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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 1–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "wherein the resonator is configured to not influence the HF power signal at the predetermined basic frequency" (element d) is indefinite. Any passive resonator disposed in the signal path necessarily influences the signal to some degree; the limitation as drafted therefore recites a condition that cannot be met absolutely, and the claim provides no ascertainable boundary for how small an influence qualifies as "not" influencing.
The specification does not supply that boundary. At ¶ [0027] and ¶ [0029], the disclosure describes the resonator as configured "to influence the HF power signal slightly, in particular to not influence same," and at ¶ [0030] defines "slight influence" only comparatively, "an influence that is very minor within the scope of what is technically reasonably feasible and in any case smaller, in particular by a factor of 10, preferably by a factor of 100, than that at the upper or lower AFT frequency." A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the scope of "not influence." See MPEP §§ 2173.05(b) and 2173.02; Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation "the resonator is realized by a line arrangement that acts like a parallel or series resonator" is indefinite. "Acts like" is a term of approximation for which the specification supplies no standard of comparison, it is not clear what degree or manner of resemblance to a lumped parallel or series resonator is required, or what structures fall outside the term. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(I). Suggested correction: "wherein the resonator comprises a line arrangement configured as a parallel resonator or as a series resonator."
Regarding claim 11, the recitations "the basic frequency," "both AFT frequencies," and "the phase" lack sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites "a predetermined basic frequency," "a predetermined upper AFT frequency and a predetermined lower AFT frequency," and "a phase." Consistent terminology is required. MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Zyl (US 2021/0175050 A1, hereinafter “Van Zyl”).
Regarding claim 1, Van Zyl discloses an impedance matching arrangement for a plasma process supply system and a plasma process system. Van Zyl's FIG. 1 shows a plasma chamber 100 coupled to a high-frequency generator 102 via a filter 104 and a matching network 106 (Van Zyl ¶ [0065]). Van Zyl states that the filter operates "at relatively high-power levels (e.g., in the 1 kW to 30 kW power range)" (¶ [0092]), and that the high-frequency generator "may be a generator that delivers RF power to the plasma load in the plasma chamber 100 in the 10 MHz to 200 MHz frequency range" (¶ [0066]), with 60 MHz (¶ [0075]) and 13.56 MHz (¶¶ [0133], [0137]) given as working examples. Both the recited power floor of 500 W and the recited 2 MHz–100 MHz band are therefore met; in any event these are intended-use recitations as set forth in § 4 above.
Regarding element (a), "a matching unit having one or more reactances", Van Zyl discloses matching network 106 (FIG. 1) and matching network 2104 (FIG. 21), and states that "[t]he optional matching network(s) 2104 typically act as band pass filters" (¶ [0137]), i.e., they are constituted of reactances. Van Zyl further states that "[f]iltering and impedance matching are frequently done by the same physical network," and that a filter such as optional filter 2122 "can perform the function of both filtering and impedance matching" (¶ [0132]), expressly contemplating the matching unit and resonator as parts of one impedance matching circuit.
Regarding element (b), "a resonator", Van Zyl discloses filter 104 implemented as a water-cooled filter 904 "designed with two parallel helical resonators" (¶ [0086]), each helical resonator comprising a hollow helical coil 1020 having a grounded end 1022 and coupled to a copper block 1024, with input and output capacitors 810, 820 formed by metallization 1030 disposed on ceramic insulators 1028 (¶ [0087]; FIGS. 9–13). FIG. 8A depicts the lossless filter prototype as discrete 0.582 pF series capacitors with a 6.05 µH shunt inductor, and FIG. 8B depicts the realized filter as series capacitors 810 (3.7 pF) and 820 (3.34 pF) with two shunt transmission-line resonators 830, 840, each having Z₀ = 56.22 Ω and a time delay of 3.97 ns. Van Zyl further states that such a narrowband, high-power filter may alternatively be realized "for example using a large ring resonator or cavity" (¶ [0085]).
Regarding element (c), operation at a predetermined HF power signal having a predetermined basic frequency and an AFT bandwidth limited by a predetermined upper and lower AFT frequency, Van Zyl discloses a high-frequency generator 1502 comprising an exciter 1505, power amplifier 1510, sensor 1520 and a frequency-tuning subsystem 1525, which "receives the measurements indicative of the impedance, Z, of the plasma load from sensor 1520 and processes those measurements to produce frequency adjustments that are fed to exciter 1505 via a frequency control line 1530 to adjust the frequency generated by exciter 1505" (¶¶ [0095], [0098]; FIG. 15). The adjustment is made across a bounded band: Van Zyl describes dividing "[t]he entire frequency range from f_min to f_max" into equally spaced frequencies f₀ through f₁₅ for the tuning search (¶ [0116]). Van Zyl gives the concrete bounds of that band as "the range of frequencies over which the generator is expected to operate, e.g. from 12.882 to 14.238 MHz" (¶ [0157]; accord ¶ [0175]), i.e., a predetermined basic frequency of 13.56 MHz bounded by a predetermined lower AFT frequency of 12.882 MHz and a predetermined upper AFT frequency of 14.238 MHz. This is auto-frequency tuning in the sense used by the present application at ¶ [0016].
Regarding element (d), the resonator configured to not influence the HF power signal at the basic frequency and to damp the HF power signal and/or influence it in phase at both the upper and lower AFT frequencies, Van Zyl discloses precisely this transfer characteristic:
Van Zyl states that the filter "may have reasonably low losses at the frequency of the high-frequency generator 102" (¶ [0074]), and specifies that "the suppression of power at the frequency of the high-frequency generator 102 is, at most, 2 dB" (¶ [0076]). FIG. 4A plots filter gain against frequency and shows the response peaking at approximately 0 dB at the 60 MHz center frequency. Under the construction compelled by ¶ [0030] of the present specification, under which "not influence" is grouped with an influence smaller by a factor of ten or one hundred than at the AFT band edges, Van Zyl's low-loss passband meets the limitation.
Van Zyl defines bandwidth as "a frequency range that exists between a lower-cutoff frequency and a higher-cutoff frequency, wherein each of the cutoff frequencies is 3 dB below the maximum center or resonant peak while attenuating or weakening other frequencies outside of these two points by more than 3 dB" (¶ [0074]), and specifies a filter bandwidth of 2% or less of the generator frequency, i.e., 1.2 MHz or less for a 60 MHz generator (¶ [0076]), with power "suppressed by 8 dB" at a fraction of a megahertz from the center frequency (¶ [0077]). FIG. 4A confirms the response directly: the plotted gain falls symmetrically from approximately 0 dB at 60 MHz to approximately −15 dB at both 59 MHz and 61 MHz. Attenuation is therefore expressly disclosed at both the upper and the lower edges of the tuning band.
Van Zyl states that "[t]he use of the filter 104, 804B, 904, 1404 compresses the frequency range over which frequency tuning (for impedance matching) can be done to a very small frequency range" (¶ [0094]). This is a direct statement that the resonator is transparent at the tuned operating frequency and attenuating at the extremes of the frequency-tuning band, the very function recited in element (d).
A resonant bandpass network exhibits a phase characteristic that departs from its center-frequency value on either side of the resonant peak; this is an inherent property of the disclosed structure and need not be expressly recited to be relied upon. MPEP § 2112(IV). The point is reinforced by FIG. 8B, in which the resonators 830, 840 are transmission lines characterized by a 3.97 ns time delay. Element (d) is drafted in the alternative ("and/or"), so damping alone satisfies it in any event.
The sole arguable difference between Van Zyl and claim 1 is that Van Zyl does not use the word "resonator" to label a component of the "impedance matching circuit" as a single named unit, instead describing filter 104 and matching network 106 as cooperating elements of the same power-delivery path. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to regard and to physically integrate Van Zyl's filter and matching network as a single impedance matching circuit, because Van Zyl expressly teaches that filtering and impedance matching "are frequently done by the same physical network" and discloses an embodiment (filter 2122, FIG. 21) in which one network performs both functions, including the case in which "there is no matching network 2104" and "RF impedance matching is done internal to the power source 2110 with the optional filter 2122" (¶¶ [0132], [0134]). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, are each an appropriate rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–21 (2007); MPEP § 2143(A), (C).
Regarding claim 2, Van Zyl discloses an impedance matching circuit implemented with fixed reactances. Van Zyl's filter 104/904 is built from fixed components, helical coils 1020 and capacitors 810, 820 formed by fixed metallization 1030 on ceramic insulators 1028 (¶ [0087]; FIGS. 9–13), and Van Zyl's optional filter 2122 performs impedance matching with these fixed reactances, being "designed to match 50 ohm at the output to 5+j6 ohm at the input" over "the range of frequencies over which the generator is expected to operate, e.g. from 12.882 to 14.238 MHz" (¶ [0157]). Van Zyl further teaches that impedance matching may be accomplished by frequency tuning of the generator rather than by varying reactances, expressly contemplating an embodiment in which "there is no matching network 2104 and the output 2111 of the power source 2110 is connected directly to the plasma chamber 2108," matching being "done internal to the power source 2110 with the optional filter 2122" (¶ [0134]). It would have been obvious to implement the matching circuit with fixed reactances for the predictable benefits of simplicity and cost, as the present specification itself acknowledges at ¶ [0032].
Regarding claim 4, Van Zyl discloses the resonator configured as a bandpass filter. Van Zyl's filter 104 "may be implemented as an extremely-narrow bandwidth, high-power filter" (¶ [0074]) characterized by a passband defined between a lower-cutoff and a higher-cutoff frequency each 3 dB below the resonant peak (¶ [0074]), whose "passband frequency" may be set by tuning (¶ [0093]). FIG. 4A plots the resulting filter gain and input return loss, and FIGS. 8A–8B show the bandpass prototype and its realized form.
Regarding claim 5, Van Zyl discloses resonator structures in FIG. 8A (lossless prototype) and FIG. 8B (realized filter using lossy components). To the extent Van Zyl's illustrated prototype is characterized as employing shunt-resonant rather than series-resonant sections, series and parallel resonators are the two art-recognized dual implementations of a resonator, and selection between them is an obvious matter of design choice yielding no unexpected result. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI). A person of ordinary skill selecting between only two known, predictable alternatives to obtain a resonance at the generator frequency would have found the recited arrangement obvious to try. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421; MPEP § 2143(E). The present specification confirms the interchangeability at ¶ [0034] ("[t]he resonator … can have a series and/or parallel resonator") and ¶ [0049], and provides no criticality for either choice.
Regarding claim 6, Van Zyl discloses a parallel resonator. Van Zyl's filter 904 is "designed with two parallel helical resonators" (¶ [0086]), each hollow helical coil 1020 having a grounded end 1022 and being coupled to the signal path through input and output capacitors 810, 820 (¶ [0087]). FIG. 8B shows the two resonators 830, 840 shunt-connected between the signal path and ground, i.e., shunt-connected resonant sections corresponding to the parallel resonator of the present application's FIG. 2b and ¶ [0046].
Regarding claim 7, Van Zyl discloses a resonator having a discrete capacitor and a discrete inductor. FIG. 8A depicts the filter prototype as two discrete 0.582 pF capacitors and a discrete 6.05 µH inductor. Van Zyl further discloses the realized capacitors formed on discrete ceramic insulators 1220, 1260, where "[t]he size of the front metallization 1280 controls the capacitance realized by the assembly" (¶ [0089]; FIG. 12), with the hollow helical coils serving as the inductive element.
Regarding claim 8, Van Zyl discloses the resonator realized by a line arrangement that acts like a parallel resonator. FIG. 8B depicts the realized filter with its two resonators 830, 840 expressly drawn as transmission lines, each specified by a characteristic impedance Z₀ = 56.22 Ω and a time delay td = 3.97 ns, shunt-connected between the signal path and ground. At the 60 MHz center frequency of the disclosed design, a 3.97 ns delay corresponds to approximately 0.24 wavelength, that is, an approximately quarter-wave line, grounded at its end (¶ [0087], hollow helical coil 1020 "comprises a grounded end 1022"). A grounded quarter-wave line presents a parallel resonance at its input, and Van Zyl confirms this is the intended mode of operation: the helical resonators are used "close to resonance on the low frequency or inductive side of resonance rather than an inductor," providing "a smaller effective inductance" (¶ [0092]). This is the same structure and function described at ¶ [0047] of the present application, which specifies a coaxial or microstrip line "adjusted to the characteristic impedance at this point, e.g., 50 Ω," of length preferably λ/4, grounded at one end, creating "a parallel resonant circuit which does not influence the signal flowing between the two connection options 12a, 12b at the basic frequency f0, but causes attenuation and/or phase shift at adjacent frequencies." Van Zyl additionally states that the narrowband high-power filter may be realized "for example using a large ring resonator or cavity" (¶ [0085]), both of which are likewise distributed line structures.
Regarding claim 9, Van Zyl discloses a filter/resonator and a matching unit in a series signal path between the generator and the plasma chamber, with the filter 104 on the generator side of the matching network 106 (¶ [0065]; FIG. 1). Van Zyl does not expressly disclose the resonator connected downstream of the matching unit. However, the resonator is a two-port, reciprocal passive network disposed in series in the power-delivery path, and only two arrangements of two series-connected two-ports are possible. Rearranging the order of two series elements, where the operation of the device is not thereby modified, does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). A person of ordinary skill choosing between two identified, predictable arrangements would have found the recited order obvious to try. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. The present specification identifies no criticality, stating only at ¶ [0035] that downstream placement "can improve the properties of the trajectory," without data or comparison.
Regarding claim 10, Van Zyl discloses the resonator and the matching unit constructed independently of one another. Van Zyl's filter 104 and matching network 106 are separate physical units, Van Zyl describes adjusting "a length of cables between the matching network 106 and the filter 104" to control the impedance with which the power mixing products are terminated (¶ [0084]; FIG. 7, Block 750), and filter 904 is housed in its own potted cylindrical enclosure 1032 (¶ [0087]) with its own input and output connectors 1110, 1140 (¶ [0088]) and its own water cooling (¶¶ [0086], [0092]). They share no common components, satisfying the definition given at ¶ [0036] of the present specification.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are those of claim 1 with the alternative "and/or" narrowed to the conjunctive "and," requiring both damping and phase influence at both AFT frequencies. As set forth in the treatment of claim 1 element (d), Van Zyl's helical-resonator bandpass filter necessarily exhibits both an attenuation characteristic, shown falling symmetrically on either side of 60 MHz in FIG. 4A, and an accompanying phase characteristic that departs from its center-frequency value at both band edges; the latter is an inherent property of the disclosed resonant structure, whose resonators are transmission lines having a specified 3.97 ns delay (FIG. 8B). MPEP § 2112(IV). Van Zyl further discloses filter 1404 with tuning slugs 1420, 1440 by which the passband frequency may be set and actively adjusted relative to the generator frequency (¶ [0093]; FIG. 14).
Regarding claim 12, Van Zyl discloses a plasma process supply system comprising an AFT-capable HF power supply and the impedance matching circuit of claim 1. Van Zyl's high-frequency generator 1502 comprises exciter 1505, power amplifier 1510, filter 1515, sensor 1520, and frequency-tuning subsystem 1525, which adjusts the exciter frequency via frequency control line 1530 (¶¶ [0095], [0098]; FIG. 15), an AFT-capable HF power supply providing the HF power signal. Filter 104 and matching network 106 are electrically connected to the generator and configured for connection to the plasma chamber (¶ [0065]; FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Van Zyl discloses a plasma process system having the plasma process supply system of claim 12 and a plasma process assembly. Van Zyl's FIG. 1 shows plasma chamber 100 connected to the supply system and supplied with power from the HF power signal; Van Zyl states that "the high-frequency generator 102 may be used to ignite and sustain the plasma load in the plasma chamber 100" (¶ [0067]), and that plasma processing systems of the disclosed kind are used "for etching and deposition" (¶ [0003]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Zyl in view of Mavretic (US 2018/0041183 A1, hereinafter “Mavretic”).
Regarding claim 3, Van Zyl discloses the impedance matching circuit of claim 1 as set forth above. Van Zyl does not expressly disclose the impedance matching circuit implemented as a semiconductor-switched impedance matching circuit having semiconductor switching elements and a drive circuit configured to switch reactances on and off.
Mavretic discloses an RF impedance matching network 100 coupled between an RF source 110 and a load 120, where the load is "a plasma chamber for semiconductor device fabrication" (Mavretic ¶ [0038]; FIG. 1A). The matching network comprises a first shunt variable inductive component 144 having a plurality of first shunt inductors L31, L32, L3N together with a plurality of first shunt switches S11, S12, S1N "configured to connect and disconnect each of the plurality of first shunt inductors L31, L32, L3N to a first virtual ground 142," and a second shunt variable capacitance component 154 having a plurality of second shunt capacitors C21, C22, C2N with a plurality of second shunt switches S21, S22, S2N configured to connect and disconnect each of those capacitors to a second virtual ground 152 (¶¶ [0053]–[0054]; FIG. 1A). The corresponding embodiment of FIG. 2 uses switched capacitors C11, C12, C1N in the first shunt leg as well (¶ [0074]).
The switches are semiconductor switching elements. Mavretic teaches that "the switches use field effect transistors (FETs)" and that in other embodiments "the switches use PIN/NIP diodes, a Micro Electro Mechanical (MEM) switch, a solid state relay, bipolar transistors, insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs), and the like," each switch turning "a capacitor or inductor ON or OFF to control the overall capacitance or inductance provided by the variable components 144, 154" (¶ [0064]). Gallium nitride HEMTs and silicon carbide FETs are disclosed as further alternatives (¶¶ [0123]–[0124], [0131]).
Mavretic discloses the drive circuit. The matching network "includes one or more RF switch driver circuits 185," which "are configured to switch the plurality of switches S11, S12, S1N, S21, S22, S2N" (¶ [0065]; FIG. 1A), operating under commands from control unit 180 (¶¶ [0044], [0066]). Mavretic additionally discloses a dedicated driver circuit 4 for switching a PIN diode 5 of an electronically variable capacitor, comprising first and second switches 11, 12 and gate drivers 21, 22, 23 (¶¶ [0139]–[0145]; FIGS. 18–19).
Mavretic operates in the same power and frequency regime recited in claim 1. Mavretic describes a 5,000 W RF generator at 27.12 MHz (¶ [0050]), identifies operating frequencies of "13.56 MHz, 27.12 MHz, 40.68 MHz, and 60 MHz" (¶ [0071]), reports simulation results for 5 kW delivered at f = 2 MHz (¶ [0088]; Table 1), states that particular embodiments are useful "for high power applications that are less than 10 kW" and "up to approximately 10 kW" (¶¶ [0076], [0080]), and states that the exemplified driver circuit has ON/OFF driving capabilities for a high-voltage, high-current PIN diode "at frequencies from 400 kHz to 100 MHz" (¶ [0139]). This spans the claimed range of powers ≥ 500 W and frequencies from 2 MHz to 100 MHz.
Mavretic further supplies the motivation. Mavretic teaches that Electronically Variable Capacitor technology is emerging as an alternative to the vacuum variable capacitor because "EVCs can be switched more quickly," and that "[f]aster switching enables faster matching, which enables faster manufacturing" (¶ [0004]). Mavretic states that a high-power RF generator "must be fast-matched to the plasma chamber to minimize reflected power back into the generator," that new nanotechnology "requires extremely fast impedance matching conditions to achieve accurate power delivery into the chamber," and that "[t]he load impedance must be matched to the plasma chamber within hundreds of milliseconds or faster, rather than seconds in the old designs" (¶ [0005]).
It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the matching unit of Van Zyl's impedance matching circuit as Mavretic's semiconductor-switched matching network with its associated drive circuits, in order to obtain the faster impedance matching and more accurate power delivery that Mavretic identifies as the benefit of that construction. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a faster-responding matching circuit. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–21; MPEP § 2143(A), (C).
Applicant's own specification confirms that this modification was within the skill of the art and recognized as beneficial: ¶ [0014] states that "semiconductor-switched impedance matching circuits are often used" and that "[a]n example of such a semiconductor-switched impedance matching circuit is disclosed and described in DE 20 2020 102 084 U1"; ¶ [0031] identifies PIN diodes and MOSFETs as the switching elements and a drive circuit as the control; and ¶ [0032] states that such circuits "offer significantly more variability in their output impedance and can also change the output impedance very quickly." These statements are admitted prior art. MPEP § 2129.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
US 10,812,071 B2; US 10,778,209 B1; US 2019/0288683 A1 (Morii et al., Daihen), impedance matching devices with switched reactance arrays for plasma loads.
US 2008/0061901 A1 (Gilmore, Advanced Energy), switching between matching impedances.
US 5,654,679 A (Mavretic et al.), matching a variable load impedance to an RF generator impedance.
US 6,887,339 B1 (Goodman et al.), RF power supply with integrated matching network.
WO 2021/255250 A1 (TRUMPF Huettinger), Applicant's own disclosure in the same field.
DE 20 2020 102 084 U1 (TRUMPF Huettinger), acknowledged at ¶ [0014] of the present specification.
KR 10-2020-0135114 A (Samsung Electronics), plasma RF matching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
9/19/2026
