DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 6/5/2026.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 17-20, and 23-26 are pending.
Claims 6, 10-16, and 21-22 are cancelled.
Claim 26 is new.
Claims 1, 3-4, 17-19, and 23-24 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity of the record and brevity of this action, the Examiner construes all claims according to the following:
Regarding the first, second, third, and fourth materials, the claims are replete with functionality and/or properties of these materials as present in a plasma processing apparatus.
In accordance with the MPEP and established case law, the Examiner respectfully submits that each and every material function/property recited in the claims is an inherent feature of the material. If the prior art discloses the claimed material, even if it is silent regarding the claimed function/property, it meets the limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2112.01(I), In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The instant disclosure does not provide any special modification to, morphology of, or specific process of making the claimed materials, thus the prior art merely needs to disclose the same material/chemistry.
For clarity, the Examiner notes Applicant has amended the claims such that the first material is quartz, the second material is at least one of borosilicate glass or boron nitride, and the third material is at least one of titanium or stainless steel. The fourth material is only recited as different from the first, second, and third materials.
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 7 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is regarded as indefinite in scope because the “second material” of claim 1 is only disposed on a ceiling surface of the chamber, where claim 7 requires that an actuator be coupled to the second material. As such, the limitation is unclear in light of the disclosure since no actuator is coupled to the ceiling of the chamber.
The Examiner believes this error stems from the most recent narrowing of claim 1, thus interprets the limitation as follows in the interest of compact and expedited prosecution: “an actuator coupled to the substrate support structure, the actuator configured to vary a first distance between the substrate support structure and the chamber body.”
Regarding claim 9, the claim is regarded as indefinite in scope because the “first material” of claim 1 is the material making up the chamber body walls. Claim 9, therefore, is indefinite because it recites the first material “disposed along the first surface of the chamber body”- it is unclear in light of the disclosure if this is 1) intended to be an additional application of the first material, or 2) an error stemming from previous amendments to claim 1.
The Examiner believes 2) is most likely, thus interprets the limitation as not adding additional structure since the chamber body already comprises the first material (this limitation could be deleted, if this is as Applicant intends).
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (US Pub. 2012/0132228) in view of Lewandowski (US Patent 4,522,849), Nozawa (US Pub. 2016/0189931), and Zucker (US Pub. 2007/0012251).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Yanai teaches a plasma processing system, comprising:
a processing chamber (Fig. 3, processing chamber #445) comprising a chamber body having walls (Fig. 3, plate #448 and attached structure) with a first material enclosing an interior volume ([0037]: chamber comprises quartz);
a plasma source (Fig. 3, plasma vessel #431) configured to expose a substrate disposed within the processing chamber to plasma related fluxes ([0073] and Fig. 3, wafer #600), wherein the first material has a first set of recombination coefficients associated with the plasma related fluxes ([0037]: comprises quartz);
an annular plasma injection site in the plasma source (Fig. 3, annular volume surrounding baffle plate #460); and
wherein the first material comprises quartz ([0037]: chamber comprises quartz).
Yanai does not teach a second material disposed along a first region on a ceiling surface of the chamber body, the second material having a second set of plasma recombination coefficients associated with the plasma related fluxes, wherein the second set of plasma recombination coefficients is less than the first set of plasma recombination coefficients, and the second material is different than the first material and comprises at least one of borosilicate glass or boron nitride.
However, Lewandowski teaches coating quartz chamber surfaces with boron nitride (Lewandowski – C1, L37-45).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to provide the second material of Lewandowski along any regions of the first material body of Yanai in order to provide chemical resistance, thermal shock resistance, prevent silicon contamination of a substrate, all while being economical to fabricate (Lewandowski – C1, L37-45).
Modified Yanai does not teach the first region comprising a first ring concentric to the annular plasma injection site in the plasma source and proximate to an edge region of a substrate support structure, wherein the first region is disposed at a first radius of the chamber body, the second region proximate to the annular plasma injection site, wherein the second region is disposed at a second radius of the chamber body and proximate to a central region of the substrate support structure, wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius.
However, Nozawa teaches first and second annularly-shaped coating zones (Nozawa – [0043] and Fig. 2, coatings C1 and C2; see Fig. 1 for chamber design as well as [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the coatings of modified Yanai to comprise first/second annular zones (on adjacent surfaces of the members of Yanai) comprising different materials as a “marker” in order to identify an individual component for replacement (Nozawa – [0052]).
The Examiner notes that the combination of references meets the limitations relating the location of the coatings relative to various chamber components (i.e., the surfaces of Yanai, if coated with the zones of Nozawa, would meet these limitations).
Modified Yanai does not teach a third material, different than the second material and the first material, disposed along a second region on the ceiling surface within the chamber body, the third material having a third set of plasma recombination coefficients associated with the plasma related fluxes, and wherein the third material comprises at least one of titanium or stainless steel.
However, Zucker teaches wherein a combination of quartz portions and titanium portions can be used for chamber construction (Zucker – [0058]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize a combination of quartz and titanium in fabricating the modified Yanai apparatus since Zucker teaches these materials are appropriate alone or in combination for a corrosive semiconductor processing environment (Zucker – [0003], [0011]). It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding the limitations: “and causes the first region to reflect radicals to the edge region”, “wherein the third set of plasma recombination coefficients is greater than the first set of plasma recombination coefficients”, “and causes the second region to absorb radicals at the central region”, and “wherein the second material and the third material in combination control variation in process result values across the substrate based on the second set of plasma recombination coefficients and the third set of plasma recombination coefficients”, these limitations are all functions and/or properties of the claimed materials, as is explained in the Claim Interpretation section. Since the combination of prior art references teaches all the claimed materials in their claimed places, the limitations above are met by said combination.
Regarding claim 7, Yanai teaches an actuator coupled to the substrate support structure, the actuator configured to vary a first distance between the the substrate support structure and the chamber body (Yanai – [0041] and Fig. 3, elevation drive part connected to shaft #473, pins #413, support #414 to raise/lower). (Examiner’s note: see the interpretation herein according to the §112(b) rejection)
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the entire claims are merely a recitation of functions and/or properties of the claimed materials. As is explained in the Claim Interpretation section, since the combination of prior art references teaches all the claimed materials in their claimed places, the limitations of the instant claim are met by said combination.
Regarding claim 9, Yanai teaches wherein: the processing chamber comprises the annular plasma injection site, formed between the first radius and the second radius of a first surface of the chamber body (Fig. 3, annular region surrounding baffle #460), wherein the annular plasma injection site is configured to deliver plasma from the plasma source to the interior volume of the processing chamber ([0044], [0073]); and the first material is disposed along the first surface of the chamber body at the first radius ([0037]: chamber comprises quartz). (Examiner’s note: see the interpretation herein according to the §112(b) rejection)
Regarding claim 18, the entire claim is merely a recitation of functions and/or properties of the claimed materials. As is explained in the Claim Interpretation section, since the combination of prior art references teaches all the claimed materials in their claimed places, the limitations of the instant claim are met by said combination.
Regarding claim 23, modified Yanai does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nozawa teaches wherein a second region comprises a second ring, and wherein the first ring is concentric with the second ring (Nozawa – [0043] and Fig. 2, coatings C1 and C2; see Fig. 1 for chamber design as well as [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the coatings of modified Yanai to comprise first/second annular zones (on adjacent surfaces of the members of Yanai) comprising different materials as a “marker” in order to identify an individual component for replacement (Nozawa – [0052]).
Regarding claim 24, Yanai teaches wherein the chamber body further comprises a first portion consisting of a disk (Fig. 3, #460), and a second portion consisting of a ring (Fig. 3, #448), wherein the ring is concentric with the disk (see Fig. 3, centered around same vertical axis).
Modified Yanai does not teach the coatings as claimed.
However, Nozawa teaches first and second concentric annularly-shaped coating zones (Nozawa – [0043] and Fig. 2, coatings C1 and C2; see Fig. 1 for chamber design as well as [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the coatings of modified Yanai to comprise first/second annular zones (on adjacent surfaces of the members of Yanai) comprising different materials as a “marker” in order to identify an individual component for replacement (Nozawa – [0052]).
Regarding claim 25, Yanai teaches wherein the walls of the chamber body comprise one or more horizontal surfaces and one or more vertical surfaces configured to enclose the interior volume (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 26, Yanai teaches wherein the chamber body further comprises a first portion consisting of a disk (Fig. 3, #460), and a second portion consisting of a ring (Fig. 3, #448), wherein the ring is concentric with the disk (see Fig. 3, centered around same vertical axis), wherein the first region is disposed outside an outer radius of the annular plasma injection site (Fig. 3, on #448 radially outward of the annular volume surrounding #460), and wherein the second region is disposed within an inner radius of the annular plasma injection site (Fig. 3, along #460).
Modified Yanai does not teach the coatings as claimed.
However, Nozawa teaches first and second concentric annularly-shaped coating zones (Nozawa – [0043] and Fig. 2, coatings C1 and C2; see Fig. 1 for chamber design as well as [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the coatings of modified Yanai to comprise first/second annular zones (on adjacent surfaces of the members of Yanai) comprising different materials as a “marker” in order to identify an individual component for replacement (Nozawa – [0052]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (US Pub. 2012/0132228), Lewandowski (US Patent 4,522,849), Nozawa (US Pub. 2016/0189931), and Zucker (US Pub. 2007/0012251), as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 23-26 above, further in view of Raj (US Pub. 2017/0152968).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 23-26 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yanai does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Raj teaches a fourth material disposed along a third region of the chamber body, the fourth material having a fourth set of plasma recombination coefficients associated with the plasma related fluxes, wherein the fourth set of plasma recombination coefficients are different from the first set of plasma recombination coefficients, the second set of plasma recombination coefficients, and the third set of plasma recombination coefficients (Raj – [0040]: various chamber components can be coated with different coatings, including three different coatings #220, #224, #226 as they relate to #180).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yanai apparatus to comprise the third material of Raj in order to compensate for local temperatures, exposure amounts, underlying material, elasticity/flexibility requirements, or other factors (Raj – [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, the entire claim is merely a recitation of functions and/or properties of the claimed materials. As is explained in the Claim Interpretation section, since the combination of prior art references teaches all the claimed materials in their claimed places, the limitations of the instant claim are met by said combination.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (US Pub. 2012/0132228), Lewandowski (US Patent 4,522,849), Nozawa (US Pub. 2016/0189931), and Zucker (US Pub. 2007/0012251), as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 23-26 above, further in view of O’Donnell (US Pub. 2002/0086554).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 23-26 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Yanai teaches wherein the chamber body further comprises a support structure to support a substrate (Yanai – [0041] and Fig. 3, elevation drive part connected to shaft #473, pins #413, support #414 to raise/lower);
Modified Yanai does not teach wherein the second material is further disposed along a surface of the substrate support structure.
However, O’Donnell teaches wherein boron nitride (the second material- see Lewandowski) is further disposed along a surface of a substrate support structure (O’Donnell – [0013], [0020]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yanai apparatus to comprise the second material coating on the substrate support structure in order to enhance erosion resistance, increase service life of chamber components, and reduce apparatus down time (O’Donnell – [0012], [0020]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (US Pub. 2012/0132228), Lewandowski (US Patent 4,522,849), Nozawa (US Pub. 2016/0189931), and Zucker (US Pub. 2007/0012251), as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 23-26 above, further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2008/0202689).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 23-26 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yanai does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches wherein the second material is disposed along the first region in a plurality of concentric rings (Kim – [0038] and Figs. 2-3, coating only lower and side surfaces of #200b, which can be formed by various ring-shaped members- thus would comprise multiple concentric coating regions by virtue of its construction).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shape of the second material coating of modified Yanai to comprise a plurality of concentric rings in order to reduce manufacturing cost relating to excess coating and preventing the attachment of particles (Kim – [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s extensive arguments have been carefully considered but are not persuasive for at least the reasons as forth herein.
Applicant’s First argument (pgs. 10-15, Remarks) alleges that the cited references do not teach or suggest “recombination coefficient relationships between materials”, thus do not meet the limitations of the claim.
The Examiner respectfully rebuts that seeking an explicit recitation of this “recombination coefficient” in the cited references is not necessary to establish prima facie obviousness.
As is explained in detail in the Claim Interpretation section herein (as well as the Response to Arguments section of the previous Office Action), the courts have repeatedly held that if the prior art discloses the same materials as the claimed invention, it inherently possesses the claimed properties despite no explicit recitation thereof.
Regarding Raj, the Examiner respectfully rebuts that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The Examiner respectfully submits that Raj provides a proper motivation to combine, thus proper prima facie obviousness has been established. The fact that the motivation of Raj differs from the claimed invention does not negate obviousness.
Regarding Nozawa, as stated in the previous Office Action: “the Examiner respectfully points out that Nozawa is not relied upon to teach any particular material. Instead, Nozawa is relied upon to teach first/second annularly-shaped coating zones as chemical markers for component replacement.” Yanai is relied upon to teach the disclosed chamber structure, which would be modified by Nozawa (and other prior art references) to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Doba, the Examiner notes the reference was supplied in the previous Office Action merely to communicate to the Applicant how the Examiner was resolving the level of skill of a PHOSITA. In particular, the Examiner was merely providing evidence that a PHOSITA would reasonably be apprised that if different material coatings were used, they would necessarily have different “recombination coefficients” that would necessarily affect processing results. The Applicant has not rebutted this particular argument, thus the remainder of these arguments are moot.
Regarding Applicant’s Second argument (pgs. 10 and 15-18, Id.), the arguments are largely moot since the Examiner now relies upon Yanai to teach the disclosed chamber structure in combination with Lewandowski to teach a boron nitride coating.
Regarding Raj, the Applicant’s arguments are not germane to the rejections of either claims 1 or 17 since Raj is not relied upon to reject these claims. Raj continues to be relied upon to teach only the limitations of claim 2. As Applicant’s arguments do not apply to the rejection of claim 2, these arguments are moot.
Regarding Applicant’s Third argument (pgs. 10 and 18, Id.), the arguments are not persuasive because they appear to imply that because the Examiner has utilized multiple references in a 103 rejection that each rely on different motivations, then the combination is somehow improper. This is not grounded in law and is otherwise unpersuasive in rebutting prima facie obviousness. The remainder of the arguments are moot since they do not apply to the particular combination of references as presented herein.
Regarding Applicant’s Fourth argument (pgs. 10 and 19-20, Id.), Applicant merely asserts that the Examiner’s rejections are based upon impermissible hindsight because “[t]he only way to arrive at the claimed structure… is by reading the claims themselves and then searching for references that mention these materials in any context” (pgs. 19-20. Emphasis original). This argument is not persuasive because:
1) it is unreasonable to think that the only way to arrive at the claimed invention is through impermissible hindsight- the Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant has merely disclosed a routine apparatus with routine coating materials disposed in an arrangement Applicant apparently believes is new. The Examiner respectfully submits that each of these aspects is known in the art (as evidenced by at least the references cited by the Examiner) and have been properly combined using a motivation supplied by the references themselves, not stated as a fact of the Examiner’s own knowledge; and
2) 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 on (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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights