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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, 17-18, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang et al., US 2003/0094238 in view of Banna et al., US 2015/0068682 and Xu et al., US 2014/0120731.
With respect to independent claim 1, Strang et al. shows the invention as claimed including a lid assembly for a processing chamber in a substrate processing system, the lid assembly comprising: a dielectric window 306/406 wherein the dielectric window includes an upper portion having flat upper and lower surfaces, wherein the lower surface is a plasma-facing surface of the dielectric window, and a lower portion 310A-C/410A-C, wherein the lower portion is cylindrical and extends downward from the lower surface, and wherein an outer diameter of the lower portion at least one of (i) is aligned with a gap between inner and outer coils arranged above the dielectric window and (ii) overlaps one of the inner and outer coils, wherein the inner coil is one of 302A,302B/402A,402B and outer coil is one of 302B,302C/402B,402C; (see, for example, Figs. 3-4 and their descriptions, Fig. 3 is shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the lower portions 310A-C/410A-C of the apparatus of Strang et al. are single solid cylinders pieces (see, for example, paragraph 0017).
Additionally, and with respect to the lower portion being removably attached to the upper portion, there is no evidence that the choice of a particular configuration of the upper and lower portions (integrated or separated) would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus (see, for example, paragraph 0032 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Furthermore, making elements separable was held to have been obvious. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1961).
This notwithstanding, Banna et al. discloses a lid assembly for a processing chamber wherein the dielectric window can be comprised of a single integrated piece comprising the upper portion and the lower portion or the upper portion and the lower portion are separate pieces that are attached together (see, for example, paragraphs 0025-0026).
Furthermore, Banna et al. clearly discloses that the lower portion can be coupled to the upper portion in any suitable manner, and further discloses bonding as an example of a suitable manner for the coupling. Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Strang et al. as to comprise the claimed configurations for the dielectric window upper and lower portions (integrated or removably separated/attached) because such configurations are known and used in the art as suitable configurations to effectively and efficiently manufacture a dielectric window having the claimed upper and lower portions, and the choice of one configuration or the other would be an obvious choice of design to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Strang et al. does not expressly disclose that the lower portion includes a sidewall having a plurality of through holes in the sidewall to allow gas flow between an inner volume defined within the lower portion and an outer volume defined outside of the lower portion. Xu et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising a dielectric window 707 including an upper portion having flat upper and lower surfaces, wherein the lower surface is a plasma-facing surface of the dielectric window; and a lower portion 772 including a sidewall having a plurality of through holes 776 in the sidewall to allow gas flow between an inner volume defined within the lower portion and an outer volume defined outside of the lower portion (see, for example, Fig. 7, and its description, Fig. 7 is shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
354
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sidewall of the lower portions of the apparatus of Strang et al. as to comprise the plurality of through holes because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently allow control of the gas flow and distribution and overcome radial asymmetry into/in the plasma processing apparatus.
Concerning the diameter, height, thickness, and material of the lower portion being configured to tune plasma uniformity across the dielectric window, Strang et al. discloses that the thickness and height/length of the lower portion, and the diameter/cross-sectional geometry of the cylinder walls (see, for example, paragraphs 0017-0018, 0023-0024, 0028) can be optimize in order to allow for spatial control of the plasma chemistry, homogenize the plasma density, and improve electric field and plasma uniformity through the whole area of the substrate. Also, Banna et al. discloses using different dielectric materials to change the effective dielectric coefficient (see, for example, paragraphs 0018, 0022, 0026). Furthermore, Xu et al. discloses modifying the diameter or height of the lower portion (see, for example, paragraphs 0033, 0039 and 0041) in order to control gas flow and thereby overcome radial-asymmetry. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter, height, thickness, and material of the lower portion during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristic/uniformity/density, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Strang et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose that the outer diameter of the lower portion is aligned with a midpoint of the gap. However, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the location of the outer diameter of the lower portion during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma generation/distribution/density within the chamber, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results. This notwithstanding, Banna et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising a dielectric window 104 including an upper portion having flat upper and lower surfaces, wherein the lower surface is a plasma-facing surface of the dielectric window; a lower portion 210, wherein the lower portion is cylindrical and extends downward from the lower surface; and inner and outer coils 110/108; wherein an outer diameter of the lower portion 210 is at least one of (i) aligned with a gap between inner and outer coils arranged above the dielectric window and (ii) overlaps one of the inner and outer coils. It should be noted that the reference clearly discloses that the lower portion 210 is position between the inner and outer coils, and it further discloses that the lower portion can be positioned in any desired location, from the center of the dielectric window to the edge of the dielectric window (see, for example, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraphs 0018 and 0023-0025, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
238
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Strang et al. as to have the outer diameter of the lower portion aligned with a midpoint of the gap between the inner and outer coils because such location/configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable location/configuration to effectively and efficiently provide control of the plasma generation/distribution/density within the chamber.
With respect to claims 7-8, 11, 17-18, and 20-24 it should be further noted that Strang et al. further discloses that the lower portion is comprised of quartz or alumina (see, for example, claim 4), and the dielectric window has a pi-shaped cross-section.
Regarding claim 12, it should be further noted that the inner and outer coils can generate first and second plasma fields in the processing chamber, and the lower portion separates the first and second plasma fields.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang et al., US 2003/0094238 in view of Banna et al., US 2015/0068682 and Xu et al., US 2014/0120731, as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, 17-18, 20-24 above, and further in view of Bhardwaj et al., US 6,259,209 or Shamouilian et al., US 6,095,084 or Fairbairn et al., US 5,614,055 or Collins, US 6,036,878.
Concerning claim 10, Strang et al., Banna et al., and Xu et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the lid comprises the inner and outer coils. However, it should be noted that there is no evidence that the choice of a particular location of the inner and outer coils would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus. This notwithstanding, Bhardwaj et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising inner and outer coils 14a and 15a, respectively (see, for example, Figs. 2, 5, 7-8, and 11-16, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
294
392
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Also, Shamouilian et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising inner and outer coils 135, respectively (see, for example, Figs. 2 and 5a, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
352
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Fairbairn et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising inner and outer coil portions 80b and 80a, respectively (see, for example, Figs. 6, 8 and 12, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
282
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Collins discloses a lid assembly comprising coil 145 and/or inner and outer coils 175 and 180, respectively (see, for example, Figs. 1, 25A, 26-29, 37A, 38A, 39A, 48A-B, 49-67, 70-80, Figs. 1 and 29 are shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
400
378
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
182
432
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Strang et al. modified by Banna et al. and Xu et al., as to comprise the inner and outer coils in the lid assembly because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently hold, place, and provide the coils for inductive coupling in an inductive plasma processing apparatus.
Claim(s) 1-2, 3-8, 11-13, 17-18, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banna et al., US 2015/0068682 in view of Xu et al., US 2014/0120731.
With respect to independent claim 1, Banna et al. shows the invention as claimed including a lid assembly for a processing chamber in a substrate processing system, the lid assembly comprising: a dielectric window 104, wherein the dielectric window includes an upper portion having flat upper and lower surfaces, wherein the lower surface is a plasma-facing surface of the dielectric window, and a lower portion 210, wherein the lower portion is cylindrical and extends downward from the lower surface, and wherein an outer diameter of the lower portion at least one of (i) is aligned with a gap between inner and outer coils arranged above the dielectric window and (ii) overlaps one of the inner and outer coils (inner and outer coils 110/108, respectively); see, for example Figs. 1-2A, and their descriptions, Figs. 1 and 2A shown below.
PNG
media_image9.png
324
304
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
188
362
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the lower portion 210 of the apparatus of Banna et al. is a single solid cylinder piece (see, for example, paragraph 0024). Also, and with respect to the lower portion being removably attached to the upper portion, there is no evidence that the choice of a particular configuration of the upper and lower portions (integrated or separated) would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus (see, for example, paragraph 0032 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Furthermore, making elements separable was held to have been obvious. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1961). Additionally, Banna et al. discloses that the dielectric window can be comprised of a single integrated piece comprising the upper portion and the lower portion or the upper portion and the lower portion are separate pieces that are attached together (see, for example, paragraphs 0025-0026), and that the lower portion can be coupled to the upper portion in any suitable manner, and further discloses bonding as an example of a suitable manner for the coupling.
Banna et al. but does not expressly disclose that the lower portion includes a sidewall having a plurality of through holes in the sidewall to allow gas flow between an inner volume defined within the lower portion and an outer volume defined outside of the lower portion. Xu et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising a dielectric window 707 including an upper portion having flat upper and lower surfaces, wherein the lower surface is a plasma-facing surface of the dielectric window; and a lower portion 772 including a sidewall having a plurality of through holes 776 in the sidewall to allow gas flow between an inner volume defined within the lower portion and an outer volume defined outside of the lower portion (see, for example, Fig. 7, and its description, Fig. 7 is shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
354
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sidewall of the lower portions of the apparatus of Banna et al. as to comprise the plurality of through holes because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently allow control of the gas flow and distribution and overcome radial asymmetry into/in the plasma processing apparatus.
Concerning the diameter, height, thickness, and material of the lower portion being configured to tune plasma uniformity across the dielectric window, Banna et al. discloses that the lower portion can have different shapes (and therefore diameter), and using different dielectric materials to change the effective dielectric coefficient (see, for example, paragraphs 0018, 0022, 0024, 0026). Furthermore, Xu et al. discloses modifying the diameter or height of the lower portion (see, for example, paragraphs 0033, 0039 and 0041) in order to control gas flow and thereby overcome radial-asymmetry. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter, height, thickness, and material of the lower portion during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristic/uniformity/density, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Banna et al. clearly discloses that the lower portion 210 is position between the inner and outer coils, and it further discloses that the lower portion can be positioned in any desired location, from the center of the dielectric window to the edge of the dielectric window (see, for example, paragraphs 0018 and 0023-0025). Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the location of the outer diameter of the lower portion during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma generation/distribution/density within the chamber, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claims 7-8, 11, 17-18, and 20 -24 it should be noted that Banna et al. further discloses that the lower portion is comprised of quartz or alumina (see, for example, paragraphs 0022 and 0025-0026), and the dielectric window has a pi-shaped cross-section.
Regarding claim 12, it should be noted that the inner and outer coils can generate first and second plasma fields in the processing chamber; and the lower portion would separate the first and second plasma fields, when the lower portion 210 is position between the inner and outer coils and/or with a midpoint of the gap between the inner and outer coils.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banna et al., US 2015/0068682 in view of Xu et al., US 2014/0120731, as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, 17-18, and 20-24 above, and further in view of Bhardwaj et al., US 6,259,209 or Shamouilian et al., US 6,095,084 or Fairbairn et al., US 5,614,055 or Collins, US 6,036,878.
Concerning claim 10, Banna et al. and Xu et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the lid comprises the inner and outer coils. However, it should be noted that there is no evidence that the choice of a particular location of the inner and outer coils would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus. This notwithstanding, Bhardwaj et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising inner and outer coils 14a and 15a, respectively (see, for example, Figs. 2, 5, 7-8, and 11-16, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
294
392
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Also, Shamouilian et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising inner and outer coils 135, respectively (see, for example, Figs. 2 and 5a, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
352
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Fairbairn et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising inner and outer coil portions 80b and 80a, respectively (see, for example, Figs. 6, 8 and 12, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
282
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Collins discloses a lid assembly comprising coil 145 and/or inner and outer coils 175 and 180, respectively (see, for example, Figs. 1, 25A, 26-29, 37A, 38A, 39A, 48A-B, 49-67, 70-80, Figs. 1 and 29 are shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
400
378
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
182
432
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Banna et al. as to comprise the inner and outer coils in the lid assembly because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently hold, place, and provide the coils for inductive coupling in an inductive plasma processing apparatus.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, 17-18, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al., US 2015/0136734 in view of Banna et al., US 2015/0068682 and Xu et al., US 2014/0120731.
With respect to independent claim 1, Chae et al. shows the invention as claimed including a lid assembly for a processing chamber in a substrate processing system, the lid assembly comprising: a dielectric window (top of 140), wherein the dielectric window includes an upper portion having flat upper and lower surfaces, wherein the lower surface is a plasma-facing surface of the dielectric window, and a lower portion 500, wherein the lower portion is cylindrical and extends downward from the lower surface, and wherein an outer diameter of the lower portion at least one of (i) is aligned with a gap between inner and outer coils arranged above the dielectric window and (ii) overlaps one of the inner and outer coils (inner coil 322 and outer coil 342); see, for example, Fig. 4 and its description, Fig. 4 is shown below.
PNG
media_image11.png
486
344
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the lower portion 500 of the apparatus of Chae et al. is a single solid cylinder piece (see, for example, paragraph 0051). Also, and with respect to the lower portion being removably attached to the upper portion, there is no evidence that the choice of a particular configuration of the upper and lower portions (integrated or separated) would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus (see, for example, paragraph 0032 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Furthermore, making elements separable was held to have been obvious. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1961). This notwithstanding, Banna et al. discloses a lid assembly for a processing chamber wherein the dielectric window can be comprised of a single integrated piece comprising the upper portion and the lower portion or the upper portion and the lower portion are separate pieces that are attached together (see, for example, paragraphs 0025-0026). Furthermore, Banna et al. clearly discloses that the lower portion can be coupled to the upper portion in any suitable manner, and further discloses bonding as an example of a suitable manner for the coupling. Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Chae et al. as to comprise the claimed configurations for the dielectric window upper and lower portions (integrated or removably separated/attached) because such configurations are known and used in the art as suitable configurations to effectively and efficiently manufacture a dielectric window having the claimed upper and lower portions, and the choice of one configuration or the other would be an obvious choice of design to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Chae et al. does not expressly disclose that the lower portion includes a sidewall having a plurality of through holes in the sidewall to allow gas flow between an inner volume defined within the lower portion and an outer volume defined outside of the lower portion. Xu et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising a dielectric window 707 including an upper portion having flat upper and lower surfaces, wherein the lower surface is a plasma-facing surface of the dielectric window; and a lower portion 772 including a sidewall having a plurality of through holes 776 in the sidewall to allow gas flow between an inner volume defined within the lower portion and an outer volume defined outside of the lower portion (see, for example, Fig. 7, and its description, Fig. 7 is shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
354
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sidewall of the lower portions of the apparatus of Chae et al. as to comprise the plurality of through holes because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently allow control of the gas flow and distribution and overcome radial asymmetry into/in the plasma processing apparatus.
Concerning the diameter, height, thickness, and material of the lower portion being configured to tune plasma uniformity across the dielectric window, Chae et al. discloses that the material of the lower portion is chosen so that it has a lower absorption rate of generated radicals so that a loss of generated plasma is low (see, for example, paragraph 0051), and further discloses that the diameter of the lower portion can be configured to adjust the plasma generation rates for treating the central and edge areas of the substrate (see, for example, Figs. 9-10 and paragraphs 0059-0060). Also, Banna et al. discloses that the lower portion can have different shapes (and therefore diameter), and using different dielectric materials to change the effective dielectric coefficient (see, for example, paragraphs 0018, 0022, 0024, 0026). Furthermore, Xu et al. discloses modifying the diameter or height of the lower portion (see, for example, paragraphs 0033, 0039 and 0041) in order to control gas flow and thereby overcome radial-asymmetry. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter, height, thickness, and material of the lower portion during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristic/uniformity/density, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Chae et al. does not expressly disclose that the outer diameter of the lower portion is aligned with a midpoint of the gap. However, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the location of the outer diameter of the lower portion during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma generation/distribution/density within the chamber, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results. This notwithstanding, Banna et al. discloses a lid assembly comprising a dielectric window 104 including an upper portion having flat upper and lower surfaces, wherein the lower surface is a plasma-facing surface of the dielectric window; a lower portion 210, wherein the lower portion is cylindrical and extends downward from the lower surface; and inner and outer coils 110/108; wherein an outer diameter of the lower portion 210 is at least one of (i) aligned with a gap between inner and outer coils arranged above the dielectric window and (ii) overlaps one of the inner and outer coils. It should be noted that the reference clearly discloses that the lower portion 210 is position between the inner and outer coils, and it further discloses that the lower portion can be positioned in any desired location, from the center of the dielectric window to the edge of the dielectric window (see, for example, Figs. 1-2 and their descriptions, especially paragraphs 0018 and 0023-0025, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
238
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Chae et al. as to have the outer diameter of the lower portion aligned with a midpoint of the gap between the inner and outer coils because such location/configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable location/configuration to effectively and efficiently provide control of the plasma generation/distribution/density within the chamber.
Regarding claims 7, 11, 17, and 20-23, Chae et al. discloses that the lower portion is comprised of quartz (see, for example, paragraph 0051), the dielectric window has a pi-shaped cross-section.
Concerning claims 8, 18, and 24, Banna et al. further discloses that the lower portion is comprised of quartz or alumina (see, for example, paragraphs 0022 and 0025-0026). Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Chae et al. as to have the lower portion comprised of alumina, because such material is well known and used in the art as suitable material for effectively and efficiently transmit the inductive coupling power coupled from the coils to generate plasma within the plasma processing apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, it should be noted that the inner and outer coils can generate first and second plasma fields in the processing chamber, and the lower portion separates the first and second plasma fields.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, filed 01/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 9-12 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawada et al., US 2012/0247390 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1, 9-12 and 19-20, as well as the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2-8, 13-18 and 21-22 using the Sawada et al. reference as the primary reference, have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/05/2026, with respect to the Strang et al., Banna et al., Chae et al., and Xu et al. references, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Strang et al. does not disclose that the lower portions 310 are removably attached to the upper portion of the dielectric window, and that the lower portions do not include a plurality of through holes. In response to applicant's arguments against the Strang et al. reference 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). It should be noted that the secondary references of Banna et al. and Xu et al. were relied upon in the previous office action, and are relied upon in the above rejection of the amended claims, for their teachings of those limitations, respectively. Additionally, the examiner respectfully points out that there is no evidence that the choice of a particular configuration of the upper and lower portions (integrated or separated) would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus (see, for example, paragraph 0032 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Therefore, such limitation is considered an obvious choice of design and it would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, making elements separable was held to have been obvious. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1961).
Applicant argues that the lower portion 210 of Banna is not removably attached to the upper portion of the dielectric window. The examiner respectfully points out that, as stated above, there is no evidence that the choice of a particular configuration of the upper and lower portions (integrated or separated) would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus (see, for example, paragraph 0032 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Therefore, such limitation is considered an obvious choice of design and it would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, making elements separable was held to have been obvious. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1961). Additionally, the examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Banna et al. clearly discloses a lid assembly for a processing chamber wherein the dielectric window can be comprised of a single integrated piece comprising the upper portion and the lower portion or the upper portion and the lower portion are separate pieces that are attached together (see, for example, paragraphs 0025-0026). Furthermore, Banna et al. clearly discloses that the lower portion can be coupled to the upper portion in any suitable manner, and further discloses bonding as an example of a suitable manner for the coupling. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the upper and lower portions can be attached by other means known in the art, such as fasteners, bolts or screws. Additionally, Banna et al. does not disclose that the bonding between the upper and lower portions is a permanent bonding.
Applicant argues that the lower portion 210 of Banna et al. does not include the claimed through holes. In response to applicant's arguments against the Banna et al. reference 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). It should be noted that the secondary reference of Xu et al. was relied upon in the previous office action, and is relied upon in the above rejection of the amended claims, for its teachings of such limitation.
Applicant argues that Chae et al. does not disclose that the lower portions 310 are removably attached to the upper portion of the dielectric window, and that the lower portions do not include a plurality of through holes. In response to applicant's arguments against the Chae et al. reference 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). It should be noted that the secondary references of Banna et al. and Xu et al. were relied upon in the previous office action, and are relied upon in the above rejection of the amended claims, for their teachings of those limitations, respectively. Additionally, the examiner respectfully points out that there is no evidence that the choice of a particular configuration of the upper and lower portions (integrated or separated) would significantly affect the overall performance of the plasma processing apparatus (see, for example, paragraph 0032 of the specification of the instant claimed invention). Therefore, such limitation is considered an obvious choice of design and it would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, making elements separable was held to have been obvious. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1961).
Applicant argues that the baffle of Xu et al. is not attached to the dielectric window and that it is inverted. In response to applicant's arguments against the Chae et al. reference 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). It should be noted that the primary references of Strang et al., Banna et al. and Chae et al. disclose that the lower portion is attached to the dielectric window and extends down towards the substrate. The secondary reference of Xu et al. is only being used for its teachings of providing through holes to allow control of the flow of gas/plasma between chamber regions in order to overcome radial asymmetry of the substrate being processed. Furthermore, it should be noted that Xu et al. does disclose embodiments (see, for example, the embodiments of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) wherein the baffle has a portion extending downward.
Applicant argues that the combination of the teachings of the secondary reference of Xu et al. with the primary references are based solely on hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As stated above,
the secondary reference of Xu et al. teaches the use of through holes to allow control of the flow of gas/plasma between chamber regions in order to overcome radial asymmetry of the substrate being processed, and further discloses embodiments wherein the baffle has a portion extending downward. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the teachings of Xu et al., to use through holes to allow control of the flow of gas/plasma, would apply to a portion extending downward or upward.
Applicant argues that none of the references, in combination, suggest that the diameter, height, thickness, and material of the lower portion can be configured to tune plasma uniformity across the dielectric window. The examiner respectfully disagrees and points out, that as stated in the above rejections, Strang et al. discloses that the thickness and height/length of the lower portion, and the diameter/cross-sectional geometry of the cylinder walls (see, for example, paragraphs 0017-0018, 0023-0024, 0028) can be optimize in order to allow for spatial control of the plasma chemistry, homogenize the plasma density, and improve electric field and plasma uniformity through the whole area of the substrate. Banna et al. discloses using different dielectric materials to change the effective dielectric coefficient (see, for example, paragraphs 0018, 0022, 0026). Also, Chae et al. discloses that the material of the lower portion is chosen so that it has a lower absorption rate of generated radicals so that a loss of generated plasma is low (see, for example, paragraph 0051), and further discloses that the diameter of the lower portion can be configured to adjust the plasma generation rates for treating the central and edge areas of the substrate (see, for example, Figs. 9-10 and paragraphs 0059-0060). Furthermore, Xu et al. discloses modifying the diameter or height of the lower portion (see, for example, paragraphs 0033, 0039 and 0041) in order to control gas flow and thereby overcome radial-asymmetry. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter, height, thickness, and material of the lower portion during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristic/uniformity/density, and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hertel et al. (US 2008/0169183) is cited for its teaching of the use of fasteners/bolts to attach parts inside of a processing chamber.
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 LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
May 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights