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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/26/2026 has been entered.
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 2-7 and 10-15 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.
The limitation “bias circuitry configured to switch between adjacent coil portions with different biases and biasing each coil portion with a same bias, wherein the bias circuitry is configured to, in a first state, bias adjacent coil portion as opposing electrodes using different biases” in claim 2, is confusing since it is not clear to which adjacent coil portions the claim is referring to. It should be noted that the limitation introducing the plurality of separate coil portions was deleted from independent claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “wherein the bias circuitry is configured to bias adjacent coil portions with different biases” in claim 4-line 2, is confusing since it is not clear to which adjacent coil portions the claim is referring to. It should be noted that the limitation introducing the plurality of separate coil portions was deleted from independent claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “wherein the bias circuitry is configured to, in a second state, bias adjacent coil portions with the same bias” in claim 5, lines 1-2, is confusing since it is not clear to which adjacent coil portions the claim is referring to. It should be noted that the limitation introducing the plurality of separate coil portions was deleted from independent claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “wherein the bias circuitry is configured to bias each coil portion with the same bias” in claim 7, lines 1-2, is confusing since it is not clear to which adjacent coil portions the claim is referring to. It should be noted that the limitation introducing the plurality of separate coil portions was deleted from independent claim 1. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “bias circuitry configured to switch between biasing adjacent coil portions with different biases and biasing each coil portion with a same bias, wherein the bias circuitry is configured to, in a first state, bias adjacent coil portion as opposing electrodes using different biases” in claim 10, is confusing since it is not clear to which adjacent coil portions the claim is referring to. It should be noted that the limitation introducing the plurality of separate coil portions was deleted from independent claim 8. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “wherein the bias circuitry is configured to bias adjacent coil portions with different biases” in claim 12-line 2, is confusing since it is not clear to which adjacent coil portions the claim is referring to. It should be noted that the limitation introducing the plurality of separate coil portions was deleted from independent claim 8. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “wherein the bias circuitry is configured to, in a second state, bias adjacent coil portions with the same bias” in claim 13, lines 1-2, is confusing since it is not clear to which adjacent coil portions the claim is referring to. It should be noted that the limitation introducing the plurality of separate coil portions was deleted from independent claim 8. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “wherein the bias circuitry is configured to bias each coil portion with the same bias” in claim 15-line 2, is confusing since it is not clear to which adjacent coil portions the claim is referring to. It should be noted that the limitation introducing the plurality of separate coil portions was deleted from independent claim 8. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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 (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 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 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khater et al., US 2002/0023899 in view of Choi, US 2013/0307414 or Tomasel et al., US 2008/0127893 or Bennett, US 6,495,963.
With respect to independent claim 1, Khater et al. shows the invention as claimed including a remote plasma source chamber configured for coupling to a processing chamber, the remote plasma source chamber comprising: a cylindrical chamber having: an inner portion 114 comprising a dielectric; an outer portion 140 comprising a dielectric; a conductive middle portion 150 between the inner and outer portion defining one or more magnetic-field-passage windows 152/652, wherein the one or more magnetic-field-passage windows are elongated along a longitudinal axis of the cylindrical chamber; and a conductive coil 130 arranged outside and coaxially with the chamber but in contact with the cylindrical chamber, the conductive coil including a first end and a second end, the first end configured for coupling to a high voltage node of an alternating current power supply 126, the second end configured for coupling to a low voltage or ground node of the alternating current power supply; (see, for example, figs. 1, 4a-4b, and 6a-6d, and their descriptions, figs. 4a-4b are shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kather et al. does not expressly disclose that the coil is a cylindrical coil. Choi discloses an inductive plasma apparatus comprising a cylindrical coil 22a/22b (see, for example, Figs. 6-9, and their descriptions, Figs. 7, 8, and 9, are shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
242
279
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
255
275
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
256
285
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Also, Tomasel et al. discloses an inductive plasma apparatus comprising a cylindrical coil 110/210/310/410 (see, for example, Figs. 1-4, and their descriptions, Figs. 1-2, are shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
330
413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
490
321
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Bennett discloses an inductive plasma apparatus comprising a cylindrical coil 10c (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
175
249
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the apparatus of Kather et al. as to comprise the claimed cylindrical coil because such configuration is known and used in the art as suitable means for effectively and efficiently supply power independently to the coil portions to generate inductive coupling plasma having the desired/required characteristics.
Concerning claim 8, it should further be noted that Choi further discloses that the cylindrical coil comprises a gap between a first end and a second end, wherein the gap is elongated along the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical chamber (see, for example, Figs. 6-7).
PNG
media_image2.png
242
279
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
255
275
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Also, Bennett that the cylindrical coil comprises a gap between a first end and a second end, wherein the gap is elongated along the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical chamber (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
175
249
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the configuration of the claimed conductive coil is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed conductive coil is significant.
Regarding claim 9, it should be noted that in the apparatus of Kather et al. modified by Choi or Tomasel et al. or Bennett, the cylindrical coil follows a circumferential path around the cylindrical chamber rather than a helical.
Claim(s) 2-7, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khater et al., US 2002/0023899 in view of Choi, US 2013/0307414 or Tomasel et al., US 2008/0127893 or Bennett, US 6,495,963, as applied to claims 1 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Gesche et al., US 5,146,137 or Imahashi, US 5,554,223 or Sato et al., US 5,907,221 or Rhee et al., US 10,109,459 or Lill et al., US 6,518,190.
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 17, Kather et al., Choi, Tomasel et al. and Bennett do not expressly disclose the claimed bias circuitry and coil portions. Gesche et al. discloses a chamber comprising a conductive coil comprising a plurality of separate coil portions 50,51/36-39/36-43, each coil portion including a first end and a second end, the first end configured for coupling to a high voltage node of an alternating current power supply, the second end configured for coupling to a low voltage or ground node of the alternating current power supply; and a bias circuitry capable of switching between biasing coil portions with different biases and biasing each coil portion with a same bias (note that the coil portions are connected to separate sources which are capable of independently biasing the coil portions); see, for example, figs. 5-11, and their descriptions, Figs. 5, 9-11 are shown below.
PNG
media_image8.png
260
316
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
238
368
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
568
474
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Imahashi discloses a chamber comprising a conductive coil comprising a plurality of separate coil portions 13A, each coil portion including a first end and a second end, the first end configured for coupling to a high voltage node of an alternating current power supply, the second end configured for coupling to a low voltage or ground node of the alternating current power supply; and a bias circuitry capable of switching between biasing coil portions with different biases and biasing each coil portion with a same bias (note that the coil portions are connected to separate sources which are capable of independently biasing the coil portions); see, for example, figs. 1-4, and their descriptions, Figs. 2-3 are shown below.
PNG
media_image11.png
318
362
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
296
250
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Sato et al. discloses a chamber comprising a conductive coil comprising a plurality of separate coil portions 52/54, each coil portion including a first end and a second end, the first end configured for coupling to a high voltage node of an alternating current power supply, the second end configured for coupling to a low voltage or ground node of the alternating current power supply; and a bias circuitry capable of switching between biasing coil portions with different biases and biasing each coil portion with a same bias (note that the coil portions are connected to separate sources which are capable of independently biasing the coil portions); see, for example, figs. 1-4, and their descriptions, Figs. 1-2 are shown below.
PNG
media_image13.png
338
400
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
306
384
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Rhee et al. discloses a chamber comprising a conductive coil comprising a plurality of separate coil portions 410c/420c, each coil portion including a first end and a second end, the first end configured for coupling to a high voltage node of an alternating current power supply, the second end configured for coupling to a low voltage or ground node of the alternating current power supply; and a bias circuitry capable of switching between biasing coil portions with different biases and biasing each coil portion with a same bias (note that the coil portions are independently connected to the source and thereby capable of being independently biased, additionally switches 412c/422c are capable of switching between biasing coil portions as claimed); see, for example, fig. 7, and its description, Fig. 7 is shown below.
PNG
media_image15.png
318
384
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Moreover, Lill et al discloses a chamber comprising a conductive coil comprising a plurality of separate coil portions 20,40/20,50,55/22,23,45/25,55 each coil portion including a first end and a second end, the first end configured for coupling to a high voltage node of an alternating current power supply, the second end configured for coupling to a low voltage or ground node of the alternating current power supply; and a bias circuitry 80/83/84/85 capable of switching between biasing coil portions with different biases and biasing each coil portion with a same bias; see, for example, figs. 1-5, and their descriptions, Figs. 2A-2B are shown below.
PNG
media_image16.png
278
412
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
376
414
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kather et al. modified by Choi or Tomasel et al. or Bennett, as to comprise the claimed bias circuitry coupled to adjacent coil portions because such configuration is known and used in the art as suitable means for effectively and efficiently supply power independently to the coil portions to generate inductive coupling plasma having the desired/required characteristics.
Furthermore, and also with respect to claims 3, 11, and 18, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias circuitry (power sources and/or switching circuitry) of the apparatus of Khater et al. modified by Choi or Tomasel et al. or Bennett and Gesche et al. or Imahashi or Sato et al. or Rhee et al. or Lill et al., is capable of, in a first state, bias adjacent coil portions as opposing electrodes using different biases so that the conductive coil is used as a capacitive source. It should be noted that the specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraph 0072, discloses that by biasing adjacent coil portions as opposing electrodes the coil portions would capacitively couple to the plasma.
Regarding claims 4, 7, 12, and 15 it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias circuitry (power sources and/or switching circuitry) of the apparatus of Khater et al. modified by Choi or Tomasel et al. or Bennett and Gesche et al. or Imahashi or Sato et al. or Rhee et al. or Lill et al., is capable of biasing adjacent coil portions with different biases during plasma ignition, and/or biasing each coil portion with the same bias during plasma maintenance.
Concerning claims 5-6, 13-14, and 19-20, it should be noted that such limitation is directed to a method limitation instead of an apparatus limitation, and since an apparatus is being claimed as the instant invention, the method teachings are not considered to be the matter at hand, since a variety of methods can be done with the apparatus. The method limitations are viewed as intended uses which do not further limit, and therefore do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The bias circuitry (power sources and/or switching circuitry) of the apparatus of Khater et al. modified by Gesche et al. or Imahashi or Sato et al. or Rhee et al. or Lill et al., is capable of, in a second state, bias adjacent coil portions with the same bias, so that the conductive coil is configured to be an inductive source while the bias circuitry is in the second state.
With respect to claim 16, Khater et al. further discloses that the outer portion 140 of the cylindrical chamber is formed of a dielectric that is electrically insulating and thermally conductive (see, for example, paragraph 0029). With respect to the inner portion 114 of the cylindrical chamber comprising a dielectric that is electrically insulating and thermally conductive, it is well known in the inductive coupling plasma art the use of Al2O3 as a suitable material for the material of a chamber wall of an inductive coupling plasma apparatus. This notwithstanding, Rhee et al. discloses that the chamber wall 140 of the ICP apparatus can be made of Al2O3 (see, for example, col. 6, lines 28-35). Also, Lill et al. discloses that the chamber wall 10 of the ICP apparatus can be made of aluminum oxide, quartz, ceramic, silicon, carbon, or the like, (see, for example, col. 4, lines 43-47). Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kather et al. as to comprise an inner portion 114 of the cylindrical chamber made of a dielectric material that is electrically insulating and thermally conductive because such material is known and used in the art as a suitable material for the chamber wall to effectively and effectively generate inductive coupling plasma.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hull et al. (US 4,795,879) is cited for its teaching of an ICP apparatus comprising a cylindrical chamber having a wall comprising a plurality of portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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 on 571-272-1435. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights