DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 6/5/2026.
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 12, 14, and 16 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 7, and 18 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner continues to note, for clarity of the record, that independent claims 1 and 3 do not positively recite any of the following:
a substrate
an edge ring
at least one high frequency power supply
at least one bias power supply
In the interest of fairness to the Applicant, the Examiner continues to interpret the claims as if each of these elements are structurally required despite no positive recitation thereof. Applicant may wish to amend the claims to positively recite these features to avoid potential confusion surrounding the actual vs. intended scope of the claims.
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, 3-11, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US Pub. 2019/0088523) in view of Fushimi (US Pub. 2018/0204757), Fairbairn (US Pub. 2019/0157040), and Negishi (US Pub. 2010/0025369).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Matsuyama teaches a plasma processing apparatus ([0024] and Fig. 1, plasma processing apparatus #1) comprising: a chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, chamber #10); a substrate support provided in the chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, susceptor #11), and configured to support a substrate and an edge ring ([0029] and Fig. 1, wafer W and edge ring #30); a controller ([0033]-[0034] and Fig. 1, control unit #43 embodied as a computer with memory) configured to operate: at least one high-frequency power supply configured to generate first high-frequency power coupled to plasma above the substrate via the substrate ([0027] and Fig. 1, HF power supply #22a for plasma generation); and at least one bias power supply configured to generate first electric bias energy supplied to the substrate and second electric bias energy supplied to the edge ring ([0027] and Fig. 1, power supply #22b providing bias power of varying magnitudes).
Matsuyama does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one high-frequency power supply is configured to generate a second high-frequency power coupled to the plasma above the edge ring via the edge ring (Matsuyama appears to disclose wherein only one power is provided by #22a).
However, Fushimi teaches a first and second high frequency power supply, wherein the second high-frequency power supply is configured to generate a second high-frequency power coupled to the plasma above the edge ring via the edge ring (Fushimi – [0030] and Fig. 1, fourth high frequency power supply #28 is coupled to second electrode #14, which resides under focus ring #16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to include first and second high frequency power supplies similar to Fushimi in order to allow for control over edge plasma density relative to central plasma density (Fushimi – [0062]).
Modified Matsuyama does not appear to explicitly teach wherein each of the first electric bias energy and the second electric bias energy has a waveform repeatedly at a cycle having a time length of an inverse number of a bias frequency, wherein the cycle includes a first period in which voltage of each of the first electric bias energy and the second electric bias energy has a positive level with respect to an average value of voltage within the cycle, and a second period in which the voltage of each of the first electric bias energy and the second electric bias energy has a negative level with respect to the average value, and wherein in the first period, a power level of the first high-frequency power or a power level of the second high-frequency power is set so as to reduce a difference between a top location of a sheath on the substrate and a top location of the sheath on the edge ring, wherein the level of the second electric bias energy is set to increase with a decrease in thickness of the edge ring.
However, Fairbairn teaches this function (Fairbairn – [0091]: first and second bias sources are synchronized; Fig. 20 depicts a bias waveform with positive/negative values relative to an average; [0067]: describes how sheath characteristics are affected by disclosed techniques; the Examiner also notes that frequency is, by definition, equal to inverse time:
F
=
1
t
; where time is a measure of duration or “period”).
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 Matsuyama apparatus to comprise the functionality of Fairbairn in order to adjust the ions of a generated plasma sheath to affect processing performance (Fairbairn – [0067]).
Modified Matsuyama does not teach wherein the thickness of the edge ring is larger than a predetermined value, and wherein the power level of the second high-frequency power supplied in the first period is to a power level lower than a reference power level of the second high-frequency power to be set in the first period when the thickness of the edge ring is the predetermined value.
However, Negishi teaches wherein edge ring thickness is considered when determining the application of high-frequency power to an edge ring (Negishi – [0043] and Figs. 7-8: S2 and S12 provide information for S3 to determine sheath profile similar to Fig. 5A, which allows for recipe modifications in S1 including focus ring power values).
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 Matsuyama apparatus to comprise the Negishi power feedback system in order to prevent tilting of the plasma sheath that detracts from processing quality (Negishi – [0007]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuyama teaches a plasma processing apparatus ([0024] and Fig. 1, plasma processing apparatus #1) comprising: a chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, chamber #10); a substrate support provided in the chamber ([0025] and Fig. 1, susceptor #11), and configured to support a substrate and an edge ring ([0029] and Fig. 1, wafer W and edge ring #30); a controller ([0033]-[0034] and Fig. 1, control unit #43 embodied as a computer with memory) configured to operate: at least one high-frequency power supply configured to generate first high-frequency power coupled to plasma above the substrate via the substrate ([0027] and Fig. 1, HF power supply #22a for plasma generation); and at least one bias power supply configured to generate first electric bias energy supplied to the substrate and second electric bias energy supplied to the edge ring ([0027] and Fig. 1, power supply #22b providing bias power of varying magnitudes).
Matsuyama does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one high-frequency power supply is configured to generate a second high-frequency power coupled to the plasma above the edge ring via the edge ring (Matsuyama appears to disclose wherein only one power is provided by #22a).
However, Fushimi teaches a first and second high frequency power supply, wherein the second high-frequency power supply is configured to generate a second high-frequency power coupled to the plasma above the edge ring via the edge ring (Fushimi – [0030] and Fig. 1, fourth high frequency power supply #28 is coupled to second electrode #14, which resides under focus ring #16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to include first and second high frequency power supplies similar to Fushimi in order to allow for control over edge plasma density relative to central plasma density (Fushimi – [0062]).
Modified Matsuyama does not appear to explicitly teach wherein each of the first electric bias energy and the second electric bias energy has a waveform repeatedly at a cycle having a time length of an inverse number of a bias frequency, wherein the cycle includes a first period in which voltage of each of the first electric bias energy and the second electric bias energy has a positive level with respect to an average value of voltage within the cycle, and a second period in which the voltage of each of the first electric bias energy and the second electric bias energy has a negative level with respect to the average value, and wherein in the first period, a power level of the first high-frequency power or a power level of the second high-frequency power is set so as to reduce a difference between a top location of a sheath on the substrate and a top location of the sheath on the edge ring, wherein the level of the second electric bias energy is set to increase with a decrease in thickness of the edge ring.
However, Fairbairn teaches this function (Fairbairn – [0091]: first and second bias sources are synchronized; Fig. 20 depicts a bias waveform with positive/negative values relative to an average; [0067]: describes how sheath characteristics are affected by disclosed techniques including substrate perimeter; the Examiner also notes that frequency is, by definition, equal to inverse time:
F
=
1
t
; where time is a measure of duration or “period”).
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 Matsuyama apparatus to comprise the functionality of Fairbairn in order to adjust the ions of a generated plasma sheath to affect processing performance (Fairbairn – [0067]).
Modified Matsuyama does not teach wherein the thickness of the edge ring is larger than a predetermined value, and wherein the power level of the second high-frequency power supplied in the first period is to a power level lower than a reference power level of the second high-frequency power to be set in the first period when the thickness of the edge ring is the predetermined value.
However, Negishi teaches wherein edge ring thickness is considered when determining the application of high-frequency power to an edge ring (Negishi – [0043] and Figs. 7-8: S2 and S12 provide information for S3 to determine sheath profile similar to Fig. 5A, which allows for recipe modifications in S1 including focus ring power values).
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 Matsuyama apparatus to comprise the Negishi power feedback system in order to prevent tilting of the plasma sheath that detracts from processing quality (Negishi – [0007]-[0011]).
Regarding claims 4-10, modified Matsuyama does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Negishi teaches wherein edge ring thickness is considered when determining the application of high-frequency power to an edge ring (Negishi – [0043] and Figs. 7-8: S2 and S12 provide information for S3 to determine sheath profile similar to Fig. 5A, which allows for recipe modifications in S1 including focus ring power values; [0010] states an “optimal value” of electric power can be applied; [0015] describes an amount of RF power supplied; [0041] provides additional details).
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 Matsuyama apparatus to comprise the Negishi power feedback system in order to prevent tilting of the plasma sheath that detracts from processing quality (Negishi – [0007]-[0011]).
For clarity, the Examiner notes that these claims require raising or lowering RF power in response to a smaller or larger edge ring, which is taught by Negishi. The “predetermined value” of the edge ring thickness and the “reference power level” are not structurally recited in claim 3, thus are not present in the controller. The Examiner posits that a human operator using the claimed apparatus could also be tasked with remembering the predetermined/reference values and inputting them into the controller algorithm. Even considering the above, Negishi teaches both raising and lowering RF power application such that the actual numerical quantities of the predetermined/reference values above is encompassed- any value can be achieved by the range of raised/lowered RF power application.
Regarding claim 11, Matsuyama teaches wherein the at least one high-frequency power supply comprises a first high-frequency power supply configured to generate the first high-frequency power ([0027] and Fig. 1, HF power supply #22a for plasma generation).
Matsuyama does not teach a second high-frequency power supply configured to generate the second high-frequency power.
However, Fushimi teaches a first and second high frequency power supply, wherein the second high-frequency power supply is configured to generate a second high-frequency power coupled to the plasma above the edge ring via the edge ring (Fushimi – [0030] and Fig. 1, fourth high frequency power supply #28 is coupled to second electrode #14, which resides under focus ring #16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to include first and second high frequency power supplies similar to Fushimi in order to allow for control over edge plasma density relative to central plasma density (Fushimi – [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuyama teaches wherein the controller comprises a central processing unit ([0034]), a memory ([0034]), and a connection interface ([0034]: reads out a recipe, thus provides some sort of interface device- the claim does not require any specific type of connection interface).
Regarding claim 17, Matsuyama teaches wherein the controller comprises a central processing unit ([0034]), a memory ([0034]), and a connection interface ([0034]: reads out a recipe, thus provides some sort of interface device- the claim does not require any specific type of connection interface).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus as it is not recited as part of the controller of claim 1. The modified Matsuyama apparatus is regarded as capable of performing the intended use since a PHOSITA would recognize that any high frequency power supplied to a plasma will necessarily affect the plasma sheath, thus could be set to achieve the stated result.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2019/0088523), Fushimi (US 2018/0204757), Fairbairn (US Pub. 2019/0157040), and Negishi (US Pub. 2010/0025369), as applied to claims 1, 3-11, 15, and 17-19 above, further in view of Chen (US 2006/0175015).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-11, 15, and 17-19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Matsuyama teaches wherein the at least one bias power supply comprises a first bias power supply configured to generate the first electric bias energy ([0027] and Fig. 1, power supply #22b providing bias power).
Modified Matsuyama does not teach a second bias power supply configured to generate the second electric bias energy.
However, Chen teaches first and second bias power supplies (Chen – [0030] and Fig. 1, first/second power supplies #150/#154).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to provide two of the bias power supplies of Matsuyama since Chen teaches such a configuration provides enhanced control over plasma density and a wider processing window (Chen – [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has provided an appropriate status identifier for claim 13, thus the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant has appropriately amended claims 7 and 18, thus all previous §112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections (Remarks, pgs. 12-13) of independent claims 1 and 3 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive for at least the reasons set forth herein.
Applicant first argues that the motivations provided by the Examiner in combining Fairbairn and Fushimi with Matsuyama are insufficient.
The Examiner notes, as an initial matter, that Applicant has merely provided the following conclusory statements without any technical or legal arguments in support:
“Fairbairn and Fushimi would not motivate one skilled in the art to make all the specific changes to the Matsuyama system to meet Applicant’s claims”
“This statement would not guide one skilled in the art to pick and choose from the long list of ‘functionalities’ in Fairbairn”
“the general disclosure in Fushimi of ‘a second high-frequency power’ seems hardly sufficient to suggest to one skilled in the art to modify Matsuyama”
Thus, before any comment by the Examiner as to the merits of the Applicant’s conclusions, the arguments are not persuasive. The courts have held that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Next, the Examiner believes Applicant’s arguments are deficient since they do not properly resolve the level of ordinary skill in the art when considering the Examiner’s rejection, as is required by the analysis set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966).
Particularly, the Examiner believes Applicant is seeking a more complex motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references because they believe the level of ordinary skill is significantly lower than that asserted by the Examiner.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning multiple scientific disciplines (chemical, mechanical, electrical, material, etc.).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the high level of skill of a PHOSITA in the CVD arts would enable said PHOSITA to combine the references as suggested even if, arguendo, the motivation is “very general”, as alleged by Applicant.
Turning to the references themselves, the Examiner notes Fushimi provides additional discussion that would convey to a PHOSITA that the disclosed invention is advantageous (see at least pars. [0002], [0007]-[0011], [0049]-[0064]), as does Fairbairn (see at least pars. [0004], [0006], [0053], [0054], [0064], [0066], [0087]). The Examiner notes that considering the prior art references as a whole is a necessary step in an obviousness determination – see MPEP 2141.02.
The mere fact that the Examiner cited one paragraph of the reference in support of the rejection should not be viewed as an admission that the remainder of the reference is irrelevant. This is largely a byproduct of the Examiner attempting to provide a concise and straightforward rejection.
The Examiner submits a PHOSITA would consider the totality of the reference, and would be properly motivated to arrive at the claimed invention without any benefit of the instant disclosure.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s first argument is not persuasive.
Applicant secondly argues that the previous combination of references do not meet the limitations of claim 1 as amended. The Examiner notes the amended limitations of claim 1 are also present in claim 3. The Examiner points to Negishi to teach these limitations with respect to claim 1, as amended – the same as claim 3. The Applicant has not disputed this aspect in any additional detail, so the Examiner merely reiterates herein the rebuttal of the first argument (as above).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s second argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s request for rejoinder (Remarks, pg. 13 – “restored”) of withdrawn claims 12, 14, and 16 is noted, but is moot until such time as a claim is found to be allowable.
Conclusion
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 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 at (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