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 11/19/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on the first line of paragraph [0010], the word "embodiment" should be changed to
--embodiments--, and note that the same correction should also be made on the first line of each of paragraphs [0011] through [0018]. On the penultimate line of paragraph [0039], "An" should be changed to --The--. On the first line of paragraph [0043], the word --the-- should be inserted before "steps", and note that the same insertion should also be made on line 3 of this paragraph. On line 9 of paragraph [0056], the word "performing" should be changed to --calculating--. On line 6 of paragraph [0057], "a" at the end of the line should be changed to --the--, and note that the same correction should also be made on line 15 of this paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to because figure 2 of the instant drawings needs to be provided with a "prior art" line 6, note what is indicated in paragraph [0021], line 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 22 of claim 20, the word --further-- should be inserted before "configured", note that lines 18-19 of claim 20 already recite that the processor is configured to adjust an output of the microwave power supply and an impedance of the tuner circuit, i.e., because lines 18-19 of claim 20 already recite that the processor is configured to perform the adjustment function, when this processor is later recited in the claim as being configured to perform additional functions, the word --further-- should be inserted before the subsequent recitation of "configured".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al (USP 5,793,162) in view of Carter et al (USP 10,269,540).
As to claim 1, Barnes et al discloses, in figures 1 and 2,
an impedance matching method between a microwave power supply (although Barnes et al's power supply is a radio frequency power supply rather than a microwave power supply, this difference would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that a plasma processing apparatus can use either an RF power source or a microwave power source as the high-frequency generator for generating plasma within a plasma processing chamber, see column 5, lines 10-14, of Carter et al as one example of this well-known concept) and a chamber (chamber 10 shown in figure 1 of Barnes et al) in a microwave heat treatment apparatus (note that Barnes et al's figure 1 can be interpreted as a microwave heat treatment apparatus when RF power source 14 is replaced with a microwave power source, because using microwave energy as the high frequency generator will inherently produce heat which is used in the substrate treatment process), the impedance matching method comprising:
initially adjusting an impedance of a tuner circuit (tuner circuit 16 shown in figure 1 of Barnes et al is initially adjusted, note the indication of setting of the load capacitor to the center value and the setting of the tune capacitor to the lowest value as indicated in step 42 shown in figure 2 of this reference, note that these two setting steps will inherently be based on pre-matching data A0, note that data A0 can be interpreted as pre-matching data because it is data which corresponds to the initially set capacitance values of the capacitors forming tuner circuit 16, and also because it is generated prior to the operations performed in steps 50 through 86 shown in Barnes et al's figure 2) between the microwave power supply and the chamber based on pre-matching data of a heat treatment process;
applying microwave power to the chamber from the microwave power supply through the tuner circuit having the initially adjusted impedance (as noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Barnes et al's radio frequency power supply 14 with a microwave power supply);
measuring process data related to an impedance of the chamber to which the microwave power has been applied (the step of measuring process data related to an impedance of chamber 10 reads on the inherent measuring operations which occur in step 52 shown in figure 2 of Barnes et al);
determining an impedance tuning value of the tuner circuit by comparing the process data and the pre-matching data (note the comparison of the process data A1 to the pre-matching data A0 in step 54 as shown in figure 2 of Barnes et al, where this comparison inherently results in a determination of an impedance tuning value for the capacitors within tuning circuit 16 in figure 1 of Barnes et al);
adjusting the impedance of the tuner circuit based on the impedance tuning value (note steps 56 and 62 shown in figure 2 of Barnes et al, where the impedance of tuner circuit 16 shown in figure 1 of Barnes et al is inherently adjusted based on the above-noted determined impedance tuning value).
As to claim 2, note that pre-matching data A0 shown in figure 2 of Barnes et al will inherently or obviously comprise a set of impedance tuning values corresponding to process conditions related to the heat treatment process.
As to claims 11 and 12, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 2 (the claimed chamber and power supply device respectively read on chamber 10 and power supply device 14 shown in figure 1 of Barnes et al, the claimed controller configured to control the power supply device will be inherent in Barnes et al, i.e., some type of controller will be needed in order to control the power level and/or frequency output of power source 14, the claimed tuner circuit reads on tuner circuit 16 of Barnes et al, the claimed processor reads on processor 30 of Barnes et al, and the claimed memory reads on memory 31 and/or memory 33 of Barnes et al).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 3-10 and 13-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the impedance matching method of claim 2 with the further limitation that the process conditions comprise a frequency of the microwave power supply, a height of a support pin configured to support a substrate, and a temperature of the chamber, as recited in claim 3, nor does any of the prior art of record disclose or suggest the microwave heat treatment apparatus of claim 12 with the further limitation that the process conditions comprise a frequency of the microwave power supply, a height of a support pin configured to support a substrate, and a temperature of the chamber, as recited in claim 13, nor does any of the prior art of record disclose or suggest a microwave heat treatment apparatus with a processor which is configured to perform the functions recited on lines 23-53 of claim 20. Claims 4-10 are allowable in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on allowable claim 3, and claims 14-19 are allowable in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on allowable claim 13.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al (USP 6,313,584), Wi et al (USP 10,395,897) and Bae et al (USPAP 2023/0377842) disclose additional examples of using pre-matching data which is used to implement impedance matching in a plasma processing apparatus, however none of these three references is seen to disclose or suggest comparing measured process data to pre-matching data, as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, nor is any of these three references seen to disclose or suggest a processor which is configured to perform the functions recited on lines 23-53 of claim 20.
Conclusion
10. 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 3, 2026