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
Responsive to communication filed 08/10/2026
Claims 1, 5-8, 13-15, and 18-20 are pending
Claim 8 has been amended.
Claims 2-4, 9-12, and 16-17 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 3, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa et al. (US 20120248066) in view of Bailey et al. (US 6320320), Ishii et al. (US 5571366), Wang et al. (US 6527968), and Yin et al. (US 6270617), with Collins et al. (US 6238588) and Nakagami (US 20100066251) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Yamazawa teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a chamber having a treating space therein and provided with a dielectric window (dielectric window 52); a substrate support unit (susceptor 12) configured to support a substrate in the treating space; a gas supply unit (gas discharge holes 78) configured to supply a gas into the treating space; and a plasma generation unit (antenna unit 54) configured to excite the gas within the treating space to generate plasma, wherein the plasma generation unit comprises: a radio frequency (RF) power (power supply 72) supplying an RF signal; an impedance matcher (matching unit 74) connected to the RF power; a first antenna (coil 58) directly connected to the impedance matcher and being supplied with the RF signal through the impedance matcher (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the matching unit 74 is directly connected to coil 58); and a second antenna (coil 60) directly connected to the impedance matcher and being supplied with the RF signal through the impedance matcher (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the matching unit 74 is directly connected to coil 60), wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are configured to generate the plasma from the gas supplied inside the treating space (power supply 72 supplies power to the coils to generate plasma), wherein the first antenna is disposed at an inside of the second antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the coil 58 is disposed inside coil 60), wherein a lower surface of the first antenna is provided at the same height as a lower surface of the second antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the coils 58 and 60 have lower surfaces at equal heights have lower surfaces at equal heights), and wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are disposed at a distance (as evidenced by Fig. 1, coils 58 and 60 are disposed at a distance) [Fig. 1 & 0046, 0053, 0057-0058].
Yamazawa does not specifically disclose a first antenna including a pair of antennas wherein the plurality of first coils are stacked as a double structure, the plurality of first coils having a first group of coils stacked on each other and a second group of coils stacked on each other in the double structure, a diameter of first group of coils being greater than a diameter of second group of coils.
Bailey teaches wherein the plurality of first coils (multi-turn antenna arrangement 400) are stacked as a double structure (the antenna arrangement 400 consists of multiple turns 416, 418, 420, and 422), the plurality of first coils having a first group of coils (turns 418 and 422) stacked on each other and a second group of coils (turns 416 and 420) stacked on each other in the double structure (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the antenna arrangement 400 comprises turns 416 and 420 that are stacked on top of each other, and turns 418 and 422 that are also stacked on each other), a diameter of first group of coils being greater than a diameter of second group of coils (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the turns 418 and 422 are positioned at a greater diameter than the turns 416 and 422) [Fig. 2-4 & Col. 10 lines 18-28, Col. 11 lines 7-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first coil of Modified Yamazawa to be a double stacked structure, as in Bailey, to improve plasma uniformity [Bailey - Abstract, Col. 10 lines 39-52]. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that utilizing a double stacked inner coil is a well-known technique in the art [Collins - Col. 12 lines 60-67, Col. 13 lines 1-16]. Wang et al. (US 6527968) also discloses that the number of coil turns is a result effective variable. Specifically, the product of current and antenna turns can be selected to provide a desired plasma density [Wang - Col. 6 lines 1-34].
Modified Yamazawa does not specifically disclose wherein the first antenna includes a plurality of first coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein the second antenna includes a plurality of second coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein a total height of the plurality of second coils is greater than a total height of the plurality of first coils, wherein an upper end of the second antenna is higher than an upper end of the first antenna.
While Ishii does not specifically teach "wherein the first antenna includes a plurality of first coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein the second antenna includes a plurality of second coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein a total height of the plurality of second coils is greater than a total height of the plurality of first coils, wherein an upper end of the second antenna is higher than an upper end of the first antenna," Ishii does teach that the number of layers (and therefore height) of an antenna is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of layers of an antenna affects how plasma density is distributed and how precisely it can be controlled [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum height or number of layers for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma density distribution [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that increasing the height of a solenoidal antenna (by increasing turns) increases the plasma density [Collins - Col. 6 lines 33-54, Col. 7 lines 43-56, Col. 8 lines 10-16, Col. 13 lines 55-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2].
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey and Ishii) does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of second coils are stacked as a single structure.
While Wang does not specifically teach "wherein the plurality of second coils are stacked as a single structure," Wang does disclose that the number of coil turns is a result effective variable. Specifically, the product of current and antenna turns can be selected to provide a desired plasma density [Wang - Col. 6 lines 1-34]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum number of turns for an antenna to obtained a desired plasma density [Wang - Col. 6 lines 1-34]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey, Ishii, and Wang) does not specifically disclose the plurality of second coils having a same diameter in the single structure.
While Yin does not specifically teach "the plurality of second coils having a same diameter in the single structure," Yin does teach that the diameter of a coil is a result effective variable. Specifically, the diameter of an antenna can be adjusted to obtain a desired degree of plasma ion density uniformity [Yin - Col. 20 lines 58-67, Col. 21 lines 1-7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma ion density uniformity [Yin - Col. 20 lines 58-67, Col. 21 lines 1-7]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Nakagami (US 20100066251) also discloses that stacked second coils (all of which have the same diameter as each other) is a structure that helps promote plasma uniformity [Nakagami -0008, 0027, 0080, 0090].
Furthermore, the claim limitations “so as to reduce mutual coupling between the plurality of first coils included in the first antenna and the plurality of second coils included in the second antenna,” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It’s noted that the distance between coils can be set due to any reason.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey, Ishii, and Wang) does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of second coils of the second antenna have the same diameter as each other.
While Yin does not specifically teach "wherein the plurality of second coils of the second antenna have the same diameter as each other," Yin does teach that the diameter of a coil is a result effective variable. Specifically, the diameter of an antenna can be adjusted to obtain a desired degree of plasma ion density uniformity [Yin - Col. 20 lines 58-67, Col. 21 lines 1-7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma ion density uniformity [Yin - Col. 20 lines 58-67, Col. 21 lines 1-7]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Nakagami (US 20100066251) also discloses that stacked second coils (all of which have the same diameter as each other) is a structure that helps promote plasma uniformity [Nakagami -0008, 0027, 0080, 0090].
Regarding Claim 5:
Yamazawa teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are directly connected with each other using a wire (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the coils 58 and 60 are directly connected to each other using a wire) [Fig. 1 & 0053].
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey) does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of second coils of the second antenna is four.
While Ishii does not specifically teach "wherein a number of the plurality of coils of the second antenna is four," Ishii does teach that the number of layers (and therefore height) of an antenna is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of layers of an antenna affects how plasma density is distributed and how precisely it can be controlled [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an number of layers for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma density distribution [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that increasing the height of a solenoidal antenna (by increasing turns) increases the plasma density [Collins - Col. 6 lines 33-54, Col. 7 lines 43-56, Col. 8 lines 10-16, Col. 13 lines 55-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2].
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey) does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of first coils in the first antenna is four or less.
While Ishii does not specifically teach "wherein a number of the plurality of coils in the first antenna is four or less," Ishii does teach that the number of layers (and therefore height) of an antenna is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of layers of an antenna affects how plasma density is distributed and how precisely it can be controlled [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an number of layers for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma density distribution [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that increasing the height of a solenoidal antenna (by increasing turns) increases the plasma density [Collins - Col. 6 lines 33-54, Col. 7 lines 43-56, Col. 8 lines 10-16, Col. 13 lines 55-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2].
Claim(s) 8 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa et al. (US 20120248066) in view of Bailey et al. (US 6320320), Ishii et al. (US 5571366), Wang et al. (US 6527968), and Yin et al. (US 6270617), with Collins et al. (US 6238588) and Nakagami (US 20100066251) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 8:
Yamazawa teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a chamber having a treating space therein; a dielectric window (dielectric window 52) configured to seal a top of the chamber; a substrate support unit (susceptor 12) configured to support a substrate in the treating space; a gas supply unit (gas discharge holes 78) configured to supply a gas into the treating space; and a plasma generation unit (antenna unit 54) configured to excite the gas within the treating space to generate plasma, wherein the plasma generation unit comprises: an RF power (power supply 72) supplying an RF signal; a first antenna (coil 58) directly connected to the impedance matcher and being supplied with the RF signal through the impedance matcher (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the matching unit 74 is directly connected to coil 58); and a second antenna (coil 60) directly connected to the impedance matcher and being supplied with the RF signal through the impedance matcher (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the matching unit 74 is directly connected to coil 60), wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are configured to generate the plasma from the gas supplied inside the treating space (power supply 72 supplies power to the coils to generate plasma), wherein the first antenna is disposed at an inside of the second antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the coil 58 is disposed inside coil 60), wherein a lower surface of the first antenna is provided at the same height as a lower surface of the second antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the coils 58 and 60 have lower surfaces at equal heights have lower surfaces at equal heights), and wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are disposed at a distance (as evidenced by Fig. 1, coils 58 and 60 are disposed at a distance) [Fig. 1 & 0046, 0053, 0057-0058].
Yamazawa does not specifically disclose a first antenna including a pair of antennas wherein the plurality of first coils are stacked as a double structure, the plurality of first coils having a first group of coils stacked on each other and a second group of coils stacked on each other in the double structure, a diameter of first group of coils being greater than a diameter of second group of coils.
Bailey teaches wherein the plurality of first coils (multi-turn antenna arrangement 400) are stacked as a double structure (the antenna arrangement 400 consists of multiple turns 416, 418, 420, and 422), the plurality of first coils having a first group of coils (turns 418 and 422) stacked on each other and a second group of coils (turns 416 and 420) stacked on each other in the double structure (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the antenna arrangement 400 comprises turns 416 and 420 that are stacked on top of each other, and turns 418 and 422 that are also stacked on each other), a diameter of first group of coils being greater than a diameter of second group of coils (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the turns 418 and 422 are positioned at a greater diameter than the turns 416 and 422) [Fig. 2-4 & Col. 10 lines 18-28, Col. 11 lines 7-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first coil of Modified Yamazawa to be a double stacked structure, as in Bailey, to improve plasma uniformity [Bailey - Abstract, Col. 10 lines 39-52]. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that utilizing a double stacked inner coil is a well-known technique in the art [Collins - Col. 12 lines 60-67, Col. 13 lines 1-16]. Wang et al. (US 6527968) also discloses that the number of coil turns is a result effective variable. Specifically, the product of current and antenna turns can be selected to provide a desired plasma density [Wang - Col. 6 lines 1-34].
Modified Yamazawa does not specifically disclose wherein the first antenna includes a plurality of first coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein the second antenna includes a plurality of second coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein a total height of the plurality of second coils is greater than a total height of the plurality of first coils, wherein an upper end of the second antenna is higher than an upper end of the first antenna.
While Ishii does not specifically teach "wherein the first antenna includes a plurality of first coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein the second antenna includes a plurality of second coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein a total height of the plurality of second coils is greater than a total height of the plurality of first coils, wherein an upper end of the second antenna is higher than an upper end of the first antenna," Ishii does teach that the number of layers (and therefore height) of an antenna is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of layers of an antenna affects how plasma density is distributed and how precisely it can be controlled [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum height or number of layers for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma density distribution [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that increasing the height of a solenoidal antenna (by increasing turns) increases the plasma density [Collins - Col. 6 lines 33-54, Col. 7 lines 43-56, Col. 8 lines 10-16, Col. 13 lines 55-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2].
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey and Ishii) does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of second coils are stacked as a single structure.
While Wang does not specifically teach "wherein the plurality of second coils are stacked as a single structure," Wang does disclose that the number of coil turns is a result effective variable. Specifically, the product of current and antenna turns can be selected to provide a desired plasma density [Wang - Col. 6 lines 1-34]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum number of turns for an antenna to obtained a desired plasma density [Wang - Col. 6 lines 1-34]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey, Ishii, and Wang) does not specifically disclose the plurality of second coils having a same diameter in the single structure.
While Yin does not specifically teach "the plurality of second coils having a same diameter in the single structure," Yin does teach that the diameter of a coil is a result effective variable. Specifically, the diameter of an antenna can be adjusted to obtain a desired degree of plasma ion density uniformity [Yin - Col. 20 lines 58-67, Col. 21 lines 1-7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma ion density uniformity [Yin - Col. 20 lines 58-67, Col. 21 lines 1-7]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Nakagami (US 20100066251) also discloses that stacked second coils (all of which have the same diameter as each other) is a structure that helps promote plasma uniformity [Nakagami -0008, 0027, 0080, 0090].
Furthermore, the claim limitations “so as to reduce mutual coupling between the plurality of first coils included in the first antenna and the plurality of second coils included in the second antenna,” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It’s noted that the distance between coils can be set due to any reason.
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey) does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of second coils of the second antenna is four.
While Ishii does not specifically teach "wherein a number of the plurality of coils of the second antenna is four," Ishii does teach that the number of layers (and therefore height) of an antenna is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of layers of an antenna affects how plasma density is distributed and how precisely it can be controlled [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an number of layers for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma density distribution [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that increasing the height of a solenoidal antenna (by increasing turns) increases the plasma density [Collins - Col. 6 lines 33-54, Col. 7 lines 43-56, Col. 8 lines 10-16, Col. 13 lines 55-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2].
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey) does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of first coils in the first antenna is four or less.
While Ishii does not specifically teach "wherein a number of the plurality of coils in the first antenna is four or less," Ishii does teach that the number of layers (and therefore height) of an antenna is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of layers of an antenna affects how plasma density is distributed and how precisely it can be controlled [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an number of layers for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma density distribution [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that increasing the height of a solenoidal antenna (by increasing turns) increases the plasma density [Collins - Col. 6 lines 33-54, Col. 7 lines 43-56, Col. 8 lines 10-16, Col. 13 lines 55-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2].
Claim(s) 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa et al. (US 20120248066) in view of Bailey et al. (US 6320320), Ishii et al. (US 5571366), Wang et al. (US 6527968), and Yin et al. (US 6270617), with Collins et al. (US 6238588) and Nakagami (US 20100066251) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 15:
Yamazawa teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a chamber having a treating space therein and provided with a dielectric window (dielectric window 52); a substrate support unit (susceptor 12) configured to support a substrate in the treating space; a gas supply unit (gas discharge holes 78) configured to supply a gas into the treating space; and a plasma generation unit (antenna unit 54) configured to excite the gas within the treating space to generate plasma, wherein the plasma generation unit comprises: a radio frequency (RF) power (power supply 72) supplying an RF signal; an impedance matcher (matching unit 74) connected to the RF power; a first antenna (coil 58) directly connected to the impedance matcher and being supplied with the RF signal through the impedance matcher (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the matching unit 74 is directly connected to coil 58); and a second antenna (coil 60) directly connected to the impedance matcher and being supplied with the RF signal through the impedance matcher (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the matching unit 74 is directly connected to coil 60), wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are configured to generate the plasma from the gas supplied inside the treating space (power supply 72 supplies power to the coils to generate plasma), wherein the first antenna is disposed at an inside of the second antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the coil 58 is disposed inside coil 60), wherein a lower surface of the first antenna is provided at the same height as a lower surface of the second antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the coils 58 and 60 have lower surfaces at equal heights have lower surfaces at equal heights), and wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are disposed at a distance (as evidenced by Fig. 1, coils 58 and 60 are disposed at a distance) [Fig. 1 & 0046, 0053, 0057-0058].
Yamazawa does not specifically disclose a first antenna including a pair of antennas wherein the plurality of first coils are stacked as a double structure, the plurality of first coils having a first group of coils stacked on each other and a second group of coils stacked on each other in the double structure, a diameter of first group of coils being greater than a diameter of second group of coils.
Bailey teaches wherein the plurality of first coils (multi-turn antenna arrangement 400) are stacked as a double structure (the antenna arrangement 400 consists of multiple turns 416, 418, 420, and 422), the plurality of first coils having a first group of coils (turns 418 and 422) stacked on each other and a second group of coils (turns 416 and 420) stacked on each other in the double structure (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the antenna arrangement 400 comprises turns 416 and 420 that are stacked on top of each other, and turns 418 and 422 that are also stacked on each other), a diameter of first group of coils being greater than a diameter of second group of coils (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the turns 418 and 422 are positioned at a greater diameter than the turns 416 and 422) [Fig. 2-4 & Col. 10 lines 18-28, Col. 11 lines 7-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first coil of Modified Yamazawa to be a double stacked structure, as in Bailey, to improve plasma uniformity [Bailey - Abstract, Col. 10 lines 39-52]. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that utilizing a double stacked inner coil is a well-known technique in the art [Collins - Col. 12 lines 60-67, Col. 13 lines 1-16]. Wang et al. (US 6527968) also discloses that the number of coil turns is a result effective variable. Specifically, the product of current and antenna turns can be selected to provide a desired plasma density [Wang - Col. 6 lines 1-34].
Modified Yamazawa does not specifically disclose wherein the first antenna includes a plurality of first coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein the second antenna includes a plurality of second coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein a total height of the plurality of second coils is greater than a total height of the plurality of first coils, wherein an upper end of the second antenna is higher than an upper end of the first antenna.
While Ishii does not specifically teach "wherein the first antenna includes a plurality of first coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein the second antenna includes a plurality of second coils stacked on each other above the dielectric window, wherein a total height of the plurality of second coils is greater than a total height of the plurality of first coils, wherein an upper end of the second antenna is higher than an upper end of the first antenna," Ishii does teach that the number of layers (and therefore height) of an antenna is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of layers of an antenna affects how plasma density is distributed and how precisely it can be controlled [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum height or number of layers for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma density distribution [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that increasing the height of a solenoidal antenna (by increasing turns) increases the plasma density [Collins - Col. 6 lines 33-54, Col. 7 lines 43-56, Col. 8 lines 10-16, Col. 13 lines 55-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2].
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey and Ishii) does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of second coils are stacked as a single structure.
While Wang does not specifically teach "wherein the plurality of second coils are stacked as a single structure," Wang does disclose that the number of coil turns is a result effective variable. Specifically, the product of current and antenna turns can be selected to provide a desired plasma density [Wang - Col. 6 lines 1-34]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum number of turns for an antenna to obtained a desired plasma density [Wang - Col. 6 lines 1-34]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey, Ishii, and Wang) does not specifically disclose the plurality of second coils having a same diameter in the single structure.
While Yin does not specifically teach "the plurality of second coils having a same diameter in the single structure," Yin does teach that the diameter of a coil is a result effective variable. Specifically, the diameter of an antenna can be adjusted to obtain a desired degree of plasma ion density uniformity [Yin - Col. 20 lines 58-67, Col. 21 lines 1-7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum diameter for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma ion density uniformity [Yin - Col. 20 lines 58-67, Col. 21 lines 1-7]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Nakagami (US 20100066251) also discloses that stacked second coils (all of which have the same diameter as each other) is a structure that helps promote plasma uniformity [Nakagami -0008, 0027, 0080, 0090].
Furthermore, the claim limitations “so as to reduce mutual coupling between the plurality of first coils included in the first antenna and the plurality of second coils included in the second antenna,” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It’s noted that the distance between coils can be set due to any reason.
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey) does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of second coils of the second antenna is four.
While Ishii does not specifically teach "wherein a number of the plurality of coils of the second antenna is four," Ishii does teach that the number of layers (and therefore height) of an antenna is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of layers of an antenna affects how plasma density is distributed and how precisely it can be controlled [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an number of layers for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma density distribution [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that increasing the height of a solenoidal antenna (by increasing turns) increases the plasma density [Collins - Col. 6 lines 33-54, Col. 7 lines 43-56, Col. 8 lines 10-16, Col. 13 lines 55-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2].
Regarding Claim 19:
Modified Yamazawa (Yamazawa modified by Bailey) does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of first coils in the first antenna is four or less.
While Ishii does not specifically teach "wherein a number of the plurality of coils in the first antenna is four or less," Ishii does teach that the number of layers (and therefore height) of an antenna is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of layers of an antenna affects how plasma density is distributed and how precisely it can be controlled [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an number of layers for an antenna in order to obtain a desired plasma density distribution [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Collins et al. (US 6238588) also discloses that increasing the height of a solenoidal antenna (by increasing turns) increases the plasma density [Collins - Col. 6 lines 33-54, Col. 7 lines 43-56, Col. 8 lines 10-16, Col. 13 lines 55-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2].
Regarding Claim 20:
Yamazawa teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are connected in parallel with each other (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the coils 58 and 60 are connected in parallel) [Fig. 1 & 0053].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 13-15, and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bailey et al. (US 6320320) and Ishii et al. (US 5571366) cannot be used to modify Yamazawa et al. (US 20120248066) because Yamazawa achieves uniformity through impedance control, whereas Bailey and Ishii achieve uniformity through changes in the physical structure of the antenna. As such, physical modification of the coils of Yamazawa would alter the principle of operation and would be hindsight.
In response, the examiner would like to note that the aforementioned argument is a bodily incorporation argument. In response to applicant's bodily incorporation argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Bailey discloses it’d be beneficial to have a double stacked structure to improve plasma uniformity [Bailey - Abstract, Col. 10 lines 39-52]. Ishii discloses a result effective variable for antenna height [Ishii - Col. 9 lines 54-67, Col. 10 lines 1-6]. As such, both references disclose specific motivations for their physical modification. Furthermore, controlling uniformity via impedance matching is not mutually exclusive to controlling plasma distribution via physical modification. It’s also noted that an ICP apparatus would benefit from multiple ways to control plasma distribution and density. In fact, Ishii itself discloses stacked antennas with matching circuits [Ishii – Fig. 5].
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Both Ishii and Bailey provide specific teachings/motivations for their structural modification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights