DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (07/27/2022), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . There was a restriction requirement in this application dated 4/4/2025. In response, Applicant elected claims 1-14 without traverse. Therefore claims (1-14) were examined in a Non-Final on 6/27/2025. This office action is in response to the submission dated 9/25/2025. Claims were amended so that claims 1-14 are being examined in this Final office action.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s arguments against Obama are nor persuasive since Obama is fully capable of the functional limitations which appear to be the basis of the arguments. They are however now moot in view of the present rejection.
Applicant argues further as below
“However, Lai does not disclose a closed-loop feedback system that continuously receives sensor data and dynamically adjusts multiple field sources in real time to achieve a specific residual field setpoint; instead, the focus is on improving doping or deposition uniformity by adjusting the field configuration (See id. at paragraphs [0021] and [0031]).” (P 6)
This however is incorrect since Li discloses as below:
The magnetic field sensors 350 may be coupled to the control system 140 and may be included in feedback loops1 that adjust the current flowing through the windings 334 around the core structures of the electromagnetic elements 332. In other words, an output or outputs of the magnetic field sensors may be used as an input to a circuit or algorithm affecting the current. In some embodiments, each of the electromagnetic elements 332 is associated with a separate sensor of the magnetic field sensors 350 such that feedback may be provided individually for each of the electromagnetic elements 332. The magnetic field sensors 350 may be Hall effect sensors, magneto diodes, magneto transistors, magnetometers, Lorentz-force-based sensors, electron-tunneling based sensors, etc. Different types of sensors may be used at different positions within the chamber 102, and each sensor may be wired to communicate with the control system 140. (Para 33)
Regarding Garcia Applicant argues as below:
In this regard, Garcia focuses on minimizing process skew and improving etch uniformity by statically setting the compensating field before processing, rather than dynamically adjusting the field during operation. There is no disclosure of real-time, closed-loop feedback or continuous adjustment of the compensating field during plasma processing. (P.9)
In response it is noted that Garcia teaches adjustment of magnetic field in, horizontal, vertical or any other orientation on the basis of detection using a sensor and it could be used continuously2 during processing (Para 19).
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 1-14 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.
Amended claim 1 recites
“continuously receive signals from the magnetic field sensor during operation of the vacuum chamber, and
selectively activate or deactivate a plurality of magnetic field sources comprising the at least one magnetic field source, based on the detected signal representing the residual magnetic field, to generate a composite supplemental magnetic field that reduces the residual magnetic field to a pre-determined value.
Applicant appears the above control, to equate it to closed-loop feedback (See remarks P 6). It is however noted that the specification does not appear to support this closed-loop feedback system. It is noted that the specification does support, adjusting magnetic field on the basis of detected magnetic field but it does not automatically mean a “closed-loop feedback system” since “closed-loop feedback system” is understood in the art to be a specific control scheme like a PID control executed in analog or digital, while merely adjusting, on the basis of detected signal could be more generic, for example, table driven or on the basis of occasional sampling.
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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai et al (US 20190139770).
Lai et al disclose a semiconductor substrate processing apparatus, comprising a vacuum chamber including a processing zone for processing a substrate (106) using capacitively coupled plasma using electrode 118 (Fig. 1-3);
a magnetic field sensor configured to detect a signal representing a residual magnetic field associated with the vacuum chamber (350A 350B, also see para 32 which discloses multiple sensors);
at least one magnetic field source (130, 230, 330, 332) configured to generate one or more supplemental magnetic fields through the processing zone of the vacuum chamber; and
a magnetic field controller (140) coupled to the magnetic field sensor (Para 33) and the at least one magnetic field source (Fig 1-3), the magnetic field controller configured to adjust at least one characteristic of the one or more supplemental magnetic fields,
Regarding the limitation “causing the one or more supplemental magnetic fields to reduce the residual magnetic field to a pre-determined value”, it is noted that since the controller controls the coil power supply to a predetermined value, the magnetic field is controlled to a predetermined value.
Regarding the limitation of the controller receiving the signals from the sensors continuously, it is noted that when the sensor output is connected to controller as stated in para 32 the signals are received continuously so as to allow the controller to control magnetic field sources (330).
Regarding claims 2-3 magnetic field sensors are disposed in multiple places including on the wafer (Fig 3) and allow control of the magnetic field and thus the residual magnetic field.
Regarding claim 4-6 the sensor would detect both magnitude and direction of the magnetic field since this is not a scaler but a vector quantity (See para 46).
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinji Lai et al (US 20190139770) in view of Garcia De Gorordo (US 20140273304).
As discussed above Lai et al disclose a capacitively coupled plasma processing apparatus, including magnetic field control using magnetic sensors. It is noted that the function of reducing magnetic field is within the disclosed capability of Lai et al.
Additionally, Garcia De Gorordo teaches that the interference from external magnetic field could cause process non-uniformity (Para 3, 17) and proposed controlling the net magnetic field in the chamber by using source of magnetic field opposing the interfering field (Fig 1, Abstract, Para 5-7, 17-25). Garcia De Gorordo teaches different methods to achieve desired magnetic field (See Fig 5 and description) using magnetic sensors which could be placed at different locations including at substrate level (Para 21).
Garcia De Gorordo teaches using magnetic sensor continuously during processing (Para 19) in order to control magnetic field dynamically during processing.
Therefore. it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used magnetic source in order to reduce magnetic field and increase process uniformity.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al (US 20190139770) in view of Garcia De Gorordo (US 20140273304) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ariga et al (JP 2004022988) or Mungkekar et al (US 20060024451).
Lai et al in view of Garcia De Gorordo as discussed above discloses method of reducing adverse effect of external magnetic field by using compensating magnetic field but do not disclose magnetic shield to enclose the vacuum processing chamber.
Ariga et al disclose a magnetic shield 35 around a plasma processing chamber (Fig 3 and 4) to reduce the effect of external magnetic field (Para 7).
Mungkekar et al similarly disclose a magnetic shield around a plasma processing chamber to reduce the effect of external magnetic field (Abstract, Fig 2 and description).
Regarding claims 8-14 coils as magnetic source are disclosed in Obama et al, Lai et al and Garcia De Gorordo. The positioning of coil with respect to shield would have been according to magnetic field orientation. Garcia De Gorordo teaches extensively the methods for measurement and control of magnetic field to get the desired result which would help increase uniformity of processing.
Therefore. it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have utilized magnetic shield in addition to magnetic source in order to reduce magnetic field and increase process uniformity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vladimir Nagorny (US 20160276230) discloses magnetic shield wrapped around a plasma chamber to reduce external magnetic field causing process non-uniformity (Para 5).
Sakka et al (US 20120138229) discloses a magnetic shield to reduce the effect of external field (Para 7).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
1 Underlined foe emphasis. Li discloses this
2 Underlined foe emphasis. Garcia discloses this
Prosecution Insights