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 .
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 1-2 and 4-6 are 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.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 6, the specification of the instant claimed invention fails to describe the newly added limitation of “wherein, for a plurality of maximum output power levels of the modulated microwave power, the particle removal effect increases as the duty ratio of the modulated microwave power increases except the particle removal effect decreases when the duty ratio of the modulated microwave power is 60% with respect to the particle removal effect when the duty ratio of the modulated microwave power is 40%, 80%, and 100% at each of the plurality of maximum output power levels of the modulated microwave power”, recited in independent claim 1, lines 10-16 and recited in independent claim 6, lines 15-21. It should be noted that the specification and Fig. 5 of the instant claimed invention, provides data for only three specific power levels of the modulated microwave power (300W, 600W, and 1000W) and provides data for only five specific duty ratios (20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%). It should further be noted that Fig. 5 (shown below) clearly shows that for the power levels of 300W and 600W: a) the particle removal effect is higher for the duty ratio of 20% than for the duty ratio of 40%, and b) the particle removal effect is higher for the duty ratio of 60% than for the duty ratios of 80% and 100%. Also, it is noted that Fig. 5 (shown below) clearly shows that for the power level of 1000W, the particle removal effect increases as the duty ratio decreases. Additionally, Fig. 5 (shown below) clearly shows that for the duty ratio of 60%, the particle removal effect increases (instead of decreasing) with respect to the particle removal effect when the duty ratio of the microwave power is 40%, 80% and 100% for all three disclosed specific power levels (300W, 600W, and 1000W) of the modulated microwave power. Furthermore, the specification of the instant claimed invention states that the particle removal effect is the lowest when the duty ratio is 100, and that the particle removal effect increases as the duty ratio decreases (see, for example, paragraph 0038). Therefore, the specification does not provide support for the newly claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the duty ratio" in lines 16, 18, and 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be noted that the term has not been introduced in the claim prior to these recitations. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
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 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al., US 7,767,584 in view of Kikuchi, US 2010/0140221 or Akahori et al., US 6,443,165.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 6, Singh et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed including a plasma processing method for plasma processing a sample in a processing chamber, the method comprising: a first step of plasma processing the sample 144; a second step of performing plasma cleaning inside the processing chamber using a fluorine-containing gas after the first step; and a third step of performing plasma cleaning inside the processing chamber using plasma generated by a radio frequency power and an oxygen gas after the second step to provide a particle removal effect; (see, for example, figs. 10-11B, and their descriptions). It should be further noted that Singh et al. discloses that its teachings apply to an inductive coupled apparatus, a capacitively coupled apparatus, a microwave apparatus, an ECR apparatus or a helicon resonator apparatus (col. 13, lines 35-40).
Singh et al. does not expressly disclose that the plasma in the third step is generated by a pulse modulated radio frequency power. Kikuchi discloses an oxygen plasma cleaning step comprising a pulse modulated radio frequency power used to clean the chamber, wherein the pulse modulated radio frequency power is coupled to the plasma generating source (see, for example, figs. 1-3 and 5-6, and their descriptions, especially paragraphs 0044-0053). Additionally, Akahori et al. discloses an oxygen plasma cleaning step comprising a pulse modulated radio frequency power which modulates a microwave power for cleaning (see, for example, figs. 1 and 6a-b, and their descriptions, especially (col. 12-line 11 to col. 13-ine 20). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Singh et al. and perform the second cleaning process step using pulse modulated radio frequency power, because such cleaning method is known and used in the art as a suitable method for enhancing the cleaning of an apparatus, suppressing/reducing contamination of the chamber and substrate being treated, increase the cleaning rate, and shortening the cleaning time which improves the throughput of the process/apparatus.
Concerning the duty ratio of claims 1 and 6, and also with respect to claim 5, it should be noted that Kikuchi further discloses that a duty ratio of the pulsing can be set to 50% or less (see, for example, paragraphs 0051-0057). Also, Akahori et al. discloses that a duty ratio of the pulsing can be set to 50% or less (see, for example, col. 12, lines 11-23). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum duty ratio, and the optimum off time of the pulse/off time of the plasma based upon a variety of factors including the desired particle removal, plasma/process characteristics, and/or throughput of the processing, therefore, such limitations would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that since the third step of the method of Singh et al. modified by Kikuchi or Akahori et al. generates plasma from an oxygen gas using a pulsed modulated rf power with the claimed duty ratio, the method would cause oxygen ions to accumulate at the inner wall of the processing chamber to provide particle removal at an inner wall of the processing chamber. Additionally, and regarding the particle removal effect increase, it should be noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum duty ratio based upon a variety of factors including the desired particle removal, plasma/process characteristics, and/or throughput of the processing, therefore, such limitations would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, it should be noted that the second step in Singh et al. is done using continuous discharge.
With respect to claim 4, Kikuchi discloses the use of NF3 as a fluorine based gas in a cleaning process (see, for example, paragraph 0049). Also, Akahori et al. discloses the that NF3 is known to be used as a fluorine based gas in a cleaning process (see, for example, col. 1, lines 46-53). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use NF3 in the process of Singh et al. because such gas is known and used in the art as a suitable fluorine based gas for effectively and efficiently perform a cleaning process inside a plasma chamber.
Further concerning claim 6, it should be noted that the Singh et al. reference discloses that the plasma processing apparatus comprises: a processing chamber 120 configured to perform plasma processing of a sample; a radio frequency power supply 124/128 configured to supply a radio frequency power for generating plasma; a sample stage on which the sample 144 is placed; (see, for example, figs. 11A-11B, and their descriptions). With respect to the apparatus comprising a control processor, it should be noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious that the apparatus would comprise such means in order to effectively perform the disclose plasma processing and cleaning processes. Additionally, it should be noted that the provision of mechanical or automated means to replace manual activity has been held to have been obvious. Additionally, and this notwithstanding, Kikuchi discloses the use of a control processor 76 in order to control the plasma apparatus to perform the desired process within the plasma apparatus. Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention modify the apparatus of Singh et al. as to comprise a control processor because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively, efficiently and precisely execute programmed instructions to perform a desired process within an apparatus. It should be noted that the control processor of the apparatus of Singh et al. modify by Kikuchi would perform the claimed first, second and third steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the specification and Fig. 5 of the instant claimed invention provides support for the newly added limitation of “wherein, for a plurality of maximum output power levels of the modulated microwave power, the particle removal effect increases as the duty ratio of the modulated microwave power increases except the particle removal effect decreases when the duty ratio of the modulated microwave power is 60% with respect to the particle removal effect when the duty ratio of the modulated microwave power is 40%, 80%, and 100% at each of the plurality of maximum output power levels of the modulated microwave power”, (recited in newly amended independent claims 1 and 6), as stated in the above 35 USC 112-first paragraph rejection, the specification of the instant claimed invention fails to describe the newly claimed limitation. It should be noted that the specification and Fig. 5 of the instant claimed invention, provides data for only three specific power levels of the modulated microwave power (300W, 600W, and 1000W) and provides data for only five specific duty ratios (20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%). It should further be noted that Fig. 5 (shown below) clearly shows that for the power levels of 300W and 600W: a) the particle removal effect is higher for the duty ratio of 20% than for the duty ratio of 40%, and b) the particle removal effect is higher for the duty ratio of 60% than for the duty ratios of 80% and 100%. Also, it is noted that Fig. 5 (shown below) clearly shows that for the power level of 1000W, the particle removal effect increases as the duty ratio decreases. Additionally, Fig. 5 (shown below) clearly shows that for the duty ratio of 60%, the particle removal effect increases (instead of decreasing) with respect to the particle removal effect when the duty ratio of the microwave power is 40%, 80% and 100% for all three disclosed specific power levels (300W, 600W, and 1000W) of the modulated microwave power. Furthermore, the specification of the instant claimed invention states that the particle removal effect is the lowest when the duty ratio is 100, and that the particle removal effect increases as the duty ratio decreases (see, for example, paragraph 0038). Therefore, the specification does not provide support for the newly claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Singh et al. does not teach or suggest the third step of performing cleaning inside the processing chamber using plasma generated by a pulse modulated radio frequency power which modulates a microwave power according to a duty ratio and an oxygen gas after the second step, to provide a particle removal effect (see third paragraph of page 16 of the remarks/response filed on 06/02/2026). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated in the previous and above rejections, Singh et al. discloses a third step of performing plasma cleaning inside the processing chamber using plasma generated by a radio frequency power and an oxygen gas after the second step to provide a particle removal effect. The secondary references of Kikuchi and Akahori et al. are used for their teachings of performing cleaning inside the processing chamber using plasma generated by a pulse modulated radio frequency power and an oxygen gas.
Concerning applicant’s arguments about the claimed duty ratio, as stated in the above rejection, Kikuchi further discloses that a duty ratio of the pulsing can be set to 50% or less (see, for example, paragraphs 0051-0057), and Akahori et al. discloses that a duty ratio of the pulsing can be set to 50% or less (see, for example, col. 12, lines 11-23). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum duty ratio, and the optimum off time of the pulse/off time of the plasma based upon a variety of factors including the desired particle removal, plasma/process characteristics, and/or throughput of the processing, therefore, such limitations would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claimed method provides particle removal effect, as stated in the above rejection, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that since the third step of the method of Singh et al. modified by Kikuchi or Akahori et al. generates plasma from an oxygen gas using a pulsed modulated rf power with the claimed duty ratio, the method would cause oxygen ions to accumulate at the inner wall of the processing chamber to provide particle removal at an inner wall of the processing chamber.
Concerning applicant’s argument that the cited references do not disclose the newly added limitation of “wherein, for a plurality of maximum output power levels of the modulated microwave power, the particle removal effect increases as the duty ratio of the modulated microwave power increases except the particle removal effect decreases when the duty ratio of the modulated microwave power is 60% with respect to the particle removal effect when the duty ratio of the modulated microwave power is 40%, 80%, and 100% at each of the plurality of maximum output power levels of the modulated microwave power”, as stated in the above rejections: a) the specification of the instant claimed invention fails to describe the newly claimed limitation; and b) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum duty ratio based upon a variety of factors including the desired particle removal, plasma/process characteristics, and/or throughput of the processing, therefore, such limitations would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kikuchi et al. (US 2015/0007857) is cited because of its teachings of a plasma processing method and apparatus to perform a plasma cleaning inside the processing chamber.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights