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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 4/29/2026, have been considered by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to the claims, cancellation of claim 26 and the addition of new claims 30-31. Claims 9-15, 17-18, 20-25, 27-31 are pending, with claims 23-25 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements, specifically addressed in the prior art rejections set forth below.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 14-15, 18, 21-22 , 27-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20210343506 by Xie et al. taken with JP 2014508424, hereinafter JP 424 taken with JP 2006086449, hereinafter JP 449, US Patent Application Publication 20140087092 by Nieh et al. and KR-102334531-B1, hereinafter KR 531.
Claim 9: Xie discloses a method comprising, supporting a target within a thin film process chamber, generating a plasma within a plasma generation chamber above the film forming chamber by applying a RF to one or more coils that surrounds the plasma generation chamber (See Figure 1 and accompanying text, 0021, 0028, 0029-0021). Xie discloses passing the plasma through an array of first apertures in a top of the film forming chamber and a grid between the film forming chamber and first apertures (see Figure 1 and accompanying text). Xie illustrates that the distance between the first lateral direction between the outermost first apertures is greater than the distance in the first lateral direction between the outermost second apertures in the grid (Figure 1, see also Figure 5 first plate 210, grid 220). Xie discloses passing the plasma through the first and second apertures (see Figure 8 and accompanying text)
Xie discloses a separation grid for reducing the ion energy of the plasma prior to interacting with the substrate and generally discloses the grid apertures; however, fails to disclose the claimed hole profile (stepped sidewall, wherein the step is positioned midway between the first and second side). However, the examiner cites here JP 424, also discloses a separation grid for reducing the ion energy of the plasma prior to interacting with the substrate (description, pages 4-5 of translation, figures 4-5 and accompanying text). JP 454 discloses the holes to reduce or suppression the ions through to the substrate an control the mixture in contact with the substrate and discloses the holes can be any number of configurations, including those stepped as claimed, including wherein the step is midway through the aperture, (see figures 7A-7D and accompanying text, see also “specific contour is referred to. The through hole 702 includes a large ID region 704 at the upper end of the hole and a small ID region 706 at the lower end of the hole, with a stepped edge between the large ID and the small ID. T). JP 454 discloses “transitions between large ID regions and small ID regions (blunt, stepped, tapered, etc.) substantially block ionic species from passing through the pores, and at the same time allow radical or neutral species to pass through” (page 10). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Xie to use the stepped profile as suggested by JP 454, including with the step midway through the aperture, to reap the benefits as outlined by JP 454. Additionally, JP 424 illustrates that the profile of the through holes is a design choice to achieve the desired flow through the plate and control the percentage of the plasma that can be pass through without deactivation (page 11) and therefore, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum hole profile through routine experimentation to achieve the desired plasma throughput. Finally, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the side profile as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966.
Xie with JP 454 discloses a separation grid for reducing the ion energy of the plasma prior to interacting with the substrate. Xie discloses supporting the grid within the chamber; however, fails to disclose the first rods and second rods in a lateral direction traverse to the first rod direction (or perpendicular as to claim 29). However, JP 449, also discloses a separation grid for reducing the ion energy of the plasma prior to interacting with the substrate, and discloses the grid/mesh is supported in the chamber using support portions, i.e. rods, that are aligned around the chamber walls (Figure 1 and accompanying text “The lower plate 61 is supported by engaging an outer peripheral portion of the lower plate 61 with a support portion 70 that protrudes from the liner 7 in the chamber 1 toward the inside.”). Additionally, Nieh, also discloses a separation grid for reducing the ion energy of the plasma prior to interacting with the substrate and discloses supporting the grid in the chamber using a frame, such that the frame extends along the portion or the entirety of the perimeter of the grid, including a rectangular grid (see 0035). The frame to support the grid around the entire perimeter would include rods in the first direction and rods in a second direction, such that the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (general rectangular shape of grid with frame around entire perimeter). As such, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to modify Xie with JP 454 to support the grid using known and suitable support mechanisms including support portions attached to the chamber wall and a frame around the entire perimeter of the mesh, such a predictable solution would have included rods in the first direction and rods in a second direction, such that the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (general rectangular shape of grid with frame around entire perimeter). Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Additionally, the support of the grid, as evidenced by Nieh would involve design choice to provide proper support of the grid (0035 as it relates to various method for supporting the grid) and therefore selecting the appropriate and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the supports since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As for the added claim requirement, specifically, the plate is wider than the distance between the outermost first apertures and the coil and the first apertures are longer in the vertical direction than the second aperture, the examiner cites here KR 531, also in the art of plasma processing a substrate (abstract). KR 531 discloses a plasma chamber that includes a coil for generating a plasma, first apertures and a plate with second apertures, wherein the plate is wider than both the outermost first aperture and coil (see annotated figure below). Additionally, KR 531 discloses the length of first apertures are longer than the length of the second apertures in the plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
601
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
601
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the collection of prior art to include the structural relationship as suggested by KR 531, that is to provide the plate that is wider than both the distance of the outermost first apertures and the coil as well as provide the claimed length, as KR 531, also in the art of the plasma generation chamber and treatment of substrate, discloses such an arrangement for providing the plasma to the substrate for treatment. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claim 10: Xie discloses process fluid includes a plasma (see e.g. abstract, Page 5).
Claim 14: Xie discloses plasma etching apparatus (0081) to react the plasma with the substrate and while the reference does not specifically disclose plasma enhanced atomic layer etching, the etching process of Xie is both plasma based and will etch the atomic layers of the substrate and thus can reasonably be considered plasma enhanced atomic layer etching as instantly claimed.
Claim 15: Xie discloses comprising reducing an energy of the plasma by passing the plasma through the first apertures in the second apertures of the grid (0029-0031)
Claim 18: The collection of prior art makes obvious the limitations of this claim for the reasons set forth above. Xie discloses all that is taught above including a method supporting a target within a process chamber; supporting a grid between the target and a fluid inlet of the process chamber; generating a plasma in a plasma generator; passing the plasma into the process chamber via the fluid inlet including an array of first apertures in the top of the deposition chamber above the target; reducing an energy of the plasma by passing the plasma through apertures in a grid, wherein the distance between the outermost first apertures is greater than the distance between the outermost second apertures; and performing a portion of a thin-film process by reacting the plasma with the target (see citations above, entire reference, Figure 1 and accompanying text). Stepped sidewalls is made obvious for the reasons set forth above, see JP 424. Supporting the grid is made obvious as outlined above, see Nieh.
Claim 21: The collection of prior art makes obvious the limitations of this claim for the reasons set forth above. Xie discloses a method comprising, supporting a target within a thin film process chamber, generating a plasma within a plasma generation chamber above the film forming chamber by applying a RF to one or more coils that surrounds the plasma generation chamber (See Figure 1 and accompanying text, 0021, 0028, 0029-0021). Xie discloses passing the plasma through an array of first apertures in a top of the film forming chamber and a grid between the film forming chamber and first apertures (see Figure 1 and accompanying text). Xie illustrates that the distance between the first lateral direction between the outermost first apertures is greater than the distance in the first lateral direction between the outermost second apertures in the grid (Figure 1, see also Figure 5 first plate 210, grid 220). Xie discloses passing the plasma through the first and second apertures (see Figure 8 and accompanying text). Xie discloses deposition (0081 related to deposition). Stepped sidewalls is made obvious for the reasons set forth above, see JP 424. Supporting the grid is made obvious as outlined above, see Nieh.
Claim 22: Xie discloses comprising reducing an energy of the plasma by passing the plasma through the first apertures in the second apertures of the grid (0029-0031)
Claim 27: Xie discloses “The first grid plate 210 and the second grid plate 220 can be separated by a distance” (0030); however, fails to disclose the distance of greater than 1 mm. However, the distance is a result effective variable (too small and no separation exists, too large and increases the chamber dimensions) and therefore the determination of the separation distance between the two plates would have been obvious through routine experimentation as Xie discloses a distance exists and one would desire through routine experimentation to arrive at the desired distance.
Claim 28: Xie generally discloses a separation grid for reducing the ion energy of the plasma prior to interacting with the substrate as discussed above; however, fails to disclose the taper as instantly claimed. However, JP 424, also in the art of controlling damage to the substrate based on ion energy (abstract) and discloses using a partition plate to regulate the ion energy and discloses the plate include taper sidewalls such that the opening on the first side is larger than the second side (see discussion above). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified Xie to include the taper sidewall as suggested by JP 424 as both references are concerned with controlling ion energy to prevent damage to the substrate in plasma processing and JP 424 discloses a known hole arrangement for ion energy control include tapering. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim 30: Nieh, also discloses a separation grid for reducing the ion energy of the plasma prior to interacting with the substrate and discloses supporting the grid in the chamber using a frame, such that the frame extends along the portion or the entirety of the perimeter of the grid, including a rectangular grid (see 0035). The frame to support the grid around the entire perimeter would include rods in the first direction and rods in a second direction, such that the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (general rectangular shape of grid with frame around entire perimeter) and the first rods cross the second rods as claimed (at the edge of the frame), here the rectangular grid will define a window as claimed, wherein the apertures will be within the window framed by the rods. Additionally, the support of the grid, as evidenced by Nieh would involve design choice to provide proper support of the grid (0035 as it relates to various method for supporting the grid) and therefore selecting the appropriate and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the supports since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change of size/shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie with JP 424, JP 449, Nieh, and KR 531 taken with WO 2020017328, hereinafter WO 328.
Xie with JP 424, JP 449, Nieh, and KR 531 discloses all that is taught above and discloses plasma deposition; however, fails to discloses PEALD. However, WO 328, also in the art of plasma treatment using a separation grid between the plasma generation chamber and deposition chamber with a substrate therein, discloses using the system for PEALD (Figures, page 5 related to PEALD). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified Xie with JP 424, JP 449 and Nieh, where Xie discloses deposition, and deposit the material using PEALD, as WO 328, in a similar plasma process using a separation grid discloses such can be used for deposition using PEALD. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie with JP 424, JP 449, Nieh, KR 531 and WO 328, taken with WO 201350299, hereinafter WO 299.
Xie with JP 424, JP 449, Nieh, KR 531 and WO 328 generally discloses PEALD; however, fails to disclose the CNT inclusive target. However, WO 299, also in the art of PEALD discloses CNTs are known substrates that are subject to deposition and discloses using PEALD for CNT substrates (see page 5, lines 25-30, column 6, lines 25-30). Therefore, taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have deposited PEALD onto CNT substrates (which includes reacting a plasma with a precursor on the CNT as claimed, see page 6 related to PEALD cycles), as Xie with WO 328 discloses the PEALD onto substrates and WO 299 discloses known substrate for PEALD includes CNTs.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie with JP 424, JP 449, Nieh, and KR 531taken with US Patent Application Publication 20210020405 by Ventzek et al.
Xie with JP 424, JP 449, Nieh, and KR 531 generally discloses a separation grid for reducing the ion energy of the plasma prior to interacting with the substrate as discussed above and while the examiner maintains the position as set forth above with regard to plasma enhanced atomic layer etching, the examiner cites here which discloses a grid for controlling ions in the plasma process (0111, Figure 7A-7B and accompanying text) and such processes include PEALD and PEALE (0003) and therefore modifying the process of Xie to perform PEALE would have been obvious as such is taught by Ventzek as a plasma process that can be controlled using a grid to control ion density.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie with JP 424, JP 449, Nieh, and KR 531 taken with US Patent Application Publication 20140302680 by Singh et al., hereinafter USPP 680.
Xie with JP 424, JP 449, Nieh, and KR 531 generally discloses a separation grid for reducing the ion energy of the plasma prior to interacting with the substrate as discussed above and using what can reasonably be considered a showerhead, see supply of gas through nozzle/plate can reasonably be considered showerhead giving this term its broadest reasonable interpretation). Xie fails to disclose the distance between a showerhead and the grid. However, USPP 680, also discloses a grid for reducing and controlling the ion energy of the plasma and discloses the distance between the showerhead structure (supply of gas through nozzle can reasonably be considered showerhead see Figures 4-5) and the grid is adjustable and that the distance has a direct effect on the electron temperature and plasma density tuning (0052, 0058, Figure 4-5) and thus discloses the distance is a result effective variable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum distance through routine experimentation to control the plasma temperature and density tuning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17, 20, 29 and 31 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art cited or reviewed by the examiner, alone or in combination, reasonably disclose or makes obvious the rods crossing to define a window, with the second apertures directly above the window (as required by claim 30), where each of the first rod and second rod contact the wall at only two distinct locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 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, 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights