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.
Response to Election of Species Requirement
2. Applicant's election of species A, corresponding to claims 1-8, is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are now subject to examination on the merits, and claims 9-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statements
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/13/24 and 12/26/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 1 of the instant specification, an insertion should be made so as to indicate that the present application is a continuation application of U.S. application 17/627,642 which has issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,170,188. Also, on line 7 of paragraph [0045], the first occurrence of the word "the" should be deleted. On line 5 of paragraph [0047], the word "is" should be changed to --are--. On the first line of paragraph [0048], the word "means" should be changed to --is--. On line 7 of paragraph [0048], the word "the" should be changed to
--at--. On the first line of paragraph [0049], the word "means" should again be changed to --is--, and note that the same change should also be made on the first line of paragraph [0050]. On line 4 of paragraph [0051], the first occurrence of the word "the" should be deleted, and note that the same deletion should also be made on line 6 of this paragraph. On line 3 of paragraph [0053], the word "the" at the end of the line should again be deleted, and note that the same deletion should also be made on line 6 of this paragraph. On lines 6 and 9 of paragraph [0056], the word "the" before "each" should again be deleted. On the first line of paragraph [0063], the word "means" should again be changed to --is--, and also in this paragraph, "a" at the end of line 3 should again be changed to --at-- (and note that the same change should also be made at the beginning of line 7 of this paragraph). On lines 1 and 4 of paragraph [0064], the word "means" should again be changed to --is--. On line 3 of paragraph [0084], the word "the" should be changed to --this--. On the last line of paragraph [0084], the word "through" should be changed to --from--. On the last line of paragraph [0087], the word "forming" should be changed to --being formed--. On the second line of paragraph [0095], the word "as" should be deleted. On lines 4 and 6 of paragraph [0095], the word "the" before "each" should be deleted. On the second line of paragraph [00101], the word "as" should again be deleted. On the last line of paragraph [00105], the word "expand" should be changed to --expanded--. On the second line of paragraph [00107], the word "as" should again be deleted, and note that the same deletion should also be made on the second line of paragraph [00113].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On the second line of claim 1, the word "measuring" should be indented, i.e., there should be a paragraph break at the beginning of line 2 of claim 1, similar to the way claim 1 was presented by applicant in the originally filed claims. Note also that the same indentations should similarly be made on lines 4, 7 and 8 of claim 1.
On the last line of claim 3, the comma after the word "and" should be deleted.
On the second line of claim 5, the word "measuring" should be indented, for the same reason noted above in the objection to claim 1, and note also that the same indentations should also be made on lines 4, 7 and 8 of claim 5.
On the last line of claim 7, the comma after the word "and" should again be deleted.
On the first line of each of claims 9-13, "(Original)" should be changed to
--(Withdrawn)--, the reason being that claims 9-13, as noted above, have been withdrawn from consideration because they are directed to the embodiments of species B and species C.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
7. 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 1-4 and 7 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 4 of claim 1, "each set range" lacks antecedent basis, as does "each set range" recited on lines 5-6 of claim 1.
On lines 3-5 of claim 2, "each set range" (both occurrences) again lacks antecedent basis.
On the second line of claim 3, "the set range of the temperature of the first electrode" lacks antecedent basis, as does "the set range of the temperature of the second electrode" recited on the last line of claim 3.
On the last line of claim 4, "the set range of the temperature of the substrate support" lacks antecedent basis.
On the second line of claim 7, "the set range of the temperature of the first electrode" lacks clear antecedent basis, the reason being that claim 5 recites two different set ranges, i.e., a first set range and a second set range, and therefore it is unclear which of these two different set ranges is being referred to by applicant on the second line of claim 7. Note the same problem on the last line of claim 7, i.e., the recitation of "the set range of the temperature of the second electrode" again lacks clear antecedent basis because it cannot be determined if applicant is referring to the first set range or the second set range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (USPAP 2015/0110974) in view of Jucha et al (USP 4,838,990).
As to claim 1, Lee et al '974 discloses, in figure 1,
an interlock method of a substrate processing apparatus (just preamble language), comprising:
measuring a temperature of a first electrode (note temperature sensor 34 of Lee et al '974 which is used for measuring the temperature of first electrode 30) and a temperature of at least one of a second electrode and a substrate support (note temperature sensor 26 of Lee et al '974 which is used for measuring the temperature of second electrode/substrate support 22);
comparing the temperature of the first or second electrode with each set range or comparing the temperature of the first electrode or the substrate support with each set range (although Lee et al '974 does not disclose comparing the temperature of the above-noted first and second electrodes to set ranges, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosure in Jucha et al at column 59, lines 3-11, where this reference discloses using a temperature sensor to measure the temperature of an electrode in a substrate processing apparatus, and if the measured temperature is not at a proper temperature, an RF power supply is adjusted so as to correct the temperature of the electrode, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art from reading this disclosure in Jucha et al would have easily recognized that the temperature of the electrodes 30 and 22 in figure 1 of Lee et al '974 could obviously be measured and if the temperature of either of these electrodes is out of range, the power outputs of the power supplies coupled to electrodes 30 and 22 should be adjusted so as to bring the temperatures of these electrodes back into the proper range, as taught by Jucha et al);
generating an interlock signal according to the result of comparison (when the above-noted obvious combination of Lee et al '974 and Jucha et al is made, the temperature of the electrodes 30 and 22 of Lee et al '974 will be measured and, if the temperature of either or both of these electrodes is outside of the set range, an interlock signal should be output from the power supply controller in order to adjust the output power of the RF power supply, e.g., to either increase or reduce the output power level thereof); and
cutting off supply of RF power in response to the interlock signal (again when the above-noted obvious combination of Lee et al '974 and Jucha et al is made, the temperature of the electrodes 30 and 22 will be measured and, if the temperature of either or both of these electrodes is outside of the set range, an interlock signal will be output from the power supply controller in order to adjust the RF power supply, i.e., to either increase or reduce the output power thereof, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that one obvious way of reducing the output power of an RF power supply is to cut it off, either intermittently or permanently).
As to claim 2, when the above-noted obvious combination of Lee et al '974 and Jucha et al is made, the interlock signal will be output from the RF power supply controller in response to detecting that the temperature of the first and/or second electrode in figure 1 of Lee et al '974 is out of range, as noted above for the purpose of either increasing or reducing the temperature of the first and/or second electrode.
As to claim 3, although neither Lee et al '974 nor Jucha et al discloses the specific temperature set ranges for the first and second electrodes recited in this claim, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the temperature set ranges for electrodes 30 and 22 of Lee et al '974 could be set to any values desired without patentable distinction, note that it has long been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
As to claim 4, although neither Lee et al '974 nor Jucha et al discloses the specific temperature set range for the substrate support recited in this claim, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the temperature set range for the substrate support could be set to any value desired without patentable distinction, again it has long been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
As to claims 5-8, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1-4 (as to the limitation recited on lines 4-5 of claim 5 regarding comparing the difference between the temperatures of the first and second electrodes or comparing the difference between the temperatures of the first electrode and the substrate support, note the disclosure by Lee et al '974 of detecting the difference between the temperatures of electrodes 30 and 22 in paragraphs [0056] and [0064] of this reference).
Double Patenting
9. Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claim 1-8 are either anticipated by or would have been obvious from the limitations recited in the claims of applicant's prior patent. Specifically, note that the limitations of claims 1 and 2 of the present application are fully anticipated by what is recited in claims 1 and 2 of the '188 patent, the limitations of claims 5 and 6 of the present application are fully anticipated by what is recited in claims 5 and 6 of the '188 patent, and the limitations of claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons indicated above in the obviousness rejection of these four claims.
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.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 1 of Hirayama shows another substrate processing apparatus which includes first and second electrodes 32 and 34 where the difference between the temperatures of these two electrodes is determined by a pair of temperature sensors.
Figure 1 of Sharan et al discloses another example of monitoring the temperature of a substrate support electrode, i.e., electrode 18, using a temperature sensor, i.e., temperature sensor 28, wherein if the temperature of electrode 18 is determined to be out of range, conventional techniques are used to bring it back into the proper temperature range, see column 3, lines 42-50, of this reference.
Figure 1 of Lee et al '200 shows another substrate processing apparatus which uses a temperature sensor, i.e., temperature sensor 142, for measuring the temperature of an electrode, i.e., lower electrode 130, and then outputting a control signal to a controller 150 in response to the measured temperature of the electrode.
Iwase et al in paragraph [0035], Iino in claim 12, and Bohm et al in paragraph [0016] disclose three examples of maintaining the temperature of an electrode in a substrate processing apparatus within a target temperature range.
Conclusion
11. 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 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 2842 April 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights