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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394 and Becker et al., US 7,811,941 or Obama et al., US 2009/0283502.
With respect to independent claim 1, Kim et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed including a system, comprising a pedestal 13 configured to support a substrate 16; a reactor housing the pedestal; a direct current power supply 55 electrically coupled to the substrate through the pedestal and configured to apply a bias voltage to the substrate; a first radio frequency (RF) power supply 40 coupled to an inductively coupled power source configured to generate a plasma within the reactor housing; (see, for example, Fig. 1 of Kim et al. and its description). This notwithstanding, Becker et al. discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
461
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. does not expressly disclose the claimed first and second magnets. Li et al. discloses a system comprising a first magnet 31 and a second magnet 32 positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, wherein the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity S oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity N oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity N oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity S oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal (see, for example, Fig. 1 of Li et al. and its description).
PNG
media_image2.png
449
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also, Bardos et al. discloses a system comprising a first magnet (left magnet 10) and a second magnet (right magnet 10) positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, wherein the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity S oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity N oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity N oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity S oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal (see, for example, Fig. 2 of Bardos et al. and its description).
PNG
media_image3.png
566
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Chan discloses a system comprising a first magnet 140 and a second magnet 150 positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, wherein the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity S oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity N oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity N oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity S oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal (see, for example, Fig. 7, and its description, Fig. 7 shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
377
337
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. as to comprise the claimed first and second magnets having the claimed configuration because such means are known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently providing/generating of a perpendicular magnetic field and/or longitudinal magnetic field, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus. It should be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan, would generate a magnetic field that would collimate ions in the plasma in a direction perpendicular to the pedestal. The specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraph 0038, discloses that by having the magnets having opposite polarities, the generated magnetic fields would be perpendicular to the pedestal/substrate and collimate the ions from the plasma. Therefore, since the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan would comprise magnets 140 and 145 having opposite polarities, then it will be expected that the magnets would collimate ions from the plasma as claimed. Additionally, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan, are capable of generating the claimed magnetic field, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
With respect to the pedestal being configured to extend, Morimoto discloses a plasma processing system comprising a movable pedestal that extends from a first height to a second height (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, especially paragraph 0061, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
285
303
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Also, Yang et al. discloses a plasma processing system comprising a movable pedestal 114/214 that extends from a first height to a second height (see, for example, Figs. 1-4 and their descriptions, Fig. 3 shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
258
227
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan as to comprise a movable pedestal because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently adjusting the height of the substrate within the plasma processing chamber to a desired height, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Concerning the claimed diameter of the pedestal, Ghanbari discloses a system for treating 300mm substrates (col. 5, lines 61-64), and a pedestal having a diameter larger than the wafer (see, for example, 2 and its disclosure), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pedestal diameter would be larger than 300mm. Also, Wickramanayaka a plasma apparatus comprising a substrate support pedestal 15 having a diameter of 300 mm. Additionally, Quiles et al. discloses a plasma apparatus comprising a substrate support pedestal 130 having a diameter that is about 300 mm or greater (see for example, claims 22 and 59). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, 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 modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al., as to comprise a pedestal having the claimed diameter because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently positioning/treating a wafer (large wafer) in the reactor. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter of the pedestal during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the wafer diameter, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to a second RF power supply configured to provide an RF signal to the first and second magnets, it should be noted that Li et al. discloses RF powers 33 and 34 to provide RF signals to the first and second magnets, respectively, (see, for example, Fig. 1 shown above). Additionally, Bardos et al. discloses powering the electromagnetic coils with an AC generator (col. 5, lines 47-48). Therefore, the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al., would comprise the claimed second RF power supply. This notwithstanding,
Ritchie et al. discloses a plasma reactor using a magnet 152, and it further discloses that the magnet may be an electromagnet that is coupled to a power source, not shown, therefore, different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, fig. 1 and its description, and paragraph 0038). Also, Keller et al. discloses a plasma reactor comprising electromagnets 10a/10b/12a/12b connected to a RF power supply 48 different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, figs. 2-3, and their descriptions). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al., as to electrically connect the electromagnetic coils to a second RF power supply different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for efficiently and effectively supply power to the electromagnets and independently control the power supplied to the electromagnets. It should further be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al., are cylindrical in shape.
Regarding the RF voltage applied by the RF power supply being synchronized with the bias voltage to the substrate, and the RF signal being synchronized with the RF power applied by the RF power supply and the bias voltage to the substrate, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., is capable of synchronizing the RF voltage with the bias voltage and/or synchronizing the RF signal with the RF power and the bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it. This notwithstanding, Becker et al. discloses a system in which the power sources 5, 6, and 8, to the RF source, the substrate, and the magnetic coils, respectively, are synchronize, (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 4, and their descriptions, col. 3-line 60 to col. 4-line 2, col. 10- lines 8-32, col. 10-lines 58-67, col. 11-lines 48-61, Figs. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
341
513
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Obama et al. discloses a system in which the power sources 5, 6, and 8, to the RF source, the substrate, and the magnetic coils, respectively, are synchronize, (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 3-4, and their descriptions, and paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0038, 0045, and claims 2 and 4, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
333
528
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to synchronize the RF voltage applied by the RF power supply with the bias voltage to the substrate, and synchronize the RF signal with the RF power applied by the RF power supply and the bias voltage to the substrate, in the apparatus of Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Obama et al., in order to reduce the ohmic heat losses occurring in the magnetic field coil, which mitigates problems of cooling and temperature control of the magnetic field coil, and to control the plasma characteristics.
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that the diameter of the pedestal of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., would be less than or equal to about 330 mm.
With respect to claim 8, Keller et al. further discloses a magnetic field configuration comprising two sets of electromagnetic coils. 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 that the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., may comprise two sets of electromagnetic coils because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field in the plasma reactor.
Concerning claim 9, it should be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., are cylindrical electromagnetic coils.
Regarding claim 17, it should be noted that the inductively coupled radio frequency (RF) power supply of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., is configured to apply a power to a plasma generating gas within the reactor housing to generate a plasma within the reactor and above the wafer, the first magnet, and the second magnet. Additionally, and also with respect to claim 27, Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image9.png
462
420
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Concerning claims 19-20 it should be noted that in the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., the DC power supply is coupled to the pedestal through a RF generator 50 electrically coupled to the pedestal and the direct current power supply, and the electromagnetic coils are positioned above the pedestal.
With respect to claim 22, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The DC current power supply of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., is capable of applying the claimed bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Claim(s) 10, 12-14, 16, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of
Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394 and Becker et al., US 7,811,941 or Obama et al., US 2009/0283502, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Chen et al., US 2010/0271745 or Hamano et al., US 2015/0147894.
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al., Li et al., Bardos et al., Chan, Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Ritchie et al., Keller et al., Becker et al. and Obama et al. are applied as above. It should be noted that the inductively coupled radio frequency (RF) power supply of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., is configured to apply a power to a plasma generating gas within the reactor housing to generate a plasma above the wafer, the first magnet, and the second magnet. Additionally, it should be noted that Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image9.png
462
420
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to the pedestal extending from a first height of about 12 mm and a second height of 12.5 mm. Chen et al. discloses a plasma reactor comprising a pedestal 240 having a height between about 12 mm and about 12.5 mm (see, for example, figs. 2-3A and its description, and paragraphs 0015, 0022, 0027, and 0048). Also, Hamano et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a pedestal 25 capable of extending upward/downward a distance within 1 mm to 20 mm (see, for example, paragraph 0082). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., as to comprise a pedestal capable of extending as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for efficiently and effectively support a substrate within a plasma reactor and to improve processing uniformity of the wafer. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the height of the pedestal during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired location of the wafer in the plasma/reactor, and such would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Concerning claim 16 it should be noted that in the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., the DC power supply is coupled to the pedestal through a RF generator 50 electrically coupled to the pedestal and the direct current power supply, and the electromagnetic coils are positioned above the pedestal.
With respect to claim 21, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The DC current power supply of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., is capable of applying the claimed bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082, and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394 and Becker et al., US 7,811,941 or Obama et al., US 2009/0283502, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Kim, US 2006/0096704 or Brown et al., US 2008/0014747.
Kim et al., Li et al., Bardos et al., Chan, Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Ritchie et al., Keller et al., Becker et al. and Obama et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the pedestal comprises the claimed materials. Kim discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 14 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 16/13 comprising quartz (see, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0012). Also, Brown et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 48 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 50 comprising quartz (see, Fig. 3 and its description, especially paragraph 0015). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pedestal of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanabari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., as to comprise a conductive top portion comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion comprising quartz, because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for a pedestal in order to effectively and efficiently support the substrate in the chamber, withstand plasma chemistry and avoid contamination of the substrate and/or within the process chamber.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 in view of Li et al., US 2016/0365360 or Bardos et al., US 6,899,054 or Chan, US 6,632,324 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082, and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394 and Becker et al., US 7,811,941 or Obama et al., US 2009/0283502, and Chen et al., US 2010/0271745 or Hamano et al., US 2015/0147894, as applied to claims 10, 12-14, 16, 21 and 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Kim, US 2006/0096704 or Brown et al., US 2008/0014747.
Kim et al., Li et al., Bardos et al., Chan, Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Ritchie et al., Keller et al., Becker et al., Obama et al., Chen et al. and Hamano et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the pedestal comprises the claimed materials. Kim discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 14 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 16/13 comprising quartz (see, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0012). Also, Brown et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 48 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 50 comprising quartz (see, Fig. 3 and its description, especially paragraph 0015). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pedestal of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan and Morimoto or Yang et al., and Ghanabari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., as to comprise a conductive top portion comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion comprising quartz, because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for a pedestal in order to effectively and efficiently support the substrate in the chamber, withstand plasma chemistry and avoid contamination of the substrate and/or within the process chamber.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, US 6,632,324 in view of Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Li et al., US 2016/0365360 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394 and Becker et al., US 7,811,941 or Obama et al., US 2009/0283502.
Chan shows the invention as claimed including a system, comprising: a pedestal 82 configured to support a substrate; a reactor housing the pedestal; a first radio frequency (RF) power supply 66 coupled to an inductively coupled RF source 46 configured to generate a plasma within the reactor housing above the wafer; and a first magnet 140 and a second magnet 145 positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, and configured to generate a magnetic field to collimate ions in the plasma in a direction perpendicular to the pedestal, wherein: the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 7, and their descriptions, Figs. 1 and 7 shown below).
PNG
media_image10.png
470
343
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
377
337
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Chan would generate a magnetic field that would collimate ions in the plasma in a direction perpendicular to the pedestal. The specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraph 0038, discloses that by having the magnets having opposite polarities, the generated magnetic fields would be perpendicular to the pedestal/substrate and collimate the ions from the plasma. Therefore, since the apparatus of Chan would comprise magnets 140 and 145 having opposite polarities, then it will be expected that the magnets would collimate ions from the plasma as claimed.
Chan does not expressly disclose the claimed direct current power supply. Kim et al. discloses a plasma processing system comprising a bias power supply comprising a direct current power supply 55 electrically coupled to the substrate through the pedestal, and a RF generator 50, configured to apply a bias voltage to the substrate (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. as to comprise the claimed bias power supply because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently control the flux of ions from the plasma to the substrate, and to control the ion energy in the plasma independently from the plasma generation RF power source.
Chan and Kim et al. do not expressly disclose that the pedestal is configured to extend. Morimoto discloses a plasma processing system comprising a movable pedestal that extends from a first height to a second height (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, especially paragraph 0061, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
285
303
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yang et al. discloses a plasma processing system comprising a movable pedestal 114/214 that extends from a first height to a second height (see, for example, Figs. 1-4 and their descriptions, Fig. 3 shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
258
227
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan as to comprise a movable pedestal because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently adjusting the height of the substrate within the plasma processing chamber to a desired height, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Concerning the claimed diameter of the pedestal, Ghanbari discloses a system for treating 300mm substrates (col. 5, lines 61-64), and a pedestal having a diameter larger than the wafer (see, for example, 2 and its disclosure), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pedestal diameter would be larger than 300mm. Also, Wickramanayaka a plasma apparatus comprising a substrate support pedestal 15 having a diameter of 300 mm. Additionally, Quiles et al. discloses a plasma apparatus comprising a substrate support pedestal 130 having a diameter that is about 300 mm or greater (see for example, claims 22 and 59). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, 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 modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al., as to comprise a pedestal having the claimed diameter because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently positioning/treating a wafer (large wafer) in the reactor. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter of the pedestal during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the wafer diameter, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Chan, Kim et al., Morimoto, Yang, Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, and Quiles are applied as above but do not disclose the second RF power supply, and that the first and second magnets are electromagnets (claim 5). Li et al. discloses a system comprising a first electromagnetic coil 31 and a second electromagnetic coil 32 positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second sidewall surface of the reactor, respectively, wherein the first and second sidewall surfaces are opposite to one another; the first magnet has a first polarity S oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and a second polarity N oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal; and the second magnet has the second polarity N oriented perpendicularly towards the pedestal and the first polarity S oriented perpendicularly away from the pedestal, wherein the electromagnetic coils are electrically connected to power supply 33 and 34, respectively, (see, for example, Fig. 1 of Li et al. and its description, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
449
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to use electromagnetic coils as the magnetic field means because such means are known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently generating magnetic field.
With respect to the electromagnetic coils being electrically connected to an RF power supply different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma. Ritchie et al. discloses a plasma reactor using a magnet 152, and it further discloses that the magnet may be an electromagnet that is coupled to a power source, not shown, therefore, different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, fig. 1 and its description, and paragraph 0038). Also, Keller et al. discloses a plasma reactor comprising electromagnets 10a/10b/12a/12b connected to a RF power supply 48 different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma (see, for example, figs. 2-3, and their descriptions). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al., as to electrically connect the electromagnetic coils to a RF power supply different from the RF power supply used to generate the plasma because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for efficiently and effectively supply power to the electromagnets and independently control the power supplied to the electromagnets. It should further be noted that the magnets of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. are cylindrical in shape.
Regarding the RF voltage applied by the RF power supply being synchronized with the bias voltage to the substrate, and the RF signal being synchronized with the RF power applied by the RF power supply and the bias voltage to the substrate, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., is capable of synchronizing the RF voltage with the bias voltage and/or synchronizing the RF signal with the RF power and the bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it. This notwithstanding, Becker et al. discloses a system in which the power sources 5, 6, and 8, to the RF source, the substrate, and the magnetic coils, respectively, are synchronize, (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 4, and their descriptions, col. 3-line 60 to col. 4-line 2, col. 10- lines 8-32, col. 10-lines 58-67, col. 11-lines 48-61, Figs. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
341
513
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Obama et al. discloses a system in which the power sources 5, 6, and 8, to the RF source, the substrate, and the magnetic coils, respectively, are synchronize, (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 3-4, and their descriptions, and paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0038, 0045, and claims 2 and 4, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
333
528
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to synchronize the RF voltage applied by the RF power supply with the bias voltage to the substrate, and synchronize the RF signal with the RF power applied by the RF power supply and the bias voltage to the substrate, in the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al., in order to reduce the ohmic heat losses occurring in the magnetic field coil, which mitigates problems of cooling and temperature control of the magnetic field coil, and to control the plasma characteristics.
With respect to claim 2, it should be noted that the diameter of the pedestal of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., would be less than or equal to about 300 mm.
With respect to claim 8, Chan further discloses that multiple magnets 140 and 145 are positioned around the circumference of the chamber in alternating polarity to form a magnetic bucket. Additionally, and this notwithstanding, Keller et al. discloses a magnetic field configuration comprising two sets of electromagnetic coils. Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention that the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., can comprise two sets of electromagnetic coils because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field in the plasma reactor.
Regarding claim 17, it should be noted that the inductively coupled radio frequency (RF) power supply of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., is configured to apply a power to a plasma generating gas within the reactor housing to generate a plasma within the reactor and above the wafer, the first magnet, and the second magnet. Additionally, Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image9.png
462
420
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Concerning claims 19-20 it should be noted that in the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., the DC power supply is coupled to the pedestal through a RF generator 50 electrically coupled to the pedestal and the direct current power supply, and the electromagnetic coils are positioned above the pedestal.
With respect to claim 22, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The DC current power supply of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., is capable of applying the claimed bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Regarding claim 27, Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image9.png
462
420
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 10, 12-14, 16, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, US 6,632,324 in view of Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Li et al., US 2016/0365360 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394 and Becker et al., US 7,811,941 or Obama et al., US 2009/0283502, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Chen et al., US 2010/0271745 or Hamano et al., US 2015/0147894.
Chan, Kim et al., Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Li et al., Ritchie et al., Keller et al., Becker et al., and Obama et al. are applied as above. It should be noted that the inductively coupled radio frequency (RF) power supply of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., is configured to apply a power to a plasma generating gas within the reactor housing to generate a plasma above the wafer. Additionally, Morimoto further discloses the use of 16 magnets, four sets of coils in a first sidewall surface (left) and four sets of coils in a second opposite sidewall surface (right) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image9.png
462
420
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second electromagnet of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., as to comprise four sets of coils each because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generate uniform magnetic field around the processing chamber and thereby improve the processing uniformity of the substrate being process within the apparatus. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to the pedestal extending from a first height of about 12 mm and a second height of 12.5 mm. Chen et al. discloses a plasma reactor comprising a pedestal 240 having a height between about 12 mm and about 12.5 mm (see, for example, figs. 2-3A and its description, and paragraphs 0015, 0022, 0027, and 0048). Also, Hamano et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a pedestal 25 capable of extending upward/downward a distance within 1 mm to 20 mm (see, for example, paragraph 0082). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., as to comprise a pedestal capable of extending as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for efficiently and effectively support a substrate within a plasma reactor and to improve processing uniformity of the wafer. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the height of the pedestal during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired location of the wafer in the plasma/reactor, and such would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 21, it should be noted that the limitations are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The DC current power supply of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., is capable of applying the claimed bias voltage, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, US 6,632,324 in view of Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Li et al., US 2016/0365360 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394 and Becker et al., US 7,811,941 or Obama et al., US 2009/0283502, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 17, 19-20, 22 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Kim, US 2006/0096704 or Brown et al., US 2008/0014747.
Chan, Kim et al., Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Li et al., Ritchie et al., Keller et al., Becker et al. and Obama et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the pedestal comprises the claimed materials. Kim discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 14 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 16/13 comprising quartz (see, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0012). Also, Brown et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 48 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 50 comprising quartz (see, Fig. 3 and its description, especially paragraph 0015). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pedestal of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., as to comprise a conductive top portion comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion comprising quartz, because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for a pedestal in order to effectively and efficiently support the substrate in the chamber, withstand plasma chemistry and avoid contamination of the substrate and/or within the process chamber.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, US 6,632,324 in view of Kim et al., US 2004/0182319 and Morimoto, US 2002/0179249 or Yang et al., US 2010/0029082 and Ghanbari, US 5,556,521 or Wickramanayaka, US 6,333,601 or Quiles et al., US 6,562,189 and Li et al., US 2016/0365360 and Ritchie et al., US 2013/0256126 or Keller et al., US 6,028,394 and Becker et al., US 7,811,941 or Obama et al., US 2009/0283502, and Chen et al., US 2010/0271745 or Hamano et al., US 2015/0147894, as applied to claims 10, 12-14, 16, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Kim, US 2006/0096704 or Brown et al., US 2008/0014747.
Chan, Kim et al., Morimoto, Yang et al., Ghanbari, Wickramanayaka, Quiles et al., Li et al., Ritchie et al., Keller et al., Becker et al., Obama et al., Chen et al. and Hamano et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the pedestal comprises the claimed materials. Kim discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 14 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 16/13 comprising quartz (see, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraph 0012). Also, Brown et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a pedestal, wherein the pedestal comprises a conductive top portion 48 comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion 50 comprising quartz (see, Fig. 3 and its description, especially paragraph 0015). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pedestal of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al. and Chen et al. or Hamano et al., as to comprise a conductive top portion comprising titanium and an insulating bottom portion comprising quartz, because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for a pedestal in order to effectively and efficiently support the substrate in the chamber, withstand plasma chemistry and avoid contamination of the substrate and/or within the process chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 03/25/2026, with respect to the new limitations added to the independent claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the Morimoto reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Morimoto does not disclose a first set of segment magnets positioned on a first sidewall surface and a second set of segment magnets positioned on a second sidewall surface opposite to the first sidewall surface. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that, as broadly claimed, Morimoto discloses this limitation since the first sidewall surface would read on the surface of the sidewall on, for example, the left side of the reactor (left side of the line in modified Fig. 2 below) and the second sidewall surface would then read on the surface of the sidewall on the right side of the reactor. As stated in the previous and above rejections, Morimoto discloses the use of 16 magnets, eight coils (considered as four sets of coils) in a first sidewall surface (left side of the line in the modified Fig. 2 below) and eight coils (considered as four sets of coils) in a second opposite sidewall surface (right side of the line in the modified Fig. 2 below) of the chamber as shown in modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image9.png
462
420
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it should be noted that a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of magnets during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired magnetic field and/or plasma characteristics, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Applicant argues that the apparatus of Morimoto would not generate a magnetic field perpendicular to the substrate. 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, the secondary references of Li et al., Bardos et al., and Chan have been used for their teachings of generating a magnetic field perpendicular to the substrate. It should be noted that, as stated in the previous and above rejections, the specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraph 0038, discloses that by having the magnets having opposite polarities, the generated magnetic fields would be perpendicular to the pedestal/substrate and collimate the ions from the plasma. Additionally, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The magnets of the apparatus of Kim et al. modified by Li et al. or Bardos et al. or Chan, and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Ritchie or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., and the magnets of the apparatus of Chan modified by Kim et al. and Morimoto or Yang et al. and Ghanbari or Wickramanayaka or Quiles et al. and Li et al. and Ritchie et al. or Keller et al. and Becker et al. or Obama et al., are capable of generating the claimed magnetic field, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kanazawa et al. (US 2014/0148016) is cited for its teaching of synchronization of the RF power supply coupled to a RF source with the bias voltage of the substrate.
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
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights