DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 28, 2025; March 19, 2025; and February 18, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “RF generator” in line 2. The term “RF” should be fully spelled out at the first appearance of the limitation to prevent confusion with the term, such as, “radio-frequency (RF) generator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitations “A plasma generation system”, “a control device”, “an RF generator”, and “an impedance matching circuit”. This claim incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 into claim 18, thus the limitations above are referring back to the limitations originally recited in claim 1 and should be amended to “The plasma generation system”, “the control device”, “the RF generator”, and “the impedance matching circuit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “RF generator” in line 2. The term “RF” should be fully spelled out at the first appearance of the limitation to prevent confusion with the term, such as, “radio-frequency (RF) generator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 1 recites limitations in lines 1-3, which are the preamble and intended use. The “control device is configured to use”, in line 4, is a replacement for means plus, is not modified by any structure and is followed by a single function of “to determine a target impedance value”.
Claims 2-28 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 1-29 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 29 recites the broad recitation “a characteristic operating value” in lines 10 and 11, respectively, and the claim also recites “in particular an efficiency” in lines 10 and 11, respectively, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-28 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Independent claim 1 recites a control device (a machine).
Independent claim 29 recites a method for actuating an impedance matching circuit (a process).
(Step 2A: Prong 1)
The limitations of claim 1 of determining a target impedance value and its’ associated limitations in lines 8-11 and given the operating frequency, target power and model parameters; the limitations of claim 29 of determining a target impedance value for the input terminal with the limitations in lines 10-12 and given the operating frequency, target power and model parameters, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting a control device for claim 1, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps/limitations above from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determine a target impedance” along with their respective limitations and given the operating frequency, target power and model parameters of claims 1 and 29 encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to determine a target impedance value for the impedance matching circuit. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1 and 29 recite an abstract idea.
(Step 2A: Prong 2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1 and 29 do not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a control device, an impedance matching circuit with a input terminal and output terminal, a plasma generation system, an RF generator, a load, a predeterminable operating frequency, a predetermined target power and model parameters. Claim 29 recites the additional elements of an impedance matching circuit with a input terminal and output terminal, a plasma generation system, an RF generator with a output terminal, a load with a input, a predeterminable operating frequency, a predetermined target power and model parameters. The additional elements recited above are recited at a high level of generality in a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and is considered in Step 2B below. The control device of claim 1 is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/computer performing generic computer functions of determining a target impedance value for the input terminal of the impedance matching circuit) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 and 29 are directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claim(s) 1 and 29 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above (see Step 2A: Prong 2), claims 1 and 29 do contain additional elements. The additional elements of a control device, an impedance matching circuit with a input terminal and output terminal, a plasma generation system, an RF generator, a load, a predeterminable operating frequency, a predetermined target power and model parameters provide no indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic computer component or process used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Claim 1 further recites the additional element of a control device which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 29 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim further adds to the determining step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4, this claim further adds to the determining step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6, this claim further adds to the determining step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9, this claim has an additional element of a storage device in the control device. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, this claim has an additional element of a cable connection. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11, this claim has an additional element of a storage device, a first measuring unit and a second measuring unit. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity used in a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has an additional element of a housing of the impedance matching circuit. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15, this claim has an additional element of a cable connection with a first end and a second end. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 16, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 17, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18, this claim further adds to the plasma generation system using the control device and abstract idea of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19, this claim has no additional elements. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has an additional element of a cable connection. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 21, this claim has an additional element of cable connection comprising at least two cables. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 22, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 23, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 24, this claim has an additional element of a first measuring unit and a second measuring unit. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 25, this claim has an additional element of a directional coupler, a current sensor and a voltage sensor. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 27, this claim further adds to the control device of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 28, this claim has an additional element of the impedance matching circuit comprises one or more capacitances. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a well-understood, routine, and convention device/function (same claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above is used for this additional element). Thus, this claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ye et al. discloses “Impedance control of local areas of a substrate during plasma deposition thereon in a large PECVD chamber” (see US2024/0136160)
Guo et al. discloses “Wideband variable impedance load for high volume manufacturing qualification and on-site diagnostics” (see US2024/0094273)
Van Zyl discloses “Frequency tuning system and method for finding a global optimum” (see US2014/0155008)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 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, 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights