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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 36-38 are directed to the invention of Group III which is independent or distinct from the inventions originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used for another and materially different process such as, for example, the deposition of materials other than diamond or to perform an etching operation.
Inventions II and III are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the invention of Group II relates to a method of controlling the shape of the plasma plume produced using a microwave source by adjusting a single electrical field to deposit diamond onto a single substrate whereas the invention of Group III relates to independently controlling a plurality of electrical bias locations which each correspond to a plurality of single crystal diamond seeds in response to a measurement of the growth condition at each individual diamond seed in order to produce a more uniform growth rate. The distinctiveness between inventions II and III is confirmed by applicants’ statement in Section IV at p. 12 of the September 9, 2026, reply which specifically states that new claim 36 is directed to a distinct per-seed plasma control scheme. Consequently, the methods of Groups II and III as claimed have a different mode of operation, they do not encompass overlapping subject matter, and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
It is also pointed out that new claim 38 appears to be directed to Species (A3) which has been withdrawn from consideration for the additional reason of being directed to a non-elected species.
Restriction as indicated is proper because there also would be a serious search and/or examination burden because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(1) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(2) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(3) the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
(4) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and
(5) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Since applicant has previously elected the invention of Group II in a reply dated August 1, 2022, has elected Species (A1) in a reply dated March 25, 2025, and the claims of Group II and Species (A1) have received an action on the merits, the invention of Group III and Species (A3) have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 36-38 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention and a non-elected species. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Interpretation
An “electromagnetic source” as recited in claim 11 is interpreted in light of ¶[0006] of corresponding U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0262117 as including, for example, a permanent magnet, a magnetic coil, an electrically charged ring, and/or an electrically biased mechanical support.
Claim 11 further recites an “optically emissive body of the plasma plume” which is interpreted in light of Fig. 1 and ¶[0028] of the published application as the area of intense optical emission (16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The preceding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 11, 14-16, 18, 20-21, 26-27, 32-33, and 35 are withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 14-16, 19-21, 25-26, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,145,711 to Yamazaki, et al. (hereinafter “Yamazaki”) in view of Japanese Patent Appl. Publ. No. JP 2019-110028 A to Kawanabe, et al. (“Kawanabe”).
Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki teaches a method of growing diamonds (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-14, and entire reference), the method comprising:
generating a plasma plume by using a microwave source to energize a precursor gas in a standing wave cylindrical chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 7-9 and col. 7, l. 26 to col. 8, l. 6 which teach forming a plasma plume within a reaction chamber (21) in order to deposit a diamond film by chemical vapor deposition from an energized precursor gas with Fig. 8(b) and col. 7, ll. 46-50 teaching that a standing wave is formed; see specifically Fig. 7 and col. 5, ll. 44-49 which teach that the plasma generating space (21) has a circular cross-section and extends between the substrate holder (30’) and the microwave window (35); moreover, since semiconductor substrates (30) such as Si are conventionally in the form of a circular wafer, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would expect the circular cross-section of the plasma generating space (21) to be in the same plane as the surface of the substrate (30) in order to promote uniform deposition around the entire circumference of the substrate (30) which therefore means that the plasma generating space (21) has a cylindrical shape which extends between the substrate holder (30’) and the microwave window (35)),
the standing wave cylindrical chamber configured so that the plasma plume is unstable or metastable, such that the plasma plume moves between a first metastable position at which the plasma plume is generated and a second metastable position within the chamber, wherein an optically emissive body of the plasma plume in the second position occupies a physically distinct region of the chamber from a plasma plume in the first position, the first and second metastable positions being spaced apart along a height of the chamber (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and col. 5, ll. 44-49 which teach that the plasma generating space (21) is shaped like a cylinder with a circular cross section which necessarily means or, alternatively, would be reasonably expected to mean that the chamber is configured so that the plasma plume is unstable or metastable and the optically emissive body of the plasma plume moves between a first position and a second position which occupies a physically distinct region of the chamber from the first position which is spaced along a height of the chamber (see ¶[0049] of the specification in corresponding U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0262117 which teaches that a cylindrical chamber causes the plasma plume (16) to move between at least two physically distinct positions (161) and (162)); see also Figs. 8(A)-(B) and col. 7, l. 26 to col. 8, l. 6 which teach that the electric field forms standing waves in regions (100) and (100’) and that it is difficult to form a uniform thin film outside these regions which therefore means that there are two physically distinct stable and unstable/metastable regions within the plasma which are spaced along a height of the chamber because the plasma has relatively stable regions (100) and (100’) with the other regions being comparatively unstable); and
relocating the optically emissive body of the plasma plume from one of the first and second metastable resting positions to the other within the chamber by adjusting an electrical field generated by an electromagnetic source, wherein the relocation changes a position of the optically emissive body of the plasma plume relative to a substrate positioned within the chamber and thereby alters the growth environment at a substrate positioned within the chamber (see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 61-65 which teach that the deposition speed can be increased by applying a bias voltage to the substrate holder (30’) which necessarily means that an electric field for forcing the optically emissive body of the plasma plume to a second distinct spatial position towards the substrate is generated by an electromagnetic source; alternatively, see Fig. 5 and col. 4, ll. 30-51 which teach the use of a DC bias source (15) connected to the substrate support (11) to generate a bias; accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to generate an electric field by applying a bias voltage to the substrate (30) in Fig. 7 such that the optically emissive body of the plasma plume is forced towards the substrate to a second distinct spatial position as claimed in order to, for example, alter the growth environment at the substrate in order to increase the deposition speed).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that Yamazaki does not explicitly teach that the optically emissive body of the plasma plume moves between first and second metastable resting positions which are spaced apart along the height of the chamber with the optically emissive body of the plasma plume being relocated by adjusting an electric field, this would have been obvious in view of Kawanabe. In at least Figs. 1-2 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 3-9 Kawanabe teaches an analogous embodiment of a plasma processing apparatus (100) for processing a substrate (18) located in a processing chamber (11). In p. 7 Kawanabe explains that the plasma processing apparatus (100) generates an electric field and a magnetic field to form a first plasma (101) in the processing chamber (11). As further explained at pp. 7-9, a microwave induction window (8) and a partition plate (9) are disposed in the vertical direction between an upper end of the vacuum vessel (26) and the processing chamber (11) with a discharge space (12) being provided between the window (8) and the plate (9). A second plasma (102) is generated in the discharge space (12) by adjusting, inter alia, the pressure and the strength of the electric field of the microwave. By controlling the electric field of the microwave supplied to the processing chamber (11) it is possible to control the magnitude and density of the second plasma (102) and this, in turn, controls the distribution of the density of the first plasma (101) in the processing chamber (11) in the radial direction. As shown specifically in Fig. 2 and p. 8-9 of Kawanabe when the second plasma (102) is not generated the center of first plasma (101) has a larger strength in the center and produces the nonuniform etching rate shown by curve (a), but when the second plasma (102) is formed in discharge space (12) the intensity of the first plasma (101) is reduced and a more uniform etching rate as shown by curve (b) is produced. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kawanabe and would configure the plasma generating space (21) of Yamazaki with, inter alia, a partition plate (9) beneath the microwave window (8) such that a second metastable plasma (102) may be generated within a second discharge space (12) that is located above a first metastable plasma (101) along a height of the vacuum chamber (26) by controlling the electric field with the motivation for doing so being to produce a more uniform first plasma (101) and, consequently, a more uniform process across the entirety of the substrate surface. In this case forming the second plasma (102) may be broadly considered as involving relocating at least a portion of the optically emissive body of the plasma plume from the first plasma (101).
Regarding claim 14, Yamazaki teaches providing a single-crystal seed in the chamber, wherein the substrate comprises a single-crystal seed (see, e.g., Fig. 7, col. 4, ll. 30-35, and col. 5, l. 33 to col. 8, l. 6 Yamazaki teaches providing a Si wafer as a substrate (30) in a reaction space (21); moreover, the Si wafer necessarily is or would be reasonably expected to be a single crystal since Si single crystal wafers are readily available and are commonly utilized as substrates in the microelectronics industry); depositing carbon from the plasma plume onto the single-crystal seed to form diamond (see, e.g., Figs. 7-9 and col. 5, l. 33 to col. 8, l. 6 which teach introducing a carbon-containing gas such as methane (CH4) and forming a plasma in order to deposit a diamond thin film on the substrate (30)).
Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki teaches that the single-crystal seed is on a mechanical support (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and col. 5, ll. 33-43 which teach that the seed crystal (30) is provided on a mechanical support in the form of holder (30’)).
Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki teaches that the second metastable position is above the single-crystal seed, and the first metastable resting position is at a top of the chamber (see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 61-65 which teach that the deposition speed can be increased by applying a bias voltage to the substrate holder (30’) which necessarily means that an electric field for forcing the plasma plume towards the substrate is generated; alternatively, see Fig. 5 and col. 4, ll. 30-51 which teach the use of a DC bias source (15) connected to the substrate support (11) to generate a bias; accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate an electric field by applying a bias voltage to the substrate (30) in Fig. 7 such that the plasma plume is forced towards the substrate from a first position at a top of the chamber towards a second position above the substrate as claimed in order to, for example, increase the deposition speed).
Alternatively, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11, in at least Figs. 1-2 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 3-9 Kawanabe teaches an analogous embodiment of a plasma processing apparatus (100) for processing a substrate (18) located in a processing chamber (11). In p. 7 Kawanabe explains that the plasma processing apparatus (100) generates an electric field and a magnetic field to form a first plasma (101) in the processing chamber (11). As further explained at pp. 7-9, a microwave induction window (8) and a partition plate (9) are disposed in the vertical direction between an upper end of the vacuum vessel (26) and the processing chamber (11) with a discharge space (12) being provided between the window (8) and the plate (9). A second plasma (102) is generated in the discharge space (12) by adjusting, inter alia, the pressure and the strength of the electric field of the microwave. By controlling the electric field of the microwave supplied to the processing chamber (11) it is possible to control the magnitude and density of the second plasma (102) and this, in turn, controls the distribution of the density of the first plasma (101) in the processing chamber (11) in the radial direction. As shown specifically in Fig. 2 and p. 8-9 of Kawanabe when the second plasma (102) is not generated the center of first plasma (101) has a larger strength in the center and produces the nonuniform etching rate shown by curve (a), but when the second plasma (102) is formed in discharge space (12) the intensity of the first plasma (101) is reduced and a more uniform etching rate as shown by curve (b) is produced. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kawanabe and would configure the plasma generating space (21) of Yamazaki with, inter alia, a partition plate (9) beneath the microwave window (8) such that a second plasma (102) may be generated within a second discharge space (12) that is located at a top of the chamber (26) (i.e., a first position) above a first plasma (101) that is above the substrate (18) (i.e., a second position) by controlling the electric field with the motivation for doing so being to produce a more uniform first plasma (101) and, consequently, a more uniform process across the entirety of the substrate surface.
Regarding claim 19, Yamazaki teaches a method of controlling diamond growth (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-14, and entire reference), the method comprising:
providing a single-crystal seed having a growth interface in a standing wave cylindrical chamber (see, e.g., Fig. 7, col. 4, ll. 30-35, and col. 5, l. 33 to col. 8, l. 6 of Yamazaki which teaches providing a Si wafer as a substrate (30) on a holder (30’) located within a reaction space (21); moreover, the Si wafer has a growth interface and necessarily is or would be reasonably expected to be a single crystal since Si single crystal wafers are readily available and are commonly utilized as low-cost substrates in the microelectronics industry; see specifically Fig. 8(b) and col. 7, ll. 46-50 teaching that a standing wave is formed within the reaction space (21));
energizing a gas containing carbon using a microwave source to produce a plasma plume comprising a top end and a bottom end (see, e.g., Figs. 7-9 and col. 5, l. 33 to col. 8, l. 6 which teach introducing a carbon-containing gas such as methane (CH4) and forming a plasma using a microwave generator (24); moreover, Fig. 7 shows that the plasma plume produced within the plasma generating space (21), which is understood as being the area between the substrate (30) and the microwave window (35), has a top end near the microwave window and a bottom end near the substrate (30)),
wherein the bottom end positioned near the growth interface is rounded (see, e.g., Figs. 8-9 and col. 7, l. 26 to col. 8, l. 6 which teach that the magnetic field strength produced by magnets (25) and (25’) produces equipotential surfaces (26) which are rounded and, as a consequence, will necessarily produce a rounded plasma plume near the growth interface at the surface of the substrate holder (30’)); and
creating steering fields using an electromagnetic source to reshape the bottom end of the plasma plume, thereby modulating carbon atom deposition characteristics of the plasma plume (see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 61-65 which teach that the deposition speed can be increased by applying a bias voltage to the substrate holder (30’) which necessarily means that an electric field for steering the plasma plume towards the substrate is generated using an electromagnetic source; alternatively, see Fig. 5 and col. 4, ll. 30-51 which teach the use of a DC bias source (15) connected to the substrate support (11) to generate an electrical bias; accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to generate an electric field by applying a bias voltage to the substrate (30) in Fig. 7 such that the bottom of the plasma plume is reshaped and steered towards the substrate in the claimed manner in order to, for example, increase the deposition speed).
Yamazaki does not teach that the steering fields reshape the bottom end of the plasma plume by increasing a radius of curvature of the rounded bottom end so that the bottom end becomes less rounded and more plana relative to the growth interface. However, in at least Figs. 1-2 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 3-9 Kawanabe teaches an analogous embodiment of a plasma processing apparatus (100) for processing a substrate (18) located in a processing chamber (11). In p. 7 Kawanabe explains that the plasma processing apparatus (100) generates an electric field and a magnetic field to form a first plasma (101) in the processing chamber (11). As further explained at pp. 7-9, a microwave induction window (8) and a partition plate (9) are disposed in the vertical direction between an upper end of the vacuum vessel (26) and the processing chamber (11) with a discharge space (12) being provided between the window (8) and the plate (9). A second plasma (102) is generated in the discharge space (12) by adjusting, inter alia, the pressure and the strength of the electric field of the microwave. By controlling the electric field of the microwave supplied to the processing chamber (11) it is possible to control the magnitude and density of the second plasma (102) and this, in turn, controls the distribution of the density of the first plasma (101) in the processing chamber (11) in the radial direction. As shown specifically in Fig. 2 and p. 8-9 of Kawanabe when the second plasma (102) is not generated the center of first plasma (101) has a larger strength in the center and, consequently, a more rounded plasma plume which produces the nonuniform etching rate shown by curve (a). However, when the second plasma (102) is formed in discharge space (12) the intensity of the first plasma (101) is reduced and, consequently, the bottom end of the plasma (101) becomes more rounded with a larger radius of curvature so that a more uniform etching rate as shown by curve (b) is produced. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kawanabe and would configure the plasma generating space (21) of Yamazaki with, inter alia, a partition plate (9) beneath the microwave window (8) such that a second plasma (102) may be generated within a second discharge space (12) so that a bottom end of the first plasma (101) becomes less rounded and more planar by controlling the electric field with the motivation for doing so being to produce a more uniform first plasma (101) and, consequently, a more uniform process across the entirety of the substrate surface.
Regarding claim 20, Yamazaki teaches that a growth environment is within a chemical vapor deposition chamber (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and col. 5, ll. 33-43 which teach that the growth environment is within a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) chamber).
Regarding claim 21, Yamazaki teaches that the gas containing carbon is methane (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and col. 6, ll. 1-25 which teach the use of methane (CH4) gas).
Regarding claim 25, Yamazaki and Kawanabe teach that the steering fields are created using one or more magnetic fields, electric fields, and/or electromagnetic fields (see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 61-65 of Yamazaki which teach that the deposition speed can be increased by applying a bias voltage to the substrate holder (30’) which necessarily means that an electric field is utilized as a steering field; see also Fig. 5 and col. 4, ll. 30-51 of Yamazaki which teach the use of a DC bias source (15) connected to the substrate support (11) to generate a bias; accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate a steering field by applying a bias voltage to the substrate (30); alternatively, see Figs. 1-2 and pp. 7-9 of Kawanabe which teach that distribution and density of particles in the plasma may be adjusted by controlling, inter alia, the distribution of the electric field and the magnetic field).
Regarding claim 26, Yamazaki teaches that a growth environment includes an electrically charged metal stage configured to repel a center of the plasma plume (See, e.g., Fig. 7 and col. 5, ll. 44-49 of Yamazaki which teach that the substrate holder (30’) is made of a material such as stainless steel which necessarily creates a boundary condition for the plasma by creating a repulsive force when the holder (30’) becomes electrically charged. See also Fig. 5 and col. 4, ll. 30-51 which teach the use of a DC bias source (15) connected to the substrate support (11) to generate a bias which, through the application of the appropriate bias, would necessarily causes the substrate holder (30’) to become electrically charged and repel the center of the plasma. In this case a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to configure the substrate (30’) such that it becomes electrically charged through application of the appropriate bias in order to minimize the occurrence of damage occurring as a result of energetic ions striking the substrate).
Regarding claim 35, Yamazaki teaches that the plasma plume has a boundary and a body (see Figs. 7-9 and col. 7, l. 26 to col. 8, l. 6 which teach forming a plasma plume within a reaction chamber (21) which necessarily means that the plasma plume has a boundary and a body), wherein relocating moves the boundary and the body (see Fig. 5 and col. 4, ll. 30-51 which teach the use of a DC bias source (15) connected to the substrate support (11) to generate a bias; accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to generate an electric field by applying a bias voltage to the substrate (30) in Fig. 7 such that the plasma plume is forced towards the substrate to a second distinct spatial position in which the body and boundary of the plasma has been moved). Alternatively, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11, in at least Figs. 1-2 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 3-9 Kawanabe teaches an analogous embodiment of a plasma processing apparatus (100) for processing a substrate (18) located in a processing chamber (11). In p. 7 Kawanabe explains that the plasma processing apparatus (100) generates an electric field and a magnetic field to form a first plasma (101) in the processing chamber (11). As further explained at pp. 7-9, a microwave induction window (8) and a partition plate (9) are disposed in the vertical direction between an upper end of the vacuum vessel (26) and the processing chamber (11) with a discharge space (12) being provided between the window (8) and the plate (9). A second plasma (102) is generated in the discharge space (12) by adjusting, inter alia, the pressure and the strength of the electric field of the microwave. By controlling the electric field of the microwave supplied to the processing chamber (11) it is possible to control the magnitude and density of the second plasma (102) and this, in turn, controls the distribution of the density of the first plasma (101) in the processing chamber (11) in the radial direction. As shown specifically in Fig. 2 and p. 8-9 of Kawanabe when the second plasma (102) is not generated the center of first plasma (101) has a larger strength in the center and produces the nonuniform etching rate shown by curve (a), but when the second plasma (102) is formed in discharge space (12) the intensity of the first plasma (101) is reduced and a more uniform etching rate as shown by curve (b) is produced. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kawanabe and would configure the plasma generating space (21) of Yamazaki with, inter alia, a partition plate (9) beneath the microwave window (8) such that a second plasma (102) may be generated within a second discharge space (12) so that a bottom end of the first plasma (101) becomes less rounded and more planar (i.e., the boundary and the body of the plasma are moved or relocated) by controlling the electric field with the motivation for doing so being to produce a more uniform first plasma (101) and, consequently, a more uniform process across the entirety of the substrate surface.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Kawanabe and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,203,959 to Hirose, et al. (“Hirose”).
Regarding claim 18, Yamazaki and Kawanabe teach creating a second magnetic field or electric field to modify the shape of the plasma plume (see, e.g., Figs. 7-9 and col. 5, l. 33 to col. 8, l. 6 of Yamazaki which teach that a magnetic field is created using two electromagnets (25) and (25’) which may be broadly considered as producing a first and second magnet which are both used to modify the shape of the biased plasma plume; see also Fig. 1 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 3-9 of Kawanabe which teach the use of two sets of magnetic field generators (24) and a microwave source (1), any of which may be broadly considered as a second magnetic or electric field that is used to modify the shape of the plasma plumes (101) and (102)).
Alternatively, in Figs. 1-7 and col. 1, l. 42 to col. 4, l. 17 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Hirose teaches an analogous embodiment of a microwave assisted plasma CVD apparatus which includes a substrate (2) provided on a holder (3) as well as Helmholtz coils (5), a microwave generator (4), a waveguide (7), and a microwave introduction window (12) for generating a plasma within the reaction chamber (1). The microwave CVD system is also provided with external auxiliary magnets (6) which are provided inside the hemlholtz coils (5) and around the reaction chamber (1). As shown in Fig. 2(A)-(B) the auxiliary magnets (6) extend in the direction of the microwave propagation and function to enhance the strength of the magnetic field at the periphery of the reaction chamber. This causes the plasma gas to be confined to the center, thereby producing a higher density of highly energized carbon atoms for the deposition of highly crystallized diamond thin films. Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Hirose and would be motivated to utilize a plurality of auxiliary magnets (6) in the method of Yamazaki and Kawanabe to generate a magnetic field which produces a higher density of energized carbon atoms for the deposition of diamond thin films with improved crystallinity.
Claim 27-28 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Kawanabe and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2008/0226838 to Nishimura, et al. (“Nishimura”).
Regarding claim 27, Yamazaki and Kawanabe do not teach adjusting an amount of the plasma plume that is steered as a function of feedback. However, in Fig. 31 and ¶¶[0286]-[0309] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Nishimura teaches an analogous system and method for the deposition of a diamond thin film onto a substrate (101) by plasma-based chemical vapor deposition (CVD). In ¶[0298]-[0302] Nishimura specifically teaches that the temperature of the substrate (101) during measured during film growth using a spectral radiance meter (126). The substrate (101) temperature will increase during film growth due to, inter alia, bombardment by energetic species from the plasma and this can influence the film uniformity and final film thickness. This is remedied by cooling the substrate (101) using a cooling member (113) and by adjusting the voltage applied to the anode (112) and cathode (120) in response to measured changes in the substrate (101) temperature. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Nishimura and would be motivated to provide a feedback mechanism which measures the substrate temperature during film growth and adjusts one or more of the plasma parameters such as the bias, electric field, or magnetic field during film growth in order to suppress a deposition-oriented rise in the substrate temperature during film growth and obtain a diamond thin film having more uniform and reproducible properties.
Regarding claim 28, Yamazaki and Kawanabe do not teach that the feedback is temperature feedback. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 27, in Fig. 31 and ¶¶[0286]-[0309] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Nishimura teaches an analogous system and method for the deposition of a diamond thin film onto a substrate (101) by plasma-based chemical vapor deposition (CVD). In ¶[0298]-[0302] Nishimura specifically teaches that the temperature of the substrate (101) during measured during film growth using a spectral radiance meter (126). The substrate (101) temperature will increase during film growth due to, inter alia, bombardment by energetic species from the plasma and this can influence the film uniformity and final film thickness. This is remedied by cooling the substrate (101) using a cooling member (113) and by adjusting the voltage applied to the anode (112) and cathode (120) in response to measured changes in the substrate (101) temperature. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Nishimura and would be motivated to provide a feedback mechanism which measures the substrate temperature during film growth and adjusts one or more of the plasma parameters such as the bias, electric field, or magnetic field during film growth in order to suppress a deposition-oriented rise in the substrate temperature during film growth and obtain a diamond thin film having more uniform and reproducible properties.
Regarding claim 32, Yamazaki and Kawanabe do not teach adjusting a steering fields as a function of feedback to make one or more diamond grow more uniformly. However, in Fig. 31 and ¶¶[0286]-[0309] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Nishimura teaches an analogous system and method for the deposition of a diamond thin film onto a substrate (101) by plasma-based chemical vapor deposition (CVD). In ¶[0298]-[0302] Nishimura specifically teaches that the temperature of the substrate (101) during measured during film growth using a spectral radiance meter (126). The substrate (101) temperature will increase during film growth due to, inter alia, bombardment by energetic species from the plasma and this can influence the film uniformity and final film thickness. This is remedied by cooling the substrate (101) using a cooling member (113) and by adjusting the voltage applied to the anode (112) and cathode (120) in response to measured changes in the substrate (101) temperature. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Nishimura and would be motivated to provide a feedback mechanism which measures the substrate temperature during film growth and adjusts one or more of the plasma steering parameters such as the bias, electric field, or magnetic field during film growth in order to suppress a deposition-oriented rise in the substrate temperature during film growth and obtain a diamond thin film having more uniform and reproducible properties.
Regarding claim 33, Yamazaki and Kawanabe do not teach adjusting an amount of the plasma plume that is steered as a function of feedback. However, in Fig. 31 and ¶¶[0286][0309] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Nishimura teaches an analogous system and method for the deposition of a diamond thin film onto a substrate (101) by plasma-based chemical vapor deposition (CVD). In ¶[0298]-[0302] Nishimura specifically teaches that the temperature of the substrate (101) during measured during film growth using a spectral radiance meter (126). The substrate (101) temperature will increase during film growth due to, inter alia, bombardment by energetic species from the plasma and this can influence the film uniformity and final film thickness. This is remedied by cooling the substrate (101) using a cooling member (113) and by adjusting the voltage applied to the anode (112) and cathode (120) in response to measured changes in the substrate (101) temperature. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Nishimura and would be motivated to provide a feedback mechanism which measures the substrate temperature during film growth and adjusts one or more of the plasma parameters such as the bias, electric field, or magnetic field during film growth in order to suppress a deposition-oriented rise in the substrate temperature during film growth and obtain a diamond thin film having more uniform and reproducible properties.
Regarding claim 34, Yamazaki and Kawanabe do not teach adjusting the steering fields as a function of feedback to make one or more diamond grow more uniformly. However, in Fig. 31 and ¶¶[0286]-[0309] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Nishimura teaches an analogous system and method for the deposition of a diamond thin film onto a substrate (101) by plasma-based chemical vapor deposition (CVD). In ¶[0298]-[0302] Nishimura specifically teaches that the temperature of the substrate (101) during measured during film growth using a spectral radiance meter (126). The substrate (101) temperature will increase during film growth due to, inter alia, bombardment by energetic species from the plasma and this can influence the film uniformity and final film thickness. This is remedied by cooling the substrate (101) using a cooling member (113) and by adjusting the voltage applied to the anode (112) and cathode (120) in response to measured changes in the substrate (101) temperature. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Nishimura and would be motivated to provide a feedback mechanism which measures the substrate temperature during film growth and adjusts one or more of the plasma steering parameters such as the bias, electric field, or magnetic field during film growth in order to suppress a deposition-oriented rise in the substrate temperature during film growth and obtain a diamond thin film having more uniform and reproducible properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed September 9, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicants initially argue in Section I(A) that Yamazaki does not teach or suggest relocating the optically emissive body of the plasma plume from a first metastable resting position to a second metastable resting position as recited in claim 11 because the two-position behavior of a cylindrical chamber is a tendency, not a necessary consequence. See applicants’ 9/9/2026 reply, pp. 6-7. Applicants’ argument is noted, but remains unpersuasive. As noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 11, since the plasma generating space (21) of Yamazaki is in the shape of a cylinder with a circular cross-section it therefore has the exact same structure as the chamber disclosed and claimed in the instant application and, consequently, must exhibit the same properties. In particular, Fig. 3D and ¶[0049] of the published application teach that the inventors have found that a “cylindrical chamber 15 tends to cause the plume 16 to move between at least two positions 161 and 162.” Since Yamazaki teaches the use of a cylindrical chamber it must necessarily also cause the plasma plume to move between two metastable positions. The words “tends to cause” in ¶[0049] does not mean that the plume only moves between two positions in some cylindrical chambers, but instead means that it is more likely than not that a plume which moves between at least two positions is produced in a cylindrical chamber which leads towards it being a necessary rather than a possible result.
Applicants argue in Section I(B) that regions (100) and (100’) in Figs. 8(A)-8(B) are spaced along X and nothing in Yamazaki identifies them as being spaced along the chamber height. Id. at p. 7. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. As an initial matter it is noted that Figs. 7 and 8 in Yamazaki appear to have the same orientation such that the vertical axis within the chamber extends horizontally within the page. In Fig. 8(A) the plane of the substrate (10) is illustrated as extending along equipotential line (26) which therefore indicates that the direction X proceeds outwards from the plane of the substrate (10) and vertically within the chamber in Fig. 7. This is further supported by the label (R) on the vertical axis in Fig. 8(A) which represents the radius of the substrate (10) and/or the magnetic coil which is labeled as component (5) in Fig. 8(A) and as components (25) and (25’) in Fig. 7.
Applicants then argue in Section II(C) that the definition of metastable does not meet the requirement that the plasma plume relocate between two spatially distinct metastable resting positions. Id. at p. 8. This argument is not found persuasive since, in providing the claim with its broadest reasonable interpretation, the location and shape of a plasma is maintained (i.e., it is temporarily stable) only so long as the appropriate processing conditions, including the microwave power, gas pressure, and gas flow rates are applied. As soon as any of these are changed or an external bias such as an electrical or magnetic field is applied, the location and shape of the plasma instantly changes which essentially means that any position that the plasma takes is inherently metastable.
In Sections II(D) and II(E) applicants argue that Kawanabe teaches two separate plasmas (101) and (102) rather than a first plasma that is relocated to another resting position. Id. at p. 8. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive since it is based upon features which are not claimed. Claim 11 recites that a plasma plume moves between a first metastable resting position to a second metastable resting position which is ”a physically distinct region.” There is no specific recitation that the same plasma is moved or relocated between two positions, only that a plasma plume moves between two physically distinct regions. Since a plasma is formed from energized gas molecules that are continuously fed into and exhausted from the reaction chamber the plasma itself actually is not a unitary or solid object that moves between two positions, but instead it is continually being formed from flowing gas molecules under steady state conditions. The location where the plasma is continually being formed may be controlled or moved by adjusting the process conditions, including the microwave power and applied electric/magnetic fields. In Fig. 1 of Kawanabe there are two distinct plasmas (101) and (102) which, despite being generated from separate gas flows, are still linked such that the magnitude and density of the second plasma (102) influences the magnitude and density of the first plasma (101). In this regard the plasma may be broadly considered as “moving” or “relocating” between distinct first (101) and second (102) plasmas due to the interplay that occurs between them. Even if it is assumed arguendo, that the teachings of Kawanabe are not properly applied it is the Examiner’s position that each and every limitation recited in claim 11 is taught by Yamazaki for reasons noted supra.
In Section II(F) applicants argue that Yamazaki states that the substrate bias may increase the deposition speed, but does not state that the bias relocates the plasma body. Id. at p. 9. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. In this case it is not necessary for Yamazaki to specifically state that a process step produces the same result, namely that of relocating the plasma body. This is because performing the step of applying an electrical bias will necessarily have the effect of relocating the plasma body. Stated in other words, since the method of Yamazaki performs each and every step of the claimed process it will necessarily produce the same results.
In Section II(G) applicants argue that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Yamazaki and Kawanabe. Id. at p. 9. This argument is not found persuasive as the specific motivation to combine is provided at p. 9 of the June 9, 2026, non-final Office Action which is to produce a more uniform process which means a more uniform deposition rate, film thickness, composition, and the like.
In Section II(A) applicants argue that Yamazaki teaches that applying a bias may increase the deposition speed, but does not identify a change in the geometric curvature of the plasma. Id. at pp. 9-10. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive since it amounts to arguing against the references individually. In this case it is Kawanabe rather than Yamazaki that is relied upon to teach the use of steering fields to reshape the radius of curvature of the bottom end of the plasma.
In Sections II(B) and II(C) applicants argue that while Kawanabe teaches producing a more uniform etch-rate distribution this does not identify a physical change in the radius of curvature of the plasma boundary. Id. at p. 10. This argument is not found persuasive since the etching rate is directly proportional to the strength/intensity of the plasma in the vicinity of the substrate. A more uniform etch rate necessarily means that the plasma itself becomes less rounded and more uniform. This is illustrated specifically in Fig. 2 and pp. 8-9 of Kawanabe which show that the generation of the second plasma (102) influences the first plasma (101) such that it produces a flatter curve (b) which has a larger radius of curvature. Curve (b) does not occur unless the first plasma (101) exhibits a flatter profile with a larger radius of curvature such that the etch rate is more uniform across the entire surface of the substrate. The statement at p. 14 of the June 9, 2026, non-final Action in which the “bottom end of the plasma (101) becomes more rounded with a larger radius of curvature” is intended to convey that the boundary becomes flatter as in curve (b) of Fig. 2 rather than the parabolic shape exhibited by curve (a).
In Section III(A) applicants argue that Hirose does not disclose the missing two-state relocation discussed in claim 11 and does not teach the broadening/flattening operation in claim 19. Id. at p. 11. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive as the rejection of claims 11 and 19 is based upon Yamazaki and Kawanabe alone and Hirose is not relied upon to remedy deficiencies in those claims.
In Section III(B) applicant contends that Yamazaki does not teach an electrically charged metal stage configured to repel the center of the plasma as recited in claim 26. Id. at p. 11. This argument is not found persuasive as col. 5, ll. 46-49 of Yamazaki specifically teaches that the substrate holder may be made of a metal such as stainless steel. Then col. 4, ll. 39-41 teaches the use of a DC bias source (15) connected to the substrate support (11) which applies a voltage and therefore causes the substrate holder to become electrically charged. Then in rejecting claim 26 the Examiner has also provided the appropriate motivation for electrically charging the stainless steel substrate holder which is to minimize the occurrence of damage due to overly energetic ions striking the substrate. Consequently, each and every element of claim 26 is shown as being obvious in view of the teachings of Yamazaki.
Finally, in Section III(C) applicants argue that Nishimura does not teach using measurement from different seed locations to determine how much plasma to steer towards each location and there is no explanation why Nishimura’s temperature-regulation loop would lead to that spatial, per-location plasma-steering control. Id. at pp. 11-12. Applicants’ argument is again noted, but remains unpersuasive since it is based upon features which are not claimed. Nishimura is introduced to reject additional limitations recited in claims 27-28 and 32-34 which relate to adjusting the plasma plume as a function of feedback. None of claims 27-28 and 32-34 specifically recite anything about using measurements from different seed locations to determine how much plasma to steer towards each location.
Conclusion
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 KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
