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 .
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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 01/16/2025 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 11 is directed to “…obtaining at least one arc detection signal in a plasma processing system; and receiving the at least one arc detection signal, determining if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system based on the at least one arc detection signal, and generating an arc mitigation signal in accordance with the at least one arc.”, which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process perform by a processor. The additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising…” are data collection and an extra-solution activity that is simply the outputting the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both elements simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
4.1) Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., an apparatus (Step 1: YES).
4.2) Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 11 recites: “…obtaining at least one arc detection signal in a plasma processing system; and receiving the at least one arc detection signal, determining if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system based on the at least one arc detection signal, and generating an arc mitigation signal in accordance with the at least one arc.”, which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Claim 11 do not claim a particular machine in which the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state in which the judicial exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated. Consequently, the claimed mathematical-calculations and/or mental process above are not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process in variety of technologies (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the judicial exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
4.3) Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 11 recites the additional element(s) “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry that includes microprocessors for acquiring data and outputted the calculated result, which fall in the category of data collection and extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… obtaining information about at least one state of the plasma processing system, wherein determining if the at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system is additional based on the at least one state of the plasma processing system.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the information about at least one state of the plasma processing system comprises at least one of current or historical data related to one or more measured or commanded power levels, measured or commanded pulsing information, pulse repetition rate, pulse duty cycle, pulse ramp rate between setpoints, timestamp information, recipe information, pulsed DC frequency, pulsed DC duty cycle, control loop statistics, recipe data, data shared between multiple power generators or power sources of a plasma processing system, and matching network data.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… the instructions comprising receiving the arc mitigation signal and generating commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein mitigating the at least one arc further comprises at least one of commanding a power adjustment to an electrical component of the plasma processing system or engaging a protection circuit.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one arc detection signal varies in accordance with at least one sensed, measured, or determined electrical parameter or characteristic of a plasma processing system including at least one of voltage, current, reverse power, forward power, active power, reactive power, gradients of at least one of voltage, current, energy, gradients of at least one of power, reverse power, forward power, active power, or reactive power, reflection coefficient, or a square of a magnitude of a reflection coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one arc detection signal includes a plurality of arc detections signals and the instructions further comprise instructions for obtaining the plurality of arc detection signals using two different approaches.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 18 depends on claim 17, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for assigning a weight to each arc detection signal of the plurality of arc detection signals and for one of comparing, tallying, or accumulating the weights to determine whether to respond to the at least one arc.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 18 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 19 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the instructions further comprise determining whether to respond to the determination that at least one arc is present in accordance with the arc detection signal and information about at least one state of the plasma processing system.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 19 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 20 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one arc includes a pair of arcs and the instructions further comprise instructions for determining a time between the pair of arcs and triggering arc mitigation if the time is less than a predetermined time.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…at least one arc detector module configured to output at least one arc detection signal in a plasma processing system…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…at least one arc detector module configured to output at least one arc detection signal in a plasma processing system …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “arc detector module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…at least one arc detector module configured to output at least one arc detection signal in a plasma processing system …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…at least one arc detector module configured to output at least one arc detection signal in a plasma processing system …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…an arc analysis module configured to receive the at least one arc detection signal, to determine if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system based on the at least one arc detection signal, and to generate an arc mitigation signal in accordance with the at least one arc.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…an arc analysis module configured to receive the at least one arc detection signal, to determine if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system based on the at least one arc detection signal, and to generate an arc mitigation signal in accordance with the at least one arc…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “arc analysis module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…an arc analysis module configured to receive the at least one arc detection signal, to determine if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system based on the at least one arc detection signal, and to generate an arc mitigation signal in accordance with the at least one arc…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…an arc analysis module configured to receive the at least one arc detection signal, to determine if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system based on the at least one arc detection signal, and to generate an arc mitigation signal in accordance with the at least one arc.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “…a state data module configured to obtain information about at least one state of the plasma processing system…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…a state data module configured to obtain information about at least one state of the plasma processing system …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “state data module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…a state data module configured to obtain information about at least one state of the plasma processing system …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…a state data module configured to obtain information about at least one state of the plasma processing system …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “…an arc mitigation module configured to receive commands from the arc analysis module and generate commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…an arc mitigation module configured to receive commands from the arc analysis module and generate commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “arc mitigation module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…an arc mitigation module configured to receive commands from the arc analysis module and generate commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…an arc mitigation module configured to receive commands from the arc analysis module and generate commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the row of the 112(f) grid entitled “Prong B” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to the arc detector module, arc analysis module, state data module and arc mitigation module; does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…at least one arc detector module configured to output at least one arc detection signal in a plasma processing system …”;. The term “arc detector module” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure to achieve the function of output at least one arc detection signal in a plasma processing system; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of this claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function of output at least one arc detection signal in a plasma processing system. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “arc detector module” renders claim 1 indefinite.
Note: Similar 112 issues are present on Claims 6 and 7 with regards to the “arc detector module”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…an arc analysis module configured to receive the at least one arc detection signal, to determine if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system based on the at least one arc detection signal, and to generate an arc mitigation signal in accordance with the at least one arc.”;. The term “arc analysis module” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure to achieve the function of receive the at least one arc detection signal, to determine if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system based on the at least one arc detection signal, and to generate an arc mitigation signal in accordance with the at least one arc; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of this claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function of receive the at least one arc detection signal, to determine if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system based on the at least one arc detection signal, and to generate an arc mitigation signal in accordance with the at least one arc. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “arc analysis module” renders claim 1 indefinite.
Note: Similar 112 issues are present on Claims 2 and 8-10 with regards to the “arc analysis module”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “…a state data module configured to obtain information about at least one state of the plasma processing system…”;. The term “state data module” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure to achieve the function of obtain information about at least one state of the plasma processing system; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of this claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function of obtain information about at least one state of the plasma processing system. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “state data module” renders claim 2 indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “…an arc mitigation module configured to receive commands from the arc analysis module and generate commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action …”;. The term “arc mitigation module” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure to achieve the function of receive commands from the arc analysis module and generate commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of this claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function of receive commands from the arc analysis module and generate commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “arc mitigation module” renders claim 4 indefinite.
Note: Similar 112 issues are present on Claim 5 with regards to the “arc mitigation module”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 1.
Please make the proper corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. US 2022/0406581 (Hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches a controller for an arc detection system (Figs. 1, 2) comprising:
at least one arc detector module (Figs. 1, 2; [0004, 0023, 0038]) configured to output at least one arc detection signal (Figs. 1, 2; [0004, 0023, 0038]) in a plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0004, 0023, 0038]); and
an arc analysis module (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]) configured to receive the at least one arc detection signal (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]), to determine if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]) based on the at least one arc detection signal (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]), and to generate an arc mitigation signal (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]) in accordance with the at least one arc (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]; if signals from one or more light sensors exceed a threshold value, an arc fault is declared in the power delivery system; and when the arc fault is detected, a system safety interlock switch is activated by a safety interlock controller (204) and interlock signals are sent out to shut off any associated RF source generators immediately).
Regarding claim 2, Guo further teaches the controller of claim 1 further comprising a state data module configured to obtain information about at least one state of the plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0039]), wherein the arc analysis module determines if the at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system additionally based on the at least one state of the plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0039]; “operating parameters are received from a controller of the plasma process chamber associated with a time or occurrence of the at least one arc indication”).
Regarding claim 3, Guo further teaches the controller of claim 2 wherein the information about at least one state of the plasma processing system comprises at least one of current or historical data related to one or more measured or commanded power levels, measured or commanded pulsing information, pulse repetition rate, pulse duty cycle, pulse ramp rate between setpoints, timestamp information, recipe information, pulsed DC frequency, pulsed DC duty cycle, control loop statistics, recipe data, data shared between multiple power generators or power sources of a plasma processing system, and matching network data (Figs. 1, 2; [0039]; “In some embodiments, the operating parameters from the controller of the plasma process chamber may include, but are not limited to, chamber pressure, power level, chemistry of a process, impedance match network capacitor positions, and/or chamber impedance.”).
Regarding claim 4, Guo further teaches the controller of claim 1 further comprising an arc mitigation module configured to receive commands from the arc analysis module (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]) and generate commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]; if signals from one or more light sensors exceed a threshold value, an arc fault is declared in the power delivery system; and when the arc fault is detected, a system safety interlock switch is activated by a safety interlock controller (204) and interlock signals are sent out to shut off any associated RF source generators immediately).
Regarding claim 5, Guo further teaches the controller of claim 4 wherein the arc mitigation module at least one of commands an adjustment to an electrical component of the plasma processing system, indicates a system fault, or engages a protection circuit (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]; if signals from one or more light sensors exceed a threshold value, an arc fault is declared in the power delivery system; and when the arc fault is detected, a system safety interlock switch is activated by a safety interlock controller (204) and interlock signals are sent out to shut off any associated RF source generators immediately).
Regarding claim 7, Guo further teaches the controller of claim 1 wherein the at least one arc detector module includes a plurality of arc detection sources (Figs. 1, 2; [0023]), wherein the at least one arc detection signal includes a plurality of arc detection signals and each one of the plurality of arc detection sources generates a respective one of the plurality of arc detection signals (Figs. 1, 2; [0023]; “Signals form the light sensors are sent to the arc detector controller and compared with a preset threshold value. If the signals from one or more light sensors exceeds the threshold value, an arc has occurred in the power delivery system.”).
Regarding claim 9, Guo further teaches the controller of claim 1 wherein the arc analysis module is configured to determine whether to respond to the determination that at least one arc is present in accordance with the arc detection signal and information about at least one state of the plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0033, 0039]).
Regarding claim 11, Guo teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (Figs. 1, 2), the instructions comprising:
obtaining at least one arc detection signal (Figs. 1, 2; [0004, 0023, 0038]) in a plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0004, 0023, 0038]); and
receiving the at least one arc detection signal (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]), determining if at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]) based on the at least one arc detection signal (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]), and generating an arc mitigation signal (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]) in accordance with the at least one arc (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]; if signals from one or more light sensors exceed a threshold value, an arc fault is declared in the power delivery system; and when the arc fault is detected, a system safety interlock switch is activated by a safety interlock controller (204) and interlock signals are sent out to shut off any associated RF source generators immediately).
Regarding claim 12, Guo further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 11, the instructions comprising obtaining information about at least one state of the plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0039]), wherein determining if the at least one arc is present in the plasma processing system is additional based on the at least one state of the plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0039]; “operating parameters are received from a controller of the plasma process chamber associated with a time or occurrence of the at least one arc indication”).
Regarding claim 13, Guo further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 12 wherein the information about at least one state of the plasma processing system comprises at least one of current or historical data related to one or more measured or commanded power levels, measured or commanded pulsing information, pulse repetition rate, pulse duty cycle, pulse ramp rate between setpoints, timestamp information, recipe information, pulsed DC frequency, pulsed DC duty cycle, control loop statistics, recipe data, data shared between multiple power generators or power sources of a plasma processing system, and matching network data (Figs. 1, 2; [0039]; “In some embodiments, the operating parameters from the controller of the plasma process chamber may include, but are not limited to, chamber pressure, power level, chemistry of a process, impedance match network capacitor positions, and/or chamber impedance.”).
Regarding claim 14, Guo further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 11, the instructions comprising receiving the arc mitigation signal (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]) and generating commands to at least one of mitigate the at least one arc or indicate a fault, or take no action (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]; if signals from one or more light sensors exceed a threshold value, an arc fault is declared in the power delivery system; and when the arc fault is detected, a system safety interlock switch is activated by a safety interlock controller (204) and interlock signals are sent out to shut off any associated RF source generators immediately).
Regarding claim 15, Guo further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 14, wherein mitigating the at least one arc further comprises at least one of commanding a power adjustment to an electrical component of the plasma processing system or engaging a protection circuit (Figs. 1, 2; [0032]; if signals from one or more light sensors exceed a threshold value, an arc fault is declared in the power delivery system; and when the arc fault is detected, a system safety interlock switch is activated by a safety interlock controller (204) and interlock signals are sent out to shut off any associated RF source generators immediately).
Regarding claim 17, Guo further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 11, wherein the at least one arc detection signal includes a plurality of arc detections signals (Figs. 1, 2; [0023]) and the instructions further comprise instructions for obtaining the plurality of arc detection signals using two different approaches (Figs. 1, 2; [0023]; “Signals form the light sensors are sent to the arc detector controller and compared with a preset threshold value. If the signals from one or more light sensors exceeds the threshold value, an arc has occurred in the power delivery system.”).
Regarding claim 19, Guo further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 11, wherein the instructions further comprise determining whether to respond to the determination that at least one arc is present in accordance with the arc detection signal and information about at least one state of the plasma processing system (Figs. 1, 2; [0033, 0039]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Johnson et al. US 6,332,961 (Hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 6, Guo teaches the controller of claim 1, but not specifically wherein the at least one arc detector module is configured to output the arc detection signal in accordance with at least one sensed, measured, or determined electrical parameter or characteristic of the plasma processing system, including at least one of voltage, current, reverse power, forward power, active power, reactive power, gradients of at least one of voltage, current, energy, gradients of at least one of power, reverse power, forward power, active power, or reactive power, reflection coefficient, or a square of a magnitude of a reflection coefficient.
However, Johnson does teach wherein the at least one arc detector module is configured to output the arc detection signal in accordance with at least one sensed, measured, or determined electrical parameter or characteristic of the plasma processing system, including at least one of voltage, current, reverse power, forward power, active power, reactive power, gradients of at least one of voltage, current, energy, gradients of at least one of power, reverse power, forward power, active power, or reactive power, reflection coefficient, or a square of a magnitude of a reflection coefficient (Col. 2, lines 46-64).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for detecting arcing in power delivery systems for process chambers of Guo by implementing the teachings of Johnson regarding wherein the at least one arc detector module is configured to output the arc detection signal in accordance with at least one sensed, measured, or determined electrical parameter or characteristic of the plasma processing system, including at least one of voltage, current, reverse power, forward power, active power, reactive power, gradients of at least one of voltage, current, energy, gradients of at least one of power, reverse power, forward power, active power, or reactive power, reflection coefficient, or a square of a magnitude of a reflection coefficient; for the purpose of “detecting and preventing arcing in plasma processing systems” (See Johnson; Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Guo further teaches the controller of claim 7, but not specifically wherein the arc analysis module assigns a weight to each arc detection signal of the plurality of arc detection signals, and the weights of the plurality of arc detection signals are one of compared, tallied, or accumulated to determine whether to respond to the at least one arc.
However, Johnson does teach wherein the arc analysis module assigns a weight to each arc detection signal of the plurality of arc detection signals, and the weights of the plurality of arc detection signals are one of compared, tallied, or accumulated to determine whether to respond to the at least one arc (Col. 11, lines 5-41).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for detecting arcing in power delivery systems for process chambers of Guo by implementing the teachings of Johnson regarding wherein the arc analysis module assigns a weight to each arc detection signal of the plurality of arc detection signals, and the weights of the plurality of arc detection signals are one of compared, tallied, or accumulated to determine whether to respond to the at least one arc; for the purpose of “detecting and preventing arcing in plasma processing systems” (See Johnson; Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Guo teaches the controller of claim 1, but not specifically wherein the at least one arc includes a pair of arcs and the arc analysis module determines a time between the pair of arcs and triggers arc mitigation if the time is less than a predetermined time.
However, Johnson does teach wherein the at least one arc includes a pair of arcs and the arc analysis module determines a time between the pair of arcs and triggers arc mitigation if the time is less than a predetermined time (Col. 11, lines 5-41; Col. 16, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for detecting arcing in power delivery systems for process chambers of Guo by implementing the teachings of Johnson regarding wherein the at least one arc includes a pair of arcs and the arc analysis module determines a time between the pair of arcs and triggers arc mitigation if the time is less than a predetermined time; for the purpose of “detecting and preventing arcing in plasma processing systems” (See Johnson; Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Guo teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 11, but not specifically wherein the at least one arc detection signal varies in accordance with at least one sensed, measured, or determined electrical parameter or characteristic of a plasma processing system including at least one of voltage, current, reverse power, forward power, active power, reactive power, gradients of at least one of voltage, current, energy, gradients of at least one of power, reverse power, forward power, active power, or reactive power, reflection coefficient, or a square of a magnitude of a reflection coefficient.
However, Johnson does teach wherein the at least one arc detection signal varies in accordance with at least one sensed, measured, or determined electrical parameter or characteristic of a plasma processing system including at least one of voltage, current, reverse power, forward power, active power, reactive power, gradients of at least one of voltage, current, energy, gradients of at least one of power, reverse power, forward power, active power, or reactive power, reflection coefficient, or a square of a magnitude of a reflection coefficient (Col. 2, lines 46-64).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for detecting arcing in power delivery systems for process chambers of Guo by implementing the teachings of Johnson regarding wherein the at least one arc detection signal varies in accordance with at least one sensed, measured, or determined electrical parameter or characteristic of a plasma processing system including at least one of voltage, current, reverse power, forward power, active power, reactive power, gradients of at least one of voltage, current, energy, gradients of at least one of power, reverse power, forward power, active power, or reactive power, reflection coefficient, or a square of a magnitude of a reflection coefficient; for the purpose of “detecting and preventing arcing in plasma processing systems” (See Johnson; Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Guo teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 17, but not specifically wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for assigning a weight to each arc detection signal of the plurality of arc detection signals and for one of comparing, tallying, or accumulating the weights to determine whether to respond to the at least one arc.
However, Johnson does teach wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for assigning a weight to each arc detection signal of the plurality of arc detection signals and for one of comparing, tallying, or accumulating the weights to determine whether to respond to the at least one arc (Col. 11, lines 5-41).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for detecting arcing in power delivery systems for process chambers of Guo by implementing the teachings of Johnson regarding wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for assigning a weight to each arc detection signal of the plurality of arc detection signals and for one of comparing, tallying, or accumulating the weights to determine whether to respond to the at least one arc; for the purpose of “detecting and preventing arcing in plasma processing systems” (See Johnson; Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Guo teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions of claim 11, but not specifically wherein the at least one arc includes a pair of arcs and the instructions further comprise instructions for determining a time between the pair of arcs and triggering arc mitigation if the time is less than a predetermined time.
However, Johnson does teach wherein the at least one arc includes a pair of arcs and the instructions further comprise instructions for determining a time between the pair of arcs and triggering arc mitigation if the time is less than a predetermined time (Col. 11, lines 5-41; Col. 16, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for detecting arcing in power delivery systems for process chambers of Guo by implementing the teachings of Johnson regarding wherein the at least one arc includes a pair of arcs and the instructions further comprise instructions for determining a time between the pair of arcs and triggering arc mitigation if the time is less than a predetermined time; for the purpose of “detecting and preventing arcing in plasma processing systems” (See Johnson; Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Radovanov et al. US 2017/0178866 - A plasma processing apparatus may include: a plasma chamber; a power source to generate a plasma in the plasma chamber; an extraction voltage supply coupled to the plasma chamber to apply a pulsed extraction voltage between the plasma chamber and a substrate; an extraction assembly disposed along a side of the plasma chamber between the plasma chamber and the substrate, the extraction assembly having at least one aperture, the at least one aperture defining a first ion beam when the plasma is present in the plasma chamber and the pulsed extraction voltage is applied; a deflection electrode adjacent the extraction assembly.
Qin et al. US 2014/0197134 - Systems and methods for plasma processing of microfeature workpieces are disclosed herein. In one embodiment, a method includes generating a plasma in a chamber while a microfeature workpiece is positioned in the chamber, measuring optical emissions from the plasma, and determining a parameter of the plasma based on the measured optical emissions. The parameter can be an ion density or another parameter of the plasma.
Meng et al. US 2021/0307151 - Plasma processing apparatus and associated methods for detecting air leak are provided. In one example implementation, the plasma processing apparatus can include a processing chamber to process a workpiece, a plasma chamber separated from the processing chamber by a separation grid, and an inductive coupling element to induce an oxygen plasma using a process gas in the plasma chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
