before "the" for purposes of proper grammatical form.
On the second line of claim 17, "a" should be changed to --the--, note that a ramp voltage of the bias waveform has already been recited on lines 5-6 of claim 14.
On the first line of claim 18, the colon at the end of the line should be deleted, note the first line of claims 15-17 which recite "wherein", not "wherein:".
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 7-13 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 the penultimate line of claim 7 it is incorrect to recite "control the generator to provide a report of the impedance", i.e., the generator in applicant's invention does not provide a report of the impedance, it is actually the controller that provides the report. It is suggested that "to provide a report of the impedance that is" on the penultimate line of claim 7 simply be deleted in order to overcome this rejection. Alternatively, "control the generator to" on the penultimate line of claim 7 could be deleted in order to overcome this rejection.
Claims 8-13 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependencies on indefinite 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Radomski et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0174436.
As to claim 1, Radomski et al discloses, in figure 5,
a system comprising:
a generator (the claimed generator can be read on Radomski et al's generator 512a or Radomski et al's generator 514a shown in figure 5 of this reference) to provide a first waveform (the claimed first waveform can be read on waveform f1 or waveform 522a shown in figure 5 of Radomski et al); and
a controller (the claimed controller can be read on the combination of Radomski et al's controller 520a together with the unillustrated component within generator 512a which receives timing signal 530/530' or, alternatively, if timing signal 530/530’ is received directly by controller 520a shown in figure 5 of Radomski et al, then the claimed controller can be read on just controller 520a by itself, note that it would receive both the signal indicative of power reflected to the generator and the timing information included in signal 530/530’) configured to:
receive a signal indicative of power reflected to the generator (the claimed signal indicative of power reflected to the generator can be read on signal X and/or signal Y shown in figure 5 of Radomski et al);
receive timing information (the claimed timing information can be read on the timing information included within signal 530/530' shown in Radomski et al's figure 5) from a bias supply (the claimed bias supply can be read on Radomski et al's component 512b by itself or in combination with component 518b or, alternatively, the claimed bias supply can be read on Radomski et al's component 512b by itself or in combination with component 534); and
provide a report indicative of the power reflected to the generator (the claimed report can be read on signal 529a output from controller 520a as shown in figure 5 of Radomski et al) based upon the timing information (as noted above, the claimed controller in figure 5 of Radomski et al receives the timing information included within signal 530 and/or signal 530'and therefore the report signal output from controller 520a will inherently be based upon the claimed timing information).
As to claim 2, the claimed at least one sensor reads on sensor 516a shown in figure 5 of Radomski et al.
As to claim 3, the claimed input port can be read on the inherent input port of the above-noted controller which receives the output X and/or Y from sensor 516a, note paragraph [0052] of Radomski et al which indicates that sensor 516a can be an external sensor.
As to claim 4, note that the output X and/or Y from sensor 516a inherently comprises a measured parameter indicative of a plasma impedance presented to the generator 512a/514a via a match network 518a.
As to claim 6, note paragraph [0053] of Radomski et al.
As to claims 7 and 12, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1-4 and 6 (as per the limitation recited on the last two lines of claim 7, note that controller 520a control generator 512a/514a, i.e., via control signal 528a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 5, 8-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radomski et al, supra.
As to claim 5, the claimed radio frequency amplifier and processor recited on the second line of this claim are disclosed in paragraph [0052] of Radomski et al, and the claimed non-transitory computer readable storage medium is disclosed in paragraph [0010] of Radomski et al, note that such a non-transitory computer readable storage medium will inherently comprise instructions embodied thereon which are executable by the processor and such instructions will inherently adjust the first waveform f1/522a output from the generator, wherein the first waveform is inherently or obviously the output of the above-noted radio frequency amplifier, and such adjustment will inherently be based upon signal X and/or Y indicative of the power reflected to the generator. As to the limitation recited on the last three lines of claim 5, i.e., the adjustment of the first waveform being performed while a ramp voltage provided by the bias supply is occurring or providing the report of the power reflected while the ramp voltage is occurring, although not disclosed by Radomski et al, this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the adjustment of the first waveform f1/522a in Radomski et al's figure 5 could obviously be performed before, during or after the ramp voltage output from Radomski et al's the bias supply--note that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that the output of a bias supply typically includes a waveform such as shown in figures 2A and 3 of the instant drawings--or alternatively, the output of the above-noted report signal 529a could obviously be performed before, during or after the ramp voltage output from Radomski et al's bias supply--again it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that the output of a bias supply typically includes a waveform such as shown in figures 2A and 3 of the instant drawings.
As to claims 8-11, the functional limitations recited in these claims would have been obvious as well, i.e., any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that Radomski et al's controller could obviously be configured to direct the bias supply to adjust the slope of the above-noted ramp voltage in order to induce the impedance coupled to generator 512a/514a to be constant or approximately constant during application of the above-noted ramp voltage (as per claim 8), to determine a non-fluctuating portion of impedance indicator X and/or Y and to direct the generator 512a/514a to control the nonfluctuating portion to be constant or approximately constant during application of the above-noted ramp voltage (as per claim 9), to extract a nonfluctuating portion of the impedance indicator X and/or Y (as per claim 10), or to direct Radomski et al's bias supply to control the duration of the above-noted ramp voltage based on the impedance indicator (as per claim 11).
As to claim 13, as noted above, the output of a bias supply in a plasma processing system typically has a waveform such as that shown in figures 2A and 3 of the instant drawings.
As to claim 14, as noted above, the claimed processor is disclosed in paragraph [0052] of Radomski et al, and the claimed non-transitory computer readable storage medium is disclosed in paragraph [0010] of Radomski et al, note that such a non-transitory computer readable storage medium will inherently comprise instructions embodied thereon which are executable by the processor, and such instructions will inherently provide the functions recited on lines 5-13 of claim 14 when the bias waveform output from Radomski et al's bias supply has a waveform as shown in figures 2A and 3 of the instant drawings--as noted above, it was old and well-known in the art that the output waveform of a bias supply in a plasma processing system is typically as shown in these two figures.
As to claims 15-17, any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the instructions included in the above-noted non-transitory computer readable storage medium could obviously be used to provide the above-noted report while the above-noted ramp voltage is occurring (as per claim 15), provide the above-noted report based on measurements over the entire cycle of the above-noted bias waveform (as per claim 16), control the above-noted ramp voltage based on the power reflected to the source generator (as per claim 17).
As per claim 18, as noted above, the power reflected back to the source generator 512a/514a is a measured parameter indicative of a plasma impedance presented to the source generator and such measurement will inherently or obviously be measured during application of the above-noted ramp voltage.
As to claims 19 and 20, the above-noted instructions will be inherently or obviously used to adjust the slope of the above-noted ramp voltage in order to induce the power reflected back to the source generator 512a/514a to be constant or approximately constant during application of the above-noted ramp voltage, and such instructions will also be inherently or obviously used to extract a nonfluctuating portion of the power reflected to the source generator 512a/514a corresponding with application of the above-noted ramp voltage, and also to adjust the slope of the above-noted ramp voltage in order to induce the nonfluctuating portion of the power back to the source generator 512a/514a to be constant or approximate constant during application of the above-noted ramp voltage.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fairbairn et al (USP 10,607,813), Van Zyl et al (USPAP 2023/0268162), Burry et al (USPAP 2024/0355585) and Luu et al (USPAP 2024/0404788) disclose further examples of using timing information to synchronize the waveforms output from a radiofrequency source and a bias supply.
Conclusion
9. 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 January 27, 2026