DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 5/12/2026 and the RCE filed 6/17/2026.
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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending.
Claims 3, 6, 13-14, and 16 are withdrawn.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wi (US Pub. 2005/0000655) in view of Kim (US Pub. 2016/0020070).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Wi teaches a plasma source, comprising: an input to a plenum ([0059] and Figs. 17-18, inlet #214 to plenum for head #212) for dividing gas into a plurality of parallel fluidic paths (Figs. 17-18, openings #213 for a plurality of paths); a plurality of plasma zones, wherein each plasma zone is along one of the plurality of parallel fluidic paths ([0057] and Figs. 17-18, zones within discharge bridges #216); a plurality of magnetic cores, wherein individual ones of the plurality of magnetic cores surround a corresponding one of the plurality of plasma zones ([0058] and Figs. 17-18, ferrite cores #218 surrounding tube bridges #216), wherein the plurality of magnetic cores comprises four or more peripheral magnetic cores (see Fig. 19), and wherein each magnetic core is in contact with an adjacent magnetic core (see Figs. 17-18, at least thermal contact with each other); an RF coil wrapping around the plurality of magnetic cores ([0058] and Figs. 17-19, inductive coil #220); and a manifold at a bottom of the plurality of plasma zones, wherein the manifold merges the plurality of fluidic paths into a single output (Fig. 18, volume of upper portion of the chamber combines outputs #225 to a single volume).
Wi does not appear to teach, as part of a single embodiment, wherein the plurality of magnetic cores comprises a central magnetic core, wherein the four or more peripheral cores of the plurality of magnetic cores is around the central magnetic core.
However, Wi teaches an embodiment that comprises a central magnetic core and six peripheral magnetic cores (Wi – Fig. 5, #17b is central discharge tube bridge with ferrite #17, surrounded by six other tubes/cores).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wi apparatus of Figs. 17-19 to comprise the 1-central/6-peripheral discharge tube bridge/magnetic core arrangement of Fig. 5 as a matter of obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predicable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The above paragraphs detail the Examiner’s resolution of the first and second Graham factors.
For the third, the Examiner notes that Wi contains a number of embodiments whose characteristics are not mutually exclusive. In considering the apparatus of Figs. 17-19, the Examiner notes that the tube bridge/core structure depicted is the same as shown in Fig. 4 (four peripheral cores, no central core). Wi explicitly states in par. [0041] that the structure depicted in Fig. 5 (six peripheral cores, no central core) is an alternative to that shown in Fig. 4. As such, Wi would reasonably convey to a PHOSITA that such a substitution would be obvious.
Both embodiments are explicitly stated as alternatives that provide a symmetric structure for processing (par. [0041]), and neither embodiment is described as preferable over the other or incapable of performing the stated purpose. As such, Wi would reasonably convey to a PHOSITA where such a substitution would also be predictable.
The Examiner notes a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly educated, highly skilled, highly trained engineer with a breath of experience spanning multiple technical disciplines. In accordance, making the modification as proposed by the Examiner would be merely routine based exclusively on the Wi reference.
Wi does not appear to teach wherein each magnetic core is in direct physical contact with the central magnetic core (the embodiment in Wi Fig. 5 shows them in close proximity to a central core, but not in direct physical contact).
However, Kim teaches wherein two adjacent magnetic cores can be in indirect physical contact or spaced apart ([0076] and Fig. 4, cores #3411 and #3412 in direct physical contact; see also [0093]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the magnetic cores of Wi to be in direct physical contact as Kim teaches this feature can increase process yield by uniformly generating plasma (Kim – [0005]) or by creating a desired plasma density (Kim – [0148]).
Alternatively/additionally, Kim teaches wherein the cores may be in direct contact or spaced apart from each other (Kim – [0093]). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to simply modify the magnetic cores of Wi to be in contact as a matter of simple substitution (in contact versus not) to obtain a predictable result (ability to perform the required function while achieving stated advantages – Kim [0005], [0148]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Wi teaches wherein the RF coil is a single RF coil that wraps around all of the plurality of magnetic cores ([0058] and Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 5, Wi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches wherein the central magnetic core is square shaped (Fig. 4, #3411).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the magnetic cores of Wi to comprise those of Kim in order to increase process yield by uniformly generating plasma (Kim – [0005]) or by creating a desired plasma density (Kim – [0148]).
Regarding claim 7, Wi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches wherein the RF coil wraps around the central magnetic core (Kim – [0090] and Fig. 4, coil #3413).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the magnetic cores of Wi to comprise those of Kim in order to increase process yield by uniformly generating plasma (Kim – [0005]) or by creating a desired plasma density (Kim – [0148]).
Regarding claim 9, Wi teaches wherein the output is fluidically coupled to a plasma processing chamber (Fig. 18, upper conical volume connected to main cylindrical volume).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Wi teaches wherein the magnetic cores are ferrite ([0058]: ferritic cores #218).
Regarding claim 15, Wi teaches wherein the plurality of plasma zones is four plasma zones (Figs. 17-19, four zones).
Regarding claim 18, Wi teaches a semiconductor processing tool, comprising: a remote plasma source with an upstream end and a downstream end (Figs. 17-19, #214 is upper end and conical volume around #234 is downstream end), wherein the remote plasma source comprises: a plenum at the upstream end (Fig. 18, plenum within #212), wherein the plenum feeds gas to a plurality of plasma zones (Fig. 18, chambers #216), wherein individual ones of the plurality of plasma zones is surrounded by a corresponding magnetic core ([0058] and Fig. 18, ferrite core #218) of a plurality of magnetic cores (see Figs. 17-19), wherein the plurality of magnetic cores comprises four or more peripheral magnetic cores (see Figs. 17-19), and wherein each magnetic core is in contact with an adjacent magnetic core (see Figs. 17-18, at least thermal contact with each other); and a manifold at the downstream end wherein the manifold merges gas to an output (Fig. 18, conical volume around #234 merges each output #225); and a chamber fluidically coupled to the outlet of the remote plasma (Fig. 18, conical volume of chamber #230).
Wi does not appear to teach, as part of a single embodiment, wherein the plurality of magnetic cores are around a central magnetic core.
However, Wi teaches an embodiment that comprises a central magnetic core and six peripheral magnetic cores (Wi – Fig. 5, #17b is central discharge tube bridge with ferrite #17, surrounded by six other tubes/cores).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Wi apparatus of Figs. 17-19 to comprise the 1-central/6-peripheral discharge tube bridge/magnetic core arrangement of Fig. 5 as a matter of obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predicable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The above paragraphs detail the Examiner’s resolution of the first and second Graham factors.
For the third, the Examiner notes that Wi contains a number of embodiments whose characteristics are not mutually exclusive. In considering the apparatus of Figs. 17-19, the Examiner notes that the tube bridge/core structure depicted is the same as shown in Fig. 4 (four peripheral cores, no central core). Wi explicitly states in par. [0041] that the structure depicted in Fig. 5 (six peripheral cores, no central core) is an alternative to that shown in Fig. 4. As such, Wi would reasonably convey to a PHOSITA that such a substitution would be obvious.
Both embodiments are explicitly stated as alternatives that provide a symmetric structure for processing (par. [0041]), and neither embodiment is described as preferable over the other or incapable of performing the stated purpose. As such, Wi would reasonably convey to a PHOSITA where such a substitution would also be predictable.
The Examiner notes a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly educated, highly skilled, highly trained engineer with a breath of experience spanning multiple technical disciplines. In accordance, making the modification as proposed by the Examiner would be merely routine based exclusively on the Wi reference.
Wi does not appear to teach wherein each magnetic core is in direct physical contact with the central magnetic core (the embodiment in Wi Fig. 5 shows them in close proximity to a central core, but not in direct physical contact).
However, Kim teaches wherein two adjacent magnetic cores can be in indirect physical contact or spaced apart ([0076] and Fig. 4, cores #3411 and #3412 in direct physical contact; see also [0093]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the magnetic cores of Wi to be in direct physical contact as Kim teaches this feature can increase process yield by uniformly generating plasma (Kim – [0005]) or by creating a desired plasma density (Kim – [0148]).
Alternatively/additionally, Kim teaches wherein the cores may be in direct contact or spaced apart from each other (Kim – [0093]). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to simply modify the magnetic cores of Wi to be in contact as a matter of simple substitution (in contact versus not) to obtain a predictable result (ability to perform the required function while achieving stated advantages – Kim [0005], [0148]).
Regarding claim 19, Wi teaches an RF coil wrapping around the magnetic cores ([0058] and Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 20, Wi teaches wherein the plurality of plasma zones is four plasma zones (Figs. 17-19, four zones).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wi (US Pub. 2005/0000655) and Kim (US Pub. 2016/0020070), as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-12, 15, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Hu (US Pub. 2013/0118589).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-12, 15, and 17-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Wi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Hu teaches wherein individual ones of the plurality of plasma zones comprise a conductive shell (Hu – [0035]: plasma channels comprise aluminum), a first limiter on an upstream side of the plasma zone, and a second limiter on a downstream side of the plasma zone (Fig. 4E, constructors at either end of A and B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Wi apparatus to include the plasma zone limiters of Hu in order to accomplish a desired plasma flow pattern (Hu – [0041]), to optimize energy efficiency, and to control gas chemistries (Hu – [0040]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Particularly, Applicant’s arguments center around their interpretation of the Kim reference as allegedly only teaching where peripheral magnetic cores can be in contact. The Examiner respectfully submits that 1) this is an oversimplification of the teachings of the reference as a whole, and 2) Applicant is improperly considering the references individually rather that considering what the combination of references would convey to a PHOSITA.
Par. [0093] of Kim states: “the first core 3411 and the second core 3412 may contact each other, but the first core 3411 and the second core 3412 may be spaced a predetermined distance apart” (see as in Kim Fig. 4, reproduced below). In accordance, the Examiner respectfully submits that Kim would reasonably convey to a PHOSITA where any adjacent magnetic cores can be in direct physical contact OR spaced apart.
Kim does not explicitly or implicitly limit this core contact principle to only peripheral cores – Kim just happens to utilize peripheral cores. The Examiner is not aware of any particular principle that would prohibit central cores from benefiting from the arrangement of Kim.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Kim
Wi teaches seven magnetic cores that are all adjacent to each other (six peripheral, one center, as shown in Fig. 5 reproduced below - 18). The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would be properly motivated by Kim to place any or all of the adjacent magnetic cores in direct physical contact with each other.
There is no discernable difference between the central/peripheral cores found explicitly or implicitly in the disclosure of Wi other than their apparent size. As such, the cores are all believed to be functionally equivalent and would thus benefit from the arrangements as taught by Kim – the central core is not believed to operate in any different manner.
One such possibility that would be apparent to a PHOSITA based upon the combination of references is to have the central magnetic core of Wi, which is adjacent to all other peripheral magnetic cores, in direct physical contact. This possibility is based solely on the structural features of Wi in view of the arrangement teachings of Kim.
Thus the combination of references meets the limitation of the claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
325
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Wi
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights