DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-8, 10, 13-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellogg et al., US 9,852,889 in view of Makhratchev et al., US 6,714,033 or Criminale et al., US 2020/0294836 or Himori et al., WO 03/030241 and Koshimizu, US 2020/0219701 and Marakhtanov et al., US 2023/0054699.
Kellogg et al. shows the invention as claimed including a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a chamber 104/206 in which a plasma process is performed; a lower electrode 114 disposed inside the chamber and configured to receive a first power 130/128 of a first frequency and a second frequency lower than the first frequency; an insulating plate 112 at least partially surrounding a sidewall of the lower electrode; a focus ring 110 disposed on an edge of the lower electrode and on the insulating plate; a radio frequency (RF) induction electrode 202 spaced apart from the lower electrode in the insulating plate and having an annular shape at least partially surrounding the sidewall of the lower electrode, a second power lower than the first power being induced within the RF induction electrode using the lower electrode; an RF output rod (rod 254 and/or the rod between RF filter 207 and ground) connected to the RF induction electrode and configured to release a third power lower than the second power to an outside of the chamber, the third power having the second frequency; and an RF induction rod 220 connecting the RF induction electrode to the RF output rod and penetrating the insulating plate; and a RF filter 207/208 connecting the RF induction rod 220 to the RF output rod in the chamber (rod 254 and/or the rod between RF filter 207 and ground), and configured to generate the third power by removing the first frequency from the second power (see, for example, figs. 2B, 3B and 3D and their descriptions). With respect to the RF filter having a coil shape, Kellogg et al. discloses that the RF filter can include one or more inductors (see, for example, col. 6, lines 48-51 and col. 7, lines 65-67). It should be noted that inductors have a coil shape. For a complete description of the apparatus see, for example, the abstract, figs. 1, 2B, 3B, 3D, 4B, 6-7, and their descriptions, Fig. 2B is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
583
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the RF filter disposed inside the chamber, Kellogg et al. appears to disclose in the embodiment of Fig. 5 that a RF filter (such as RF filter 208) is disposed inside the chamber between feed ring 502 and RF rod 504 (see, for example, col. 13, lines 29-42). Also, and this notwithstanding, Makhratchev et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a RF filter 216 that is disposed inside the chamber (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its description, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
330
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Criminale et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a RF filter 204 that is disposed in the pedestal of the plasma processing chamber (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its description, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
356
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Himori et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a RF filter 16/113 that is disposed in the pedestal inside the plasma processing chamber (see, for example, Figs. 1 and 5, and their descriptions, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
626
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kellogg as to comprise a RF filter disposed inside the chamber because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to effectively and efficiently filtering out unwanted RF component while reducing the risk of disturbance on the plasma and reducing the risk of RF exposure from the RF source.
Regarding the RF output rod including the claimed plurality of RF connection lines and the claimed RF output line, it should be noted that Kellogg et al. further discloses, wherein the RF output rod includes a plurality of RF connection lines 710/712/714 spaced apart from each other at a same angle, and an RF output line 716 electrically connected to the one end of each of the plurality of RF connection lines and configured to release the third power to the outside of the chamber (see, for example, Figs. 4B and 7, and their descriptions, Fig. 7 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
681
683
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to the end of each of the plurality of RF connection lines being connected to each other, it should be noted that, as broadly claimed, Kellogg et al. meets the claimed limitation since the end of each of the plurality of RF connection lines 710/712/714 are electrically connected to each other. Additionally, there is no evidence that the choice of a particular connection between the RF connection lines and/or between the RF connection lines and the RF output line would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus. This notwithstanding Koshimizu discloses a plasma processing apparatus having an RF output rod connected to RF electrodes 73 and including a plurality of RF connection lines 72a spaced apart from each other and wherein one end of each of the plurality of RF connection lines are connected to each other, and a RF output line 72c connected to the one end of each of the plurality of RF connection lines 72a (see, for example, Fig. 1, and its description, Fig. 1 is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
530
408
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kellogg et al., as to comprise the claimed RF output rod configuration because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable alternate configuration to effectively and efficiently improve the plasma density and the processing uniformity of the substrate being treated in the plasma processing apparatus.
Regarding the RF filter comprising a plurality of RF filters and each RF connection line includes a corresponding RF filter among the plurality of RF filters, there is no evidence that the choice of a particular number of RF filters would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus. This notwithstanding, Marakhtanov et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising an RF output rod including a plurality of RF connection lines (see modified Fig. 10A below) spaced apart from each other at a same angle, an RF output line 409 connected to one end of each of the plurality of RF connection lines, and a plurality of RF filters 411A-C, wherein each RF connection line includes a corresponding RF filter among the plurality of RF filters (see, for example, Figs. 1A and 10A-B, and their descriptions, Figs. 1A and 10B, and modified Fig. 10A are shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
470
688
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
518
434
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
482
406
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Kellogg et al. in view of Makhratchev et al. or Criminale et al. or Himori et al. and Koshimizu, as to comprise the claimed plurality of RF filters because such means/configuration is known and used as a suitable means/configuration for effectively, efficiently, and independently control the RF power provided through each RF connection line by independently allowing/blocking the desired/undesired RF power and/or frequency.
With respect to claims 6-7, Kellogg et al. further discloses that the RF induction electrode 202 has a thickness in a vertical direction, and is separated from the focus ring 110 by a distance in a vertical direction, but does not expressly disclose the claimed vertical distance or the claimed thickness. However, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the claimed thickness and the claimed distance during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma density and/or characteristics and/or parameters, and therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claims 8 and 16, it should be noted that a first distance (see, for example, Distance A in modified Fig. 2B below) in a horizontal direction between the RF induction electrode and the lower electrode is smaller than a second distance (see, for example, Distance B in modified Fig. 2B below) in the horizontal direction between the RF induction rod and the lower electrode.
PNG
media_image10.png
724
1038
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Concerning claims 10 and 14, the apparatus of Kellogg et al. further discloses the use of a controller configured to control the first power (see, for example, col. 16-line 43 to col. 19-line 11); and a second controller 306, different from the first controller, configured to control the third power (see, for example, figs. 3B and 3D, and their descriptions).
Concerning claim 13, it should be noted that the RF induction rod includes a first portion penetrating the insulating plate and having a cylindrical shape; and a second portion connecting the first portion to the RF output rod (see, for example, figs. 2B, 3B, 3D, and fig. 6, and their descriptions).
Regarding claims 19-20, the claims are directed to method limitations instead of apparatus limitations, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The first controller of the apparatus of Kellogg et al. is capable of maintaining the first power at a constant first RF power during the plasma process, and the second controller of the apparatus of Kellogg et al. is capable of maintaining the third power at a constant second RF power during the plasma process and/or toggling the third power between a second RF power and a third RF power lower than the second RF power at regular intervals, if the method to be performed within the apparatus requires it.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5-8, 10, 13-16 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dhindsa et al. (US 2009/0071938) is cited because of its teachings of an apparatus comprising a RF induction electrode coupled to a RF filter.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
August 29, 2025