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 were examined in a Final office action mailed on 12/29/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Rejection under sec 112 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument against Li that CCP generated by RF field is not disclosed is incorrect (See para 18 of Li).
Applicant argues that Li does not disclose sensing a residual magnetic field associated with the vacuum chamber. This is not persuasive since the magnetic sensors will sense any magnetic field to which it is exposed. It is understood that residual magnetic field is the net magnetic field and will be sensed by the sensors.
Li discloses feedback control of magnetic field based on magnetic sensors (para 31-33).
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 31-32) 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,
“dynamically adjust by selectively activating, deactivating, or varying current in a plurality of magnetic field sources comprising the at least one magnetic field source to generate, by superposition, a composite supplemental magnetic field that maintains the residual magnetic field at a predetermined setpoint value in real time during substrate processing”,
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) continuously in a feedback loop.
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).
Regarding the residual magnetic field, when the controller controls magnetic field on the basis of the magnetic sensor, it essentially controls the net magnetic field the sensors are exposed to and therefore controls residual magnetic field to a predetermined level.
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 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al (US 20190139770) in view of Garcia De Gorordo (US 20140273304).
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 31-32) 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,
“dynamically adjust by selectively activating, deactivating, or varying current in a plurality of magnetic field sources comprising the at least one magnetic field source to generate, by superposition, a composite supplemental magnetic field that maintains the residual magnetic field at a predetermined setpoint value in real time during substrate processing”,
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) continuously in a feedback loop.
Additionally regarding residual magnetic field, Garcia De Gorordo teaches more explicitly 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.
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).
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).
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
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).
1 Underlined foe emphasis. Li discloses this
2 Underlined foe emphasis. Garcia discloses this
Prosecution Insights