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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art
relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are pending
Claims 6, 8, 15, and 17 have been withdrawn
Claims 9 and 18 have been cancelled
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowell (US 20100078320) in view of Godyak et al. (US 20120160806) and Likhanskii et al. (US 9613777), with Panagopoulos et al. (US 20130256271) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Stowell teaches an ion source (containment shield 402 and its internal parts), comprising: a plasma chamber (containment shield 402) to house a plasma; an extraction assembly (aperture 414), disposed along a side of the plasma chamber, and comprising at least one extraction aperture (aperture 414 comprises of multiple apertures, as evidenced by Fig. 4); and an antenna assembly (waveguide 406 and dielectric tube 404), the antenna assembly extending through the plasma chamber, along a first axis (as evidenced by Fig. 4, waveguide 406 extends through containment shield 402), the antenna assembly comprising: a dielectric enclosure (dielectric tube 404) located entirely within the plasma chamber (Fig. 10B and 14 show antennas entirely within a plasma chamber. Furthermore, the containment shield is used to maintain pressure and contain radicals) [Fig. 4, 10B, 14 & 0044, 0050-0051];
Stowell does not specifically disclose a plurality of conductive antennae, extending along the first axis within the dielectric enclosure.
Godyak teaches and a plurality of conductive antennae, extending along the first axis within the dielectric enclosure (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, there a multiple coils 8060 within concentrator 8030) [Fig. 3A & 0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dielectric enclosure of Stowell to have a plurality of antenna, as in Godyak, since utilizing a larger number of smaller antenna is more scalable to larger substrate sizes [Godyak - 0012]. Furthermore, the examiner would like to note that modifying the dielectric enclosure of Stowell m to have two antenna instead of one would be a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose a movement mechanism, coupled to move at least one antenna of the plurality of conductive antenna with respect to another antenna of the plurality of antennae within the dielectric enclosure while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary.
Likhanskii teaches a movement mechanism (actuator 30), coupled to move at least one antenna while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary (as evidenced by Figs. 3A-3B, actuator 30 translates the individual conductive coils 123 without moving the outer tubes 121. The actuator 30 may be pneumatic or any type of actuator; it can be reasonably inferred that a physical actuator would have to be physically coupled to individual antennas in order to move them) [Fig. 3A, 3B & Col. 5 lines 53-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8, Col. 7 lines 25-47]. [I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Modified Stowell to be movable, as in Likhanskii, to allow plasma uniformity of a plasma chamber to be varied quickly. Furthermore, use of an actuator 30 may allow the internal antenna to be adjusted in a minimum amount of time without manual intervention. Thus, one plasma chamber may be able to perform various processing operations that previously used different plasma chambers [Likhanskii - Col. 8 lines 14-27]. It is further noted that since it has been established that there is a specific motivation to provide a movement mechanism for individual antennas, it would not be unreasonable to provide a movement mechanism to move the individual antennas of Modified Stowell. Since the actuator 30 of Likhanskii is capable of translating individual antennas, the combination of references would have a movement mechanism coupled to move at least one antenna (of a plurality of antennas) in the dielectric enclosure of Modified Stowell. Panagapoulos et al. (US 20130256271) also discloses that coupling an actuator to individual antennas allow for control over power profile to improve uniformity [Panagopoulos - 0070].
Furthermore, the limitations “to move at least one antenna of the plurality of conductive antenna with respect to another antenna of the plurality of antennae within the dielectric enclosure while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that the actuator 30 is shown as being capable of moving individual antennas without moving a surrounding enclosure [Likhanskii - Fig. 3A, 3B & Col. 5 lines 53-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8].
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Stowell (Stowell modified by Godyak) teaches the extraction assembly comprises an extraction plate (the bottom portion of containment shield 402, where apertures 414 are disposed), disposed within a first plane [Stowell - Fig. 4 & 0044]
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of conductive antennae have an arcuate shape, within a second plane, parallel to the first plane.
Likhanskii teaches and wherein the plurality of conductive antennae (conductive coils 223) have an arcuate shape (conductive coils 223 are arcuate in shape), within a second plane (xy plane occupied by conductive coils 223), parallel to the first plane (plane occupied by aperture 15) [Fig. 4A-4B & Col. 6 lines 10-11, 21-22].
Modified Stowell and Likhanskii are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Modified Stowell to be arcuate in shape, as in Likhanskii, to control and improve the uniformity of plasma density [Likhanskii - Col. 1 lines 45-50, 54-57].
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Stowell (Stowell modified by Godyak) teaches wherein the plurality of conductive antennae comprise a pair of antennae (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, there a multiple coils 8060 within concentrator 8030) [Godyak - Fig. 3A & 0086].
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose wherein the pair of antennae are disposed closer to one another in a middle portion.
Likhanskii teaches wherein the plurality of conductive antennae (conductive coils 223) comprise a pair of antennae, wherein the pair of antennae are disposed closer to one another in a middle portion (conductive coils 223 are closer to one another in a middle portion, as evidenced by Fig. 4B) [Fig. 4B & Col. 6 lines 46-59].
Modified Stowell and Likhanskii are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Modified Stowell to be closer to each other in a middle portion, as in Likhanskii, to control and improve the uniformity of plasma density [Likhanskii - Col. 1 lines 45-50, 54-57, Col. 6 lines 19-21].
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Stowell (Stowell modified by Godyak) does not specifically disclose a ferromagnetic insert assembly, disposed within the dielectric enclosure.
Likhanskii teaches a ferromagnetic insert assembly (ferromagnetic segments 440), disposed within the dielectric enclosure (outer tube 421) [Fig. 6-7 & Col. 8 lines 28-24].
Modified Stowell and Likhanskii are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Modified Stowell to have ferromagnetic inserts between them, as in Likhanskii, to control and improve the uniformity of plasma density [Likhanskii - Col. 1 lines 45-50, Col. 9 lines 55-62].
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowell (US 20100078320) in view of Godyak et al. (US 20120160806) and Likhanskii et al. (US 9613777), with Panagopoulos et al. (US 20130256271) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1, 4-5, and 7 above, and further in view of Omstead et al. (US 20160005594).
The limitations of Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Stowell teaches wherein the plurality of conductive antennae are movable with respect to one another within the dielectric enclosure along at least a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction (all man-made structures are capable of being moved) [Stowell - Fig. 4, 10B, 14 & 0044, 0050-0051].
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one extraction aperture is elongated along a first direction.
Omstead teaches wherein the at least one extraction aperture (extraction apertures 234) is elongated along a first direction (extraction apertures 234 are elongated in the x-direction) [Fig. 2C, 2D & 0057].
Modified Stowell and Omstead are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the extraction aperture of Modified Stowell to be a plurality of elongated apertures, as in Omstead, to apply a uniform flux of angled ions on to a substrate [Omstead - 0059].
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one extraction aperture comprises a plurality of extraction apertures, elongated along the first direction.
Omstead teaches wherein the at least one extraction aperture comprises a plurality of extraction apertures (extraction apertures 234), elongated along the first direction (extraction apertures 234 are elongated in the x-direction) [Fig. 2C, 2D & 0057].
Modified Stowell and Omstead are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the extraction aperture of Modified Stowell to be a plurality of elongated apertures, as in Omstead, to apply a uniform flux of angled ions on to a substrate [Omstead - 0059].
Claim(s) 10, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowell (US 20100078320) in view of Godyak et al. (US 20120160806) and Likhanskii et al. (US 9613777), with Panagopoulos et al. (US 20130256271) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 10:
Stowell teaches a processing system (deposition system 400), comprising: a plasma chamber (containment shield 402) to house a plasma; an extraction assembly (aperture 414), disposed along a side of the plasma chamber, and comprising at least one extraction aperture (aperture 414 comprises of multiple apertures, as evidenced by Fig. 4); and an antenna assembly (waveguide 406 and dielectric tube 404), the antenna assembly extending through the plasma chamber, along a first axis (as evidenced by Fig. 4, waveguide 406 extends through containment shield 402), the antenna assembly comprising: a dielectric enclosure (dielectric tube 404) located entirely within the plasma chamber (Fig. 10B and 14 show antennas entirely within a plasma chamber. Furthermore, the containment shield is used to maintain pressure and contain radicals) [Fig. 4, 10B, 14 & 0044, 0050-0051]; a process chamber (processing chamber 426), adjacent to the extraction assembly, and comprising a substrate stage (substrate supporting member 422), scannable along a scan direction, perpendicular to the first axis; and a power generator (microwave source 116), connected to the antenna assembly [Fig. 1, 4 & 0036, 0044].
Stowell does not specifically disclose a plurality of conductive antennae, extending along the first axis within the dielectric enclosure.
Godyak teaches and a plurality of conductive antennae, extending along the first axis within the dielectric enclosure (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, there a multiple coils 8060 within concentrator 8030) [Fig. 3A & 0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dielectric enclosure of Stowell to have a plurality of antenna, as in Godyak, since utilizing a larger number of smaller antenna is more scalable to larger substrate sizes [Godyak - 0012]. Furthermore, the examiner would like to note that modifying the dielectric enclosure of Stowell to have two antenna instead of one would be a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose a movement mechanism, coupled to move at least one antenna of the plurality of conductive antenna with respect to another antenna of the plurality of antennae within the dielectric enclosure while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary.
Likhanskii teaches a movement mechanism (actuator 30), coupled to move at least one antenna while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary (as evidenced by Figs. 3A-3B, actuator 30 translates the individual conductive coils 123 without moving the outer tubes 121. The actuator 30 may be pneumatic or any type of actuator; it can be reasonably inferred that a physical actuator would have to be physically coupled to individual antennas in order to move them) [Fig. 3A, 3B & Col. 5 lines 53-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8, Col. 7 lines 25-47]. [I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Modified Stowell to be movable, as in Likhanskii, to allow plasma uniformity of a plasma chamber to be varied quickly. Furthermore, use of an actuator 30 may allow the internal antenna to be adjusted in a minimum amount of time without manual intervention. Thus, one plasma chamber may be able to perform various processing operations that previously used different plasma chambers [Likhanskii - Col. 8 lines 14-27]. It is further noted that since it has been established that there is a specific motivation to provide a movement mechanism for individual antennas, it would not be unreasonable to provide a movement mechanism to move the individual antennas of Modified Stowell. Since the actuator 30 of Likhanskii is capable of translating individual antennas, the combination of references would have a movement mechanism coupled to move at least one antenna (of a plurality of antennas) in the dielectric enclosure of Modified Stowell. Panagapoulos et al. (US 20130256271) also discloses that coupling an actuator to individual antennas allow for control over power profile to improve uniformity [Panagopoulos - 0070].
Furthermore, the limitations “to move at least one antenna of the plurality of conductive antenna with respect to another antenna of the plurality of antennae within the dielectric enclosure while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is also noted that the actuator 30 is shown as being capable of moving individual antennas without moving a surrounding enclosure [Likhanskii - Fig. 3A, 3B & Col. 5 lines 53-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Stowell (Stowell modified by Godyak) teaches the extraction assembly comprises an extraction plate (the bottom portion of containment shield 402, where apertures 414 are disposed), disposed within a first plane [Stowell - Fig. 4 & 0044]
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of conductive antennae have an arcuate shape, within a second plane, parallel to the first plane.
Likhanskii teaches wherein the plurality of conductive antennae (conductive coils 223) have an arcuate shape (conductive coils 223 are arcuate in shape), within a second plane (xy plane occupied by conductive coils 223), parallel to the first plane (plane occupied by aperture 15) [Fig. 4A-4B & Col. 6 lines 10-11, 21-22].
Modified Stowell and Likhanskii are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Modified Stowell to be arcuate in shape, as in Likhanskii, to control and improve the uniformity of plasma density [Likhanskii - Col. 1 lines 45-50, 54-57].
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Stowell (Stowell modified by Godyak) teaches wherein the plurality of conductive antennae comprise a pair of antennae (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, there a multiple coils 8060 within concentrator 8030) [Godyak - Fig. 3A & 0086].
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose wherein the pair of antennae are disposed closer to one another in a middle portion.
Likhanskii teaches wherein the plurality of conductive antennae (conductive coils 223) comprise a pair of antennae, wherein the pair of antennae are disposed closer to one another in a middle portion (conductive coils 223 are closer to one another in a middle portion, as evidenced by Fig. 4B) [Fig. 4B & Col. 6 lines 46-59].
Modified Stowell and Likhanskii are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Modified Stowell to be closer to each other in a middle portion, as in Likhanskii, to control and improve the uniformity of plasma density [Likhanskii - Col. 1 lines 45-50, 54-57, Col. 6 lines 19-21].
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Stowell (Stowell modified by Godyak) does not specifically disclose a ferromagnetic insert assembly, disposed within the dielectric enclosure.
Likhanskii teaches a ferromagnetic insert assembly (ferromagnetic segments 440), disposed within the dielectric enclosure (outer tube 421) [Fig. 6-7 & Col. 8 lines 28-24]..
Modified Stowell and Likhanskii are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Modified Stowell to have ferromagnetic inserts between them, as in Likhanskii, to control and improve the uniformity of plasma density [Likhanskii - Col. 1 lines 45-50, Col. 9 lines 55-62].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowell (US 20100078320) in view of Godyak et al. (US 20120160806) and Likhanskii et al. (US 9613777), with Panagopoulos et al. (US 20130256271) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 10, 13-14, and 16 above, and further in view of Omstead et al. (US 20160005594).
The limitations of claims 10, 13-14, and 16 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Stowell teaches wherein the plurality of conductive antennae are movable with respect to one another within the dielectric enclosure along at least a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction (all man-made structures are capable of being moved) [Stowell - Fig. 4, 10B, 14 & 0044, 0050-0051].
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one extraction aperture is elongated along a first direction.
Omstead teaches wherein the at least one extraction aperture (extraction apertures 234) is elongated along a first direction (extraction apertures 234 are elongated in the x-direction) [Fig. 2C, 2D & 0057].
Stowell and Omstead are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the extraction aperture of Stowell to be a plurality of elongated apertures, as in Omstead, to apply a uniform flux of angled ions on to a substrate [Omstead - 0059].
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Stowell does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one extraction aperture comprises a plurality of extraction apertures, elongated along the first direction.
Omstead teaches wherein the at least one extraction aperture comprises a plurality of extraction apertures (extraction apertures 234), elongated along the first direction (extraction apertures 234 are elongated in the x-direction) [Fig. 2C, 2D & 0057].
Modified Stowell and Omstead are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the extraction aperture of Modified Stowell to be a plurality of elongated apertures, as in Omstead, to apply a uniform flux of angled ions on to a substrate [Omstead - 0059].
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassom et al. (US 20140320012) in view of Likhanskii et al. (US 9613777), with Panagopoulos et al. (US 20130256271) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 19:
Bassom teaches an antenna assembly (RF plasma source 370) for an inductively coupled ion source, comprising; a dielectric enclosure (dielectric sleeve 374), extending along a first direction from a first end to a second end; an inductively coupled plasma source (RF antennas 372a and 372b); a first conductive antenna (RF antenna 372a), extending through the dielectric enclosure, from the first end to the second end (dielectric sleeve 374 is disposed around the antennas); and a second conductive antenna (RF antenna 372b), extending through the dielectric enclosure, from the first end to the second end (dielectric sleeve 374 is disposed around the antennas) [Fig. 4 & Abstract, 0032].
Bassom does not specifically disclose a movement mechanism, coupled to move at least one of the first conductive antenna and the second conductive antenna within the dielectric enclosure, along at least a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary.
Likhanskii teaches a movement mechanism (actuator 30), coupled to move at least one antenna while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary (as evidenced by Figs. 3A-3B, actuator 30 translates the individual conductive coils 123 without moving the outer tubes 121. The actuator 30 may be pneumatic or any type of actuator; it can be reasonably inferred that a physical actuator would have to be physically coupled to individual antennas in order to move them) [Fig. 3A, 3B & Col. 5 lines 53-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8, Col. 7 lines 25-47]. [I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Bassom to be movable, as in Likhanskii, to allow plasma uniformity of a plasma chamber to be varied quickly. Furthermore, use of an actuator 30 may allow the internal antenna to be adjusted in a minimum amount of time without manual intervention. Thus, one plasma chamber may be able to perform various processing operations that previously used different plasma chambers [Likhanskii - Col. 8 lines 14-27]. It is further noted that since it has been established that there is a specific motivation to provide a movement mechanism for individual antennas, it would not be unreasonable to provide a movement mechanism to move the individual antennas of Bassom. Since the actuator 30 of Likhanskii is capable of translating individual antennas, the combination of references would have a movement mechanism coupled to move at least one antenna (of a plurality of antennas) in the dielectric enclosure of Bassom.
Additionally/alternatively, Panagopoulos teaches a movement mechanism, coupled to move at least one antenna (an actuator may be coupled to the mid/third RF coil to change its position relative to the first/center RF coil and/or relative to the second/edge RF coil. Alternatively or additionally, an actuator may be coupled to the first/center RF coil to change its position relative to the mid/third RF coil and/or relative to the second/edge RF coil. Alternatively or additionally, an actuator may be coupled to the second/edge RF coil to change its position relative to the mid/third RF coil and/or relative to the first/center RF coil) [Fig. 1A & 0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Bassom to be movable, as in Panagopoulos, to allow for control over power profile to improve uniformity [Panagopoulos - 0070]. It is further noted that since it has been established that there is a specific motivation to provide a movement mechanism for individual antennas, it would not be unreasonable to provide a movement mechanism to move the individual antennas of Bassom. Since the actuator 30 of Panagapoulos is capable of translating individual antennas, the combination of references would have a movement mechanism coupled to move at least one antenna (of a plurality of antennas) in the dielectric enclosure of Bassom. Panagapoulos et al. (US 20130256271) also discloses that coupling an actuator to individual antennas allow for control over power profile to improve uniformity [Panagopoulos - 0070].
Furthermore, the limitations “located entirely within a plasma chamber, to move at least one of the first conductive antenna and the second conductive antenna within the dielectric enclosure, along at least a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that claim 19 is directed to a “an antenna assembly,” and as such, structures outside the antenna assembly are not considered structural. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art can place an antenna assembly in locations other than a plasma chamber. It is also noted that the actuator 30 is shown as being capable of moving individual antennas without moving a surrounding enclosure [Likhanskii - Fig. 3A, 3B & Col. 5 lines 53-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8].
Regarding Claim 20:
Bassom does not specifically disclose a ferromagnetic insert assembly, disposed within the dielectric enclosure.
Likhanskii teaches a ferromagnetic insert assembly (ferromagnetic segments 440), disposed within the dielectric enclosure (outer tube 421) [Fig. 6-7 & Col. 8 lines 28-24].
Bassom and Likhanskii are analogous inventions in the field of ion source assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antennae of Bassom to have ferromagnetic inserts between them, as in Likhanskii, to control and improve the uniformity of plasma density [Likhanskii - Col. 1 lines 45-50, Col. 9 lines 55-62].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/25/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 USC 112b has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/25/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 19-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a movement mechanism, coupled to move at least one antenna of the plurality of conductive antenna with respect to another antenna of the plurality of antennae within the dielectric enclosure while the dielectric enclosure remains stationary,” because Likhanskii et al. (US 9613777) fails to disclose or suggest a mechanism that is adapted to move antennae that are located in the same dielectric enclosure relative to one another. In response, the examiner would like to note that although Likhanskii does not specifically have a mechanism for moving antenna within the same dielectric enclosure, it does provide specific motivation for moving individual antennas (Figs. 3A-3B show actuator 30 being used to translate the individual conductive coils 123; the translation of individual coils can allow plasma uniformity of a plasma chamber to be varied quickly) [Likhanskii – Fig. 3A, 3B & Col. 5 lines 53-67, Col. 6 lines 1-8, Col. 8 lines 14-27]. As such, it would not be unreasonable to provide a movement mechanism (such as the actuator 30 of Likhanskii) to move the individual antennas of Modified Stowell et al. (US 20100078320). Since the actuator 30 of Likhanskii is capable of translating individual antennas, the combination of references would have a movement mechanism coupled to move at least one antenna (of a plurality of antennas) in the dielectric enclosure of Modified Stowell. It is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Panagopoulos et al. (US 20130256271) has also been used as a further evidentiary reference herein.
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718