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 1-7, 14, and 17-28 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.
The specification of the instant claimed invention, as originally filed, fails to describe a semiconductor processing system comprising the claimed ion screen, wherein the ion screen is semitransparent to ions and electrons so that a density of plasma sustained above the ion screen is unaffected by RF bias power applied to the bias electrode while preventing the plasma from passing below the ion screen, as required by independent claim 1. It should be noted that some of the plasma would pass below the ion screen in order to perform treatment in the substrate being processed in the chamber.
The specification of the instant claimed invention, as originally filed, fails to describe a plasma control system comprising the claimed ion screen, wherein the ion screen is further configured to allow ion and electron flow of 5% to 20% while a plasma is sustained above the ion screen and prevented from passing below the ion screen, as required by independent claim 14. It should be noted that some of the plasma would pass below the ion screen in order to perform treatment in the substrate being processed in the chamber.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14, 17-22 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, US 2013/0023125 in view of Paterson et al., US 2008/0193673 or Kim et al., US 2006/0102286 or Wu, US 5,910,221 or van Gogh, US 6,023,038 and Laptev, US 2003/0017709.
Regarding independent claim 1, Singh shows the invention substantially as claimed including a semiconductor plasma control processing system comprising: a processing chamber; an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source 150 disposed in or on the processing chamber; a support 102 configured to position a substrate 104, the support disposed at least partially within the processing chamber; and an ion screen 130/202 disposed within the processing chamber to be above a substrate on the support which prevents/controls plasma from passing below the ion screen (see, for example, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, Figs. 1 and 2 shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
559
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to the ion screen being semitransparent, the specification of the instant claimed invention teaches that: a) the ion screen is thin enough and has openings of appropriate size proximate to the substrate so that the ion screen is semitransparent to ions and electrons (see, for example, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030 and 0036), b) in some embodiments, the total thickness of the screen is between 2 mm and 12 mm (see, for example, paragraph 0036), and c) in some examples, the holes are formed so that the ratio of their diameter d to the thickness of the ion screen is between 1 and 4 (see, for example, paragraph 0036), therefore, the diameter of the holes is between 2mm and 48mm. Singh discloses that the thickness of the grid may be between 1mm and 25mm, and the diameter of the holes may be chosen to minimize or substantially prevent plasma leakage through the holes, and may be between 20um and 5mm (see, for example, paragraph 0027). It should be noted that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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 thickness of the grid and/or the diameter of the holes during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristics/density, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to the support including a bias electrode, it should be noted that Singh discloses that the substrate 228 may be biased to prevent plasma charged species from reaching the substrate (see, for example, paragraph 0029). However, Singh does not expressly disclose that the support includes a bias electrode to bias the substrate. Paterson et al. discloses a plasma processing system comprising a support 25 including a bias electrode 130 and RF bias power generators 132/134 to provide RF bias power to the bias electrode (see, for example, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, Fig. 1 is shown below on the left). Also, Kim discloses a plasma processing system comprising a support 112 including a bias electrode not shown and a RF bias power generator to provide bias power to the bias electrode (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, especially paragraph 0030, note Fig. 1 is shown below on the right).
PNG
media_image3.png
535
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
554
785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Wu discloses a plasma processing system comprising a support 12 including a bias electrode not shown and a RF bias power generator 34 to provide bias power to the bias electrode (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, note Fig. 1 is shown below on the left). Furthermore, van Gogh discloses a plasma processing system comprising a support 114 including a bias electrode not shown and a RF bias power generator 121 (which can be a RF or DC) to provide bias power to the bias electrode (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 3 and their descriptions, note Fig. 3 is shown below on the right).
PNG
media_image5.png
234
408
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
462
364
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 the invention was filed to modify the support of the apparatus of Singh as to include a bias electrode and a RF bias generator because such means/configuration is known and used in the art to effectively and efficiently provide RF bias power to the substrate in order to bias the substrate. It should be noted that in the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh, the ion screen is semitransparent to ions and electrons so that a density of plasma sustained above the ion screen is unaffected by RF bias power applied to the bias electrode while preventing plasma from passing below the ion screen.
With respect to the RF bias generator configured as claimed, it should be noted that it is well known in the art that RF generators produce alternating voltage cycles wherein positive and negative voltage are alternated, and therefore, the claimed acceleration and reflection of ions would be generated. Additionally, and this notwithstanding, Laptev discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a RF generator 40 to provide RF bias voltage to bias electrode 24, and further discloses that in the positive half cycles of the alternating voltage the electrode attracts electrons, and that in the negative half cycles of the alternating voltage positive ions are attracted to the electrode (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, especially paragraph 0025, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
418
421
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, that the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh, would reflect ions from the plasma towards the substrate, as claimed, in the positive half cycles of the alternating voltage since the electrode would attract electrons, and accelerate ions from the plasma towards the substrate, as claimed, in the negative half cycles of the alternating voltage since positive ions are attracted to the electrode. Furthermore, 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 apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev, is capable of being used to accelerate and/or reflect ions as claimed, if the method to be perform within the apparatus requires it.
With respect to the processing chamber being used as a deposition chamber, it should be noted that the limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an 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 processing chamber of the apparatus of Singh is capable of being used for a deposition process.
With respect to claims 2-5 and 17-18, Singh further discloses that the ion screen comprises a dielectric material, the ion screen comprises a conductor, and/or the ion screen further comprises a dielectric material disposed above or around the conductor (see, for example, paragraphs 0027-0028); wherein the ion screen is configured for the conductor to be at least one of grounded, floating, or held at a set voltage (see, for example, paragraphs 0014, 0026, 0028).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, it should be noted that applicant defines the term “proximate”, in paragraph 0036 of the specification of the instant claimed invention, as to mean that the holes are confined to the area above the substrate’s surface. Therefore, it should be noted that Singh shows that the ion screen defines a plurality of holes arranged to be proximate to the substrate (see, for example, Fig. 2). Additionally, and regarding the common meaning of the word proximate as “closest in relationship”, Singh further discloses that the ion screen can be moved relative to the substrate, or vice versa, in order to prevent non-uniform processing of the substrate (see, for example, paragraphs 0015, 0036 and 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the distance between the ion screen and the substrate as desired in order to prevent non-uniform processing of the substrate. 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 distance between the ion screen and the substrate during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma and/or processing characteristics, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to the ratio of a diameter of the holes to a thickness of the ion screen is from 1 to 4 (as recited in claim 6), as stated above, Singh discloses that the thickness of the grid may be between 1mm and 25mm, and the diameter of the holes may be chosen to minimize or substantially prevent plasma leakage through the holes, and may be between 20um and 5mm (see, for example, paragraph 0036). Therefore, it should be noted that the claimed ratio would be achieved when the thickness of the ion screen is at least between 1mm-5mm. 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 thickness of the ion screen and/or the diameter of the holes to achieve the claimed ratio during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristics/density, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Concerning claims 7 and 14, it should be noted that Singh further discloses that the ion screen is configured to allow flow of plasma charged species from 5% to 20% (see, for example, paragraph 0026).
With respect to the claimed ICP power between 500 W and 1000 W recited in claim 7, 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 apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim and Laptev is capable of supplying the claimed power if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it. 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 power supply to the ICP source during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristics/density, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Concerning the limitation of the ion screen is from 10 mm to 15 mm above the substrate recited in claim 7, Singh discloses that the distance between the ion screen and the substrate is about 1 cm and 25 cm (see, for example, paragraph 0023). It should be noted that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Also, Singh further discloses that the ion screen can be moved relative to the substrate, or vice versa, in order to prevent non-uniform processing of the substrate (see, for example, paragraphs 0015, 0036 and 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the distance between the ion screen and the substrate as desired in order to prevent non-uniform processing of the substrate. 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 distance between the ion screen and the substrate during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristics/density, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 19, it should be noted that a variable voltage source connectable to the conductor, the variable voltage source operable to hold the conductor at a fixed DC voltage level (see, for example, Fig. 2 and paragraph 0028).
With respect to claim 21, it should be noted that applicant discloses that by using the claimed ion screen the bias is kept from significantly affecting the plasma density (see, for example, paragraph 0018 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Therefore, it is expected that since the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev, comprises the claimed ion screen, the changing of the polarity of the RF bias voltage would not affect the density of the plasma.
Regarding claim 22, 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 RF generator of the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev is capable of being used as claimed.
Regarding claim 26, Singh discloses that the thickness of the grid may be between 1mm and 25mm (see, for example, paragraph 0027), which overlaps with the claimed range. It should be noted that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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 thickness of the grid and/or the diameter of the holes during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristics/density, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Concerning claim 27, the specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraph 0026, discloses that a semitransparent ion screen would provide the claimed limitations. As stated above, the ion screen of the apparatus of Singh has the claimed characteristics of a semitransparent ion screen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the ion screen of the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev, would allow measurable ion transmission to the substrate, but keeps ion transmission low enough if a desired power of the ICP source is above 500 W while maintaining a linear response of ion energy to a power of the RF generator.
With respect to claim 28, it should be noted that the grid portion of the ion screen of Singh is smaller than a diameter of the processing chamber (note that the plurality of holes do not extend to the perimeter of the ion screen, see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, US 2013/0023125 in view of Paterson et al., US 2008/0193673 or Kim et al., US 2006/0102286 or Wu, US 5,910,221 or van Gogh, US 6,023,038 and Laptev, US 2003/0017709, as applied to claims 1-7, 14, 17-22 and 26-28 above, and further in view of Peuse et al., US 2010/0151694 or Nishikawa et al., US 2001/0050144.
With respect to claims 23-24, Singh, Paterson et al., Kim et al., Wu, van Gogh, and Laptev are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the ion screen comprises a metal coated on at least one side with quartz/Si02. Peuse et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a screen 120 that could be made of quartz (SiO2), Al2O3, AlN, Y2O3, YAG, or a suitable metal coated with one of these materials, wherein the metal may be aluminum (see, paragraph 0025). Nishikawa et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a screen 7 that could be made of a dielectric film on an electric conductor (see, for example, paragraphs 0015, 0074), and further discloses that ceramic and/or quartz (SiO2) are example of dielectric materials (see, for example, paragraph 0066). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim et al. or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev, as to comprise a screen made of the claimed materials because such materials are known and used in the art as suitable materials for a conductive screen that is protected from the plasma in order to prevent deterioration of the screen and in order to prevent contamination of the substrate and/or the processing chamber.
Regarding claim 25, it should be noted that the screen of the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim et al. or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev and Peuse et al. or Nishikawa et al. would comprise Al coated with quartz (SiO2). The specification of the instant claimed invention discloses that a screen having Al as the metal material and quartz, SiO2 or ceramic as the dielectric material would meet the claimed limitation (see, for example, paragraph 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the screen of the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim et al. or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev and Peuse et al. or Nishikawa et al. would meet the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections of claims 1-7, 14, and 17-28 under 35 USC 112 first paragraph, applicant argues that the originally filed specification provides adequate written description support for each of the limitations challenged in the Office Action, and cites paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0018, 0026, and 0034, as evidence for the description support (see, for example, pages 6-7 of the arguments/remarks filed on 11/14/2025, the cited paragraphs are shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
611
599
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that the cited paragraphs do not provide the required support for a semiconductor processing system comprising the claimed ion screen, wherein the ion screen is semitransparent to ions and electrons so that a density of plasma sustained above the ion screen is unaffected by RF bias power applied to the bias electrode while preventing the plasma from passing below the ion screen (as required by independent claim 1), and/or a plasma control system comprising the claimed ion screen, wherein the ion screen is further configured to allow ion and electron flow of 5% to 20% while a plasma is sustained above the ion screen and prevented from passing below the ion screen (as required by independent claim 14). At most, the cited paragraph 0018 teaches that the plasma is not generated between the substrate and the screen. However, plasma not being generated between the substrate and the screen is not the same as preventing plasma from passing from the top of the ion screen to the bottom of the ion screen. Therefore, there is no clear teaching of the ion screen preventing the plasma from passing from above the ion screen to below the ion screen. Additionally, the examiner respectfully directs applicant to the disclosure of paragraph 0035 of the specification of the instant claimed invention (as originally filed), where it is disclosed that a portion of the ion screen outside of the grid is the portion of the ion screen that prevents plasma penetration to the bottom of the chamber (see, for example, paragraph 0035 of the instant claimed invention shown below, especially the highlighted section).
PNG
media_image9.png
316
637
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that through the specification of the instant claimed invention, applicant defined the grid as the portion of the ion screen comprising the openings/holes (see, for example, the highlighted sections of paragraphs 0018, 0034, 0036, 0037, shown below).
PNG
media_image10.png
284
633
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
214
641
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
499
643
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
312
632
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the specification of the instant claimed invention appears to disclose that only a portion of the ion screen (the portion of the ion screen outside of the grid) is the only portion of the ion screen that prevents plasma penetration to the bottom of the chamber since it is the portion that does not comprise the plurality of holes. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 1-7, 14 and 17-28 under 35 USC 112-first paragraph is respectfully maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the office position that the limitation of the processing chamber being used as a deposition chamber is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation overlooks the structural and functional differences between deposition and etch chambers, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As stated in the previous and above rejections, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation. Applicant(s) arguments concerning the instant methodology is noted. However, 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 Singh is capable of being used for a deposition process if such method is desired to be performed within the apparatus. Additionally, the examiner respectfully points out that applicant has not provided any evidence of a structural difference in the apparatus of Singh that would preclude an etching method from being performed within the apparatus. It should be noted that arguments of counsel alone cannot take the place of evidence in the record.
Applicant argues that the examiner’s assertion that any plasma chamber can serve both etch and deposition functions without any structural differences is not taught or suggested by the references or supported by the state of the art. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that, it is well known in the art that plasma apparatuses/chambers can be used for a variety of processes including deposition, etching, and/or cleaning, by simply using/setting the apparatus at the corresponding and/or desired plasma method characteristics. Additionally, the cited prior art clearly teaches the capability of using plasma apparatuses for performing both processes, as taught in for example, Kim (paragraph 0030), Van Goh (col. 4, lines 7-9), and Wu (col. 1, lines 13-17).
In response to applicant's argument that the limitation of the RF bias generator configured to linearly control ion energy as claimed during deposition is more than mere capability since it requires that the generator be actively and intentionally set to operate in the specified manner as part of the claimed apparatus, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As stated in the previous and above rejections, such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation. Applicant(s) arguments concerning the instant methodology is noted. However, 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. As stated in the previous and above rejections, it is well known in the art that RF generators produce alternating voltage cycles wherein positive and negative voltage are alternated. Therefore, the RF bias generator of the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh, is capable of being used to accelerate ions as claimed in the positive half cycles of the alternating voltage and accelerate ions as claimed in the negative half cycles of the alternating voltage. Additionally, as stated in the previous and above rejections, Laptev discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a RF generator 40 to provide RF bias voltage to the bias electrode 24, and further discloses that in the positive half cycles of the alternating voltage the electrode attracts electrons, and that in the negative half cycles of the alternating voltage positive ions are attracted to the electrode (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, especially paragraph 0025). Therefore, the RF bias generator of the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev, is capable of being used to accelerate and/or reflect ions as claimed, if the method to be perform within the apparatus requires it. Additionally, the examiner respectfully points out that applicant has not provided any evidence of a structural difference in the apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev, that would preclude the claimed acceleration and/or reflection of ions from being performed within the apparatus. It should be noted that arguments of counsel alone cannot take the place of evidence in the record.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a RF bias generator is “configured to” perform a particular operation when it is programmed, set, or otherwise configured with the specific parameters or instructions necessary to carry out that function. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that, as it is well known in the art, a controller is the structure in a plasma apparatus that is programmed, set, or otherwise configured with the specific parameters, instructions, and/or software necessary to control parts of the apparatus, such as the RF bias generator, to carry out a specific and/or desired function/process within the apparatus.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Paterson et al. reference 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). It should be noted that the Paterson et al. reference is only used for its teaching of biasing the substrate with a RF bias generator. The primary reference of Singh already discloses preventing plasma from the area below the ion screen. Additionally, regarding applicant’s statement that “In Paterson, the in-situ electrode structure (which the Examiner equates to the claimed ion screen) …”, the examiner respectfully points out that the examiner has not use the Paterson et al. reference for a teaching of the ion screen. Therefore, the examiner or the office action has not equate the in-situ electrode structure of Paterson et al. to the claimed ion screen, as argued by the applicant.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed sequence of accelerating ions towards the substrate and then reflecting ions from the substrate. As stated in the previous and above rejections, it should be noted that it is well known in the art that RF generators produce alternating voltage cycles wherein positive and negative voltage are alternated, and therefore, the claimed acceleration and reflection of ions would be generated. Also, and this notwithstanding, Laptev has been used for its teaching of a plasma processing apparatus comprising a RF generator 40 to provide RF bias voltage to bias electrode 24, and further discloses that in the positive half cycles of the alternating voltage the electrode attracts electrons, and that in the negative half cycles of the alternating voltage positive ions are attracted to the electrode (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, especially paragraph 0025, Fig. 1 is shown below). Furthermore, 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 apparatus of Singh modified by Paterson et al. or Kim or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev, is capable of being used to accelerate and/or reflect ions as claimed, if the method to be perform within the apparatus requires it. Additionally, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims over Singh in view of Paterson et al. or Kim et al. or Wu or van Gogh and Laptev, is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lubomirsky (US 9,934,942) is cited for its teachings of a plasma processing apparatus comprising a screen above the substrate support.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
March 2, 2026