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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 11/19/2025, in response to the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-20 from the non-final office action, mailed on 09/10/2025, by amending claims 4, 9, 13, 17 and 19 is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 and 7 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Based on the applicants’ arguments regarding to the applicants’ disclosure, specifically, the paragraph [0093] of the published instant application disclosing “In an embodiment, the housing top side 226c is positioned adjacent to the bottom of the plasma chamber 106. In reference to FIG. 1, the resonating structure 200 is flipped upside down, and the housing top side 226c of resonating structure 200 is positioned such that the dielectric plate 114 is flush with the housing top side 226c. In such an embodiment, the dielectric plate 114 is located above the radiating structure 222 in the direction of the housing top side 226c. The resonating structure 200 generates electromagnetic waves that radiate through the dielectric plate 114 towards the plasma chamber 106 in a direction from the housing bottom side 226b to the housing top side 226c”,
The “conductive concentric ring structures disposed between the second conductive plate and a substrate holder” of Claim 1 must be clearly shown, for instance, EITHER by correct combination of the applicants’ Fig. 1 and 2A OR by mere 180 degree rotation of the Fig. 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A, 10A, 11A and 13A, for instance, see the illustration below, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Based on the applicants’ arguments regarding to the applicants’ disclosure disclosing “the resonating structure 200 is flipped upside down, and the housing top side 226c of resonating structure 200 is positioned such that the dielectric plate 114 is flush with the housing top side 226c”;
For the purpose of clarification,
(1) The “housing bottom side 226b” and “housing top side 226c” in all the corresponding paragraphs of the disclosure should be:
“housing top side 226b” and “housing bottom side 226c”.
(2) Further, int the paragraph [0093], the “the housing top side 226c is positioned adjacent to the bottom of the plasma chamber 106” also should be:
“the housing bottom side 226c is positioned adjacent to the top of the plasma chamber 106”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) For the purpose of consistency across the claim list, followings would have a better form, if amended to be like:
-a. The “conductive concentric ring structures” to be “a plurality of concentric ring structures”,
-b. The “conductive offsets” to be “a plurality of conductive offsets”,
-c. The “concentric conductive structures” to be “a plurality of concentric conductive structures”,
-d. The “spiral cutouts” to be “a plurality of spiral cutouts”.
(2) The “each conductive offset arranged equal distance from other conductive offsets along” of Claim 15 would have a better form, if amended to be:
“each conductive offset arranged at equal distance along”.
(3) The “a plurality of spiral arms coupled to a corresponding second end of each conductive offset” of Claim 15 would have a better form, if amended to be:
“a plurality of spiral arms, each spiral arm coupled to the second end of each conductive offset”. Note by the “each” for both components, the term “corresponding” is unnecessary.
(4) The “each spiral arm having the same shape, length, and spacing, the plurality of spiral arms, conductive offsets, and the conductive ring structure forming a resonant structure that resonates at an RF frequency” of Claim 15 would have a better form if amended to be:
“each spiral arm having the same shape, length, and spacing;
wherein the plurality of spiral arms, the plurality of conductive offsets, and the conductive ring structure form a resonant structure resonating at an RF frequency”.
(5) The “an inner edge and an outer edge of each of the plurality of spiral arms is connected” of each of the plurality of spiral arms” of Claim 19 should be:
“an inner edge and an outer edge of each of the plurality of spiral arms are connected”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 8-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) Across the claim list, the “couplable to an RF source” is not clear. The term “couplable” merely indicates capability of “coupling”, thus it is not clear the claim actually requires the RF source or not.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined as “configured to be coupled to an RF source”.
(2) Claim 15 is not clear.
First, it recites “the capacitance value”, “the same along”, “a first end of each conducive offset” and “the same shape”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitation will be examined inclusive of “a capacitance value”, “same along”, “the first end of each conducive offset” and “same shape”.
Second, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Third, the “one conductive ring structure” is not clear. Does it mean the earlier recited “a conductive ring structure”, if so, it is respectfully requested to amend it “the conductive ring structure”.
If the applicants intend to mean “one” of “plural”, it is respectfully requested to appropriately amend it to present the “one of the plural”.
(3) The “wherein the plate and the conductive ring structure form a pair of capacitors” of Claim 17 is not clear. Note, claim 17 is dependent from claim 15. It is not clear the “a pair of capacitor” of claim 17 is additional capacitors, in addition to the “first capacitor” of claim 15 or not.
(4) The term “substantially” of Claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 20050017201, hereafter ‘201).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘201 teaches:
Plasma type apparatus (the claimed “An apparatus for a plasma processing system”);
an electrode 360 of a plate shape (Fig. 3, [0031], the claimed “the apparatus comprising: an interface comprising: a first conductive plate couplable to an RF source”);
Fig. 3 shows a chamber top wall plate above the electrode 360, and the top wall can be interpreted being electrically or thermally conductive from tiny degree to higher degree (the claimed “a second conductive plate disposed between the RF source and the first conductive plate”);
The second and third sub-antennas 340b, 340c (Fig. 5A, [0039], the claimed “and conductive concentric ring structures disposed between the second conductive plate and a substrate holder”);
The first sub-antenna 340a ([0039], the claimed “a radiating structure”);
The first ends 342 and 346 of the first and third sub-antennas 340a and 340c are connected… and the second ends 341 and 345 of the first and third sub-antennas 340a and 340c are grounded ([0039], the claimed “and conductive offsets arranged to couple the conductive concentric ring structures to the radiating structure”).
Regarding to Claim 4,
‘201 teaches the electrostatic chuck 600 may be disposed at a bottom portion of the chamber 100 and a substrate "W" is loaded on the electrostatic chuck 600 ([0031], the claimed “wherein the plasma processing system comprises a processing chamber having the substrate holder, wherein a substrate to be processed in the processing chamber is mounted on the substrate holder”).
Regarding to Claim 5,
Fig. 3 of ‘201 shows the plasma generating part including the antenna 340, the electrode 360, the source radio frequency (RF) generator 500 and a source impedance matching box (I.M.B.) 400 is above the insulating plate 320, which is external to the processing chamber, in other words, the space having plasma “P” (the claimed “wherein the apparatus is disposed external to the processing chamber”).
Regarding to Claim 6,
‘201 teaches a source radio frequency (RF) generator 500 and a source impedance matching box (I.M.B.) 400 are connected to the antenna 340 ([0031], see the cable line connection between the RF generator and antenna, note a coaxial cable is commonly well-known in the art as a power transmission line for RF supply, the claimed “wherein the first conductive plate is coupled to the RF source via a coaxial conductive structure, and wherein the RF source feeds RF power to first conductive plate via the coaxial conductive structure”).
Regarding to Claim 8,
The apparatus of claim 1 taught by ‘201 is capable of providing a resonant circuit (the claimed “wherein the interface, the radiating structure, and the conductive offsets form a resonant circuit in response to the RF source providing an RF power to the first conductive plate”).
“When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent” (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding to Claim 9, ‘201 teaches:
Plasma type apparatus (the claimed “An apparatus for a plasma processing system”);
an electrode 360 of a plate shape (Fig. 3, [0031], the claimed “the apparatus comprising: an interface comprising: a first conductive structure couplable to an RF source”);
Fig. 3 shows a chamber top wall plate above the electrode 360, and the top wall can be interpreted being electrically or thermally conductive from tiny degree to higher degree (the claimed “a second conductive structure disposed between the RF source and the first conductive structure”);
The second and third sub-antennas 340b, 340c (Fig. 5A, [0039], note see an air gap in the Figs. 3 and 5A, the claimed “and concentric conductive structures, each concentric conductive structure isolated from the second conductive structure by an air gap”);
The first sub-antenna 340a ([0039], the claimed “and a radiating structure coupled to the interface”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
Figs. 3 and 5A of ‘201 show an air gap between the second and third sub-antennas 340b, 340c (the claimed “wherein each concentric conductive structure is isolated from an adjacent concentric conductive structure by the air gap”).
Regarding to Claim 11,
‘201 teaches the first ends 342 and 346 of the first and third sub-antennas 340a and 340c are connected… and the second ends 341 and 345 of the first and third sub-antennas 340a and 340c are grounded ([0039], the claimed “further comprising conductive offsets coupling the concentric conductive structures to the radiating structure”).
Regarding to Claim 12,
The apparatus of claim 1 taught by ‘201 is capable of providing a resonant frequency between 5 and 100 megahertz (MHz) (the claimed “wherein a resonant frequency of the radiating structure is between 5 and 100 megahertz (MHz)”).
“When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent” (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding to Claim 14,
‘201 teaches the electrostatic chuck 600 may be disposed at a bottom portion of the chamber 100 and a substrate "W" is loaded on the electrostatic chuck 600 ([0031], the claimed “wherein the plasma processing system comprises a processing chamber having a substrate holder, wherein a substrate to be processed in the processing chamber is mounted on the substrate holder”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding to drawing objection and 112 rejection for the claim 1, the examiner considers the applicants’ argument for the flip down position of the Fig. 2A, is found persuasive, thus the previous grounds of the rejections are withdrawn and a new ground of rejection is set forth.
Further, for the criticality of understanding the subject matter, the examiner considers the “flip down position” must be clearly presented in the applicants’ disclosures, therefore, the amendments of the drawing and specification are respectfully requested.
Regarding to the 112 2nd rejection for the “couplable”, the applicants argue that The term "couplable to an RF source" clearly and definitively describes the structural capability of the first conductive plate without requiring the RF source to be part of the claimed apparatus or requiring an operational state. This interpretation is consistent with the specification, established patent practice, and common understanding in the art, see pages 10-11.
The argument is found not persuasive.
The term "couplable to an RF source" does not describe the structural capability of the first conductive plate, because, for the applicants’ intended operation, the plate must be coupled to the RF source. The applicants’ arguments “without requiring the RF source to be part of the claimed apparatus or requiring an operational state” destroy the intended operation of the subject matter.
If the applicants merely intend to present the structural capability of the first conductive plate, the examiner suggest to amend it, such as, “a first conductive plate configured to be coupled to an RF source”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718