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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 26, 2026, has been entered.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 14-16, 18, 20-21, 26-27, 32-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second position" in l. 7 and ll. 10-11 and “the first position” in l. 8 and l. 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the first metastable resting position” and “the second metastable resting position.” Dependent claims 14-16, 18, 27, 32, and 35 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 11.
Claim 14 depends from claim 11 and recites “providing a single-crystal seed” followed by depositing carbon to form diamond. Since claim 11 recites that a substrate is positioned within the chamber it is unclear whether the single-crystal seed is actually the previously recited substrate or if a different substrate is provided in the chamber.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second position" in l. 1 and “the first position” in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the first metastable resting position” and “the second metastable resting position.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the biased plasma plume" in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the growth environment" in l. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the gas" in l. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the gas containing carbon.”
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the growth environment" in ll. 1-2, “the center” in l. 2, and “the plasma” in ll. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “a growth environment,” “a center,” and “the plasma plume”
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the plasma" in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the plasma plume.”
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the steering fields" in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “a steering field.”
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the plasma" in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the plasma plume.”
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 the first position to a second position 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 (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 position is above the single-crystal seed, and the first 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 the 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 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 the growth environment includes an electrically charged metal stage configured to repel the center of the plasma (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 biased 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 27-29 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 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 29, Yamazaki and Kawanabe do not teach that the temperature feedback is a temperature of a seed. 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 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.
Regarding claim 33, Yamazaki and Kawanabe do not teach adjusting an amount of the plasma 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 May 26, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth in this Office Action. Japanese Patent Appl. Publ. No. JP 2019-110028 to Kawanabe, et al. has been introduced to teach the newly added claim limitations.
Applicants initially present arguments in Section I that relocation of an “optically emissive body” of a plasma plume cannot reasonably be satisfied by merely changing ion energy at a substrate, compressing a sheath, or perturbing a local plasma boundary. See applicants’ 5/26/2026 reply, p. 5. This argument is not found persuasive as the “optically emissive body” that constitutes the plasma plume comes from excited gas atoms, ions, and molecules in the plasma that emit light when they return to lower energy states. When a gas is ionized in the reactor, electrons collide with neutral atoms or molecules which excites the atoms or molecules to higher energy levels. When the excited species relax back to lower energy states they release photons which produce the visible glow that constitutes the plasma. In this regard the “optically emissive body” as claimed is not independent of the excited particles that constitute the plasma as it is formed from the excited particles themselves. Thus, when the location of the excited particles is influenced by changing ion energy at a substrate, compressing a sheath, or perturbing a local plasma boundary and the like this necessarily results in a change in shape and/or a relocation of the “optically emissive body.”
Applicants then argue in Section II(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 presence of two field-intensity regions in Figs. 8(A)-(B) is not a disclosure that a plasma plume moves between two metastable resting positions. Id. at pp. 6-7. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is 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 same structure as the chamber disclosed 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. With respect to regions (100) and (100’) in Fig. 8(B) of Yamazaki it is noted that col. 7, l. 26 to co. 8, l. 6 teaches that these are regions where the electric field strength attains its maximum value and that in other regions a film will not be uniformly deposited on the substrate. In that regard regions (100) and (100’) may be broadly considered as two physically distinct regions spaced along the height of the chamber which are stable whereas other regions at the valleys are comparatively less stable positions. Even if it is assumed arguendo that Yamazaki does not teach or suggest generating a plasma plume at two distinct metastable positions the Examiner has introduced Kawanabe to teach the newly added claim limitations.
In Section II(B) applicants argue that Ahn does not cure the deficiencies in Yamazaki. Id. at p. 7. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is moot in view of the introduction of Kawanabe in place of Ahn to teach the newly added claim limitations.
In Sections II(C) and II(D) applicants then argue that changes in the plasma sheath, ion trajectories, and charged-particle densities as the result of the application of an electric or magnetic field do not necessarily relocate the optically emissive body of the plasma plume between metastable resting positions. Id. at pp. 7-8. Applicants’ argument is noted, but remains unpersuasive. It is the Examiner’s position that since the plasma itself, including its “optically emissive body,” is made up of positive ions and electrons, the application of any type of electric or magnetic field will cause those positive ions and electrons to move in response to the applied field which therefor necessarily causes the shape and/or location of the plasma to relocate from a first location to a second and spatially distinct location which therefore meets the claim. Moreover, since each shape and position of the optically emissive body of the plasma is only stable as long as the plasma parameters do not change, this means that it can be broadly considered as being metastable and the subsequent application of any type of electric and/or magnetic field necessarily causes a change in the shape and/or position of the plasma to a second metastable location and/or shape.
In Section II(E) applicants argue that Yamazaki and Ahn do not teach or suggest claim 19 as amended. Id. at pp. 8-9. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive and is moot in view of the introduction of Kawanabe in place of Ahn to teach the newly added claim limitations.
Applicants argue in Section II(F) that Yamazaki’s substrate holder is not disclosed as being configured to repel the center of a plasma plume as recited in claim 26 and the Examiner’s position is unsupported. Id. at p. 9. This argument also is found unpersuasive as at least Fig. 5 and col. 4, ll. 30-51 of Yamazaki specifically teach the use of a DC bias source (15) connected to the substrate support (11) to generate a positive or negative bias. A negative substrate bias would necessarily repel electrons whereas a positive bias would necessarily repel positively charged ions, either of which will necessarily repel charged particles present within a center of the plasma plume located above the center of the substrate.
Applicants then argue in Section III that Hirose does not teach or suggest relocating the optically emissive body and does not teach relocating a biased plasma plume as claimed and creating a second magnetic or electric field to modify the shape of that biased plume as recited in claim 18. Id. at pp. 9-10. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. As an initial matter it is noted that claim 18 merely recites creating a second electric or magnetic field to modify the shape of the plasma plume. In at least Figs. 7-9 the plasma processing chamber of Yamazaki utilizes two different magnets (25) and (25’) and, as such, the second magnet may be broadly considered as producing the second magnetic field which modifies the shape of the plasma as claimed. Alternatively, as acknowledged by applicants, the teachings of Hirose show that auxiliary magnets may be used to strengthen a magnetic field and confine the plasma towards the center. As a result, the act of utilizing an auxiliary magnet to confine the plasma as taught by Hirose necessarily involves creating a second magnetic field which modifies the shape of the plasma because confining the plasma has the effect of modifying its shape.
Finally, applicants argue in Section IV that Nishimura does not teach or suggest using feedback to control relocation of the optically emissive body of a plasma plume between metastable resting positions as recited in claim 11. Id. at p. 10. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. In this case it is the combination of Yamazaki and Kawanabe that is relied upon to teach a plasma plume which relocates between metastable positions. Then Nishimura is relied upon to teach that the use of feedback in the form of a spectral radiance meter to measure the temperature of the substrate during film growth and to adjust the growth conditions, including the voltage applied to the anode and cathode in response to changes in the temperature such that the substrate is not overheated. In this regard it is the Examiner’s position that a PHOSITA would be motivated to provide a feedback control mechanism which measures the substrate temperature during growth and adjusts one or more of the plasma parameters such as the substrate bias in order to minimize changes in the temperature during film growth.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights