DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (11/22/2021), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1, 8-15 and 31 were examined in a Non-Final on 3/14/2024. A Final office action in response to Applicant’s submission of 6/13/2024 was mailed on 7/26/2024. Claims 1, 10-15 and 31-36 were examined. A second Non-Final was mailed on 5/1/2025 in response to a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/18/2024 and 9/26/2024 was entered. Claims 1, 10-13, 15 and 31-36 were examined. A second Final Office action in response to applicant’s submission of 7/31/2025 was mailed on 8/14/2025. Claims 1, 10-13, 15 and 31-36 were examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 10-13, 15 and 31-36 are pending and being examined.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s amendments to specification (para 68) and Fig 2E is not entered as being new matter.
Regarding Moller, Applicant states that the proposed modification would alter the fundamental purpose and operational parameters of Moller’s disclosed system. This argument is not persuasive since the proposed modification did not modify Moller but rather the primary reference. However, in view of the amendment, a different reference is used in the present office action.
Regarding Dhindsa, Applicant argues that the teaching regarding number and shape of holes in Dhindsa is in a different context (P 14).
In response it is noted that this teaching is included in paragraph 72 as noted below and refers specifically to Fig 5F and 5G (note the underlined).
The conductance control structure 202 can be further shifted to open selected outlet ports 116, 116', 116'', 116'''. It should be understood that while each portion of the outlet ports 116, 116', 116'', 116''' corresponds to approximately a quadrant of the plasma confinement structure 114, it should be understood that the number, shape and placement of the openings 516 in the conductance control structure 202 can be selected to restrict or un-restrict the outlet flow through as few as a single one of the outlet ports 116, 116', 116'', 116'''.
It is also noted that this structure allows opening a single quadrant out of four and is therefore discrete ON/OFF.
Regarding multiple modifications, it is noted that having multiple references to teach multiple features linked by proper motivation would not be improper.
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 1, 10-13, 15 and 31-36 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amendments to claim 1 as below is unclear and indefinite for the following reasons.
The terms “first base of the inner side wall”, “second base of the inner side wall”, “first opening in the outer side wall”, “second opening in the inner side wall”, “third opening in the outer side wall” and “fourth opening in the inner side wall” are not stated or defined in the specification.
Regarding openings, the specification states that opening exists through a liner or inner side wall 112b or gas injectors formed in a space between the outer side wall 112A and inner side wall 112B (Para 68 of the Pub.) The specification points to Fig 2E but Fig 2E does not show any such openings. Applicant has submitted amended specification of Para 68 and replacement drawing for Fig 2E. However, these are not entered as appearing to be new matter and unclear as not being supported by original specification. This matter was addressed in OA dared 8/14/2025 and the Applicant was advised that no new matter will be admitted.
Therefore, it is apparent that the location of the gas injector and/or passage is merely to provide gas proximate the substrate conveniently and there is no other inventive or critical aspect to it. The present office action however, addresses this as best understood.
Claim 12 is additionally indefinite since there is no algorithm or program for gas control and rotation of the conductance ring.
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 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.
Claims 1, 10-11, 13, 15 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinriki et al (US 6806211) in view of Shoji et al (US 20180142354), Dhindsa et al (US 20150060404) and Shigenori Ishihara (US 20120031748).
Shinriki et al discloses a plasma chamber (Fig 1A) comprising:
Side walls;
a support surface (2) for a substrate inside the processing chamber;
a plurality of gas injectors (3A or 3B) installed inside a side wall of the processing chamber so as to inject gas parallel to the substrate,
a plurality of pump ports (4A or 4B) for exhausting and vacuuming the inside of the processing chamber and conductance control valves 6A or 6B.
Shinriki et al do not disclose plasma screen and specific conductance control rings as claimed.
Shinriki et al teach that gas injector 3A corresponds to exhaust 4A and 3B corresponds to 4B so that at one time one of the two could be function (abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would know that plasma screen is used on exhaust inlets to prevent plasma from flowing into the exhaust.
Shoji et al disclose plasma screen (Fig 1A, 130 and Para 24) to shield the plasma.
It would have been obvious therefore to have plasma screen on pump ports in Shinriki et al.
Regarding outer sidewall and inner side wall as discussed above, this does not appear to be anything more than an arrangement of part for convenience. However, such structure is disclosed by Shigenori Ishihara.
Shigenori Ishihara discloses a plasma processing apparatus including outer sidewall (104), inner sidewall (110), space between the two and gas flow vertically offset as claimed (Fig 7). Inner wall prevents the gas inlet from deposition (Par 50).
Therefore, having sidewalls for control of gas flow in a desired direction and protection of gas inlet would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Regarding conductance control rings, Dhindsa et al disclose a plasma treatment chamber comprising one or more sidewalls (Fig 2A-2B, 3A-3F, 4A-4B);
a support surface within the one or more sidewalls on a pedestal to hold a workpiece in a processing region (106); a first pump port along the one or more sidewalls to pump out the first gas flow (118); a second pump port along the one or more sidewalls to pump out the second gas flow (118); and one or more conductance control rings (Fig 5A-5E) to modulate conductance of the first and second pump ports, the one or more conductance control rings located proximate to first and second plasma screens, respectively (Fig 3E and 3F 114A).
Regarding the limitation
“conductance control ring comprising a disc shape having a single opening that is sized to cover the top of the first pump ports and the top of second pump port, wherein the conductance control ring is rotatable so that the opening aligns with and opens a currently active pump port.”
It is noted that Dhindsa et al disclose in (Para 68-72 and Fig 5F and 5G), two of the four quadrants corresponding to four pump ports. In Fig 5F upper left quadrant, 116 is fully open since holes denoted by 516 are fully aligned in open position. In Fig 5G, lower left quadrant denoted by 116’ is aligned with 516. Therefore, one of the four quadrants corresponding to one of the four pump ports could be open depending upon 516. The only difference with the claim is that claim has one hole instead of plurality of holes 516 and corresponding holes of 116, 116’, 116 “or 116”’. Dhindsa however teaches that the number and shape of holes could be modified.
Therefore, the claimed conductance control ring would only be an obvious variation of disclosed conductance control ring of Dhindsa.
Regarding claim 10 conductance control ring is rotatable with actuator (Dhindsa 207). Also, the structure of control ring in Fig 5F makes it possible to selectively open a pump port (See the opening of quadrant 116).
Claim 11 the actuator could place the control ring in step with opening of a particular gas in Shinriki et al modified by Dhindsa et al.
Regarding claim 13 outer and inner diameter of Dhindsa are conforming to the process region.
Regarding claim 15, a conductance control ring above the plasma screen would be an obvious variation of Dhindsa.
Regarding claim 31 additional limitation of multiphase rotating cross-flow operation is a functional limitation using gas injector with opposite pump out port. The disclosed apparatus of Shinriki et al modified by Dhindsa et al is capable of such use.
Regarding claims 32-36, three or four gas injectors with corresponding pump ports are disclosed in Fig 18C and 18D of Shinriki and pump ports are disclosed in Dhindsa.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinriki et al (US 6806211) in view of Shoji et al (US 20180142354), Dhindsa et al (US 20150060404) and Shigenori Ishihara (US 20120031748) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Joydeep Guha (US 20180082826).
As before, claim 12 requires a controller using a machine learning model to set gas parameters. It is noted however that there is no specificity about the controller or mode of operation. Machine learning model was however used in prior art to set operating parameters of plasma processing apparatus. Moreover, this is a functional limitation and the primary references are capable of such control.
For example, Joydeep Guha discloses using a machine learning model to refine adjustments to process parameters (See at least Abstract and Para 39) which include gas control (Fig 1).
Using a machine learning model in Shinriki et al in view of Dhindsa et al to refine process parameters like gas flow and chamber pressure which would require control of conductance would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Furukawa et al (US 20170178979) discloses outer wall (61), inner wall 68 and gas injector 81 and vertically offset from inlet to distribute gas all around in the process chamber (Fig 1).
Kinose (US 20200392618) discloses outer wall (above 4a), inner wall 5 and gas injector 4a and vertically offset from inlet to distribute gas all around in the process chamber (Fig 1).
Lian et al (US 20200381213) discloses outer wall (200), inner wall (300) and gas injector 300 to distribute gas all around in the process chamber (Fig 1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716