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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A1 and Species B1 in the reply filed on 01/02/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-20 are readable on the elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “wherein the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis according to a Hill function” in claim 8 is confusing since it is not clear what are the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation. The specification of the instant claimed invention does not provide a clear definition of what applicant is trying to claim as a Hill function. The specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraphs 0051-0053, mentions a Hill function with respect to two different figures, Fig. 5A and Fig. 5B, however, the specification does not specifically define the claimed terminology. As clearly shown by these two pictures the solid curves in both figures, which applicant discloses as representing a Hill function, have different shapes/curvatures, and therefore, the claimed limitation is not clear. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “wherein the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis according to a Hill function” in claim 15 is confusing since it is not clear what are the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation. The specification of the instant claimed invention does not provide a clear definition of what applicant is trying to claim as a Hill function. The specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraphs 0051-0053, mentions a Hill function with respect to two different figures, Fig. 5A and Fig. 5B, however, the specification does not specifically define the claimed terminology. As clearly shown by these two pictures the solid curves in both figures, which applicant discloses as representing a Hill function, have different shapes/curvatures, and therefore, the claimed limitation is not clear. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The limitation “wherein the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis according to a Hill function” in claim 20 is confusing since it is not clear what are the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation. The specification of the instant claimed invention does not provide a clear definition of what applicant is trying to claim as a Hill function. The specification of the instant claimed invention, in paragraphs 0051-0053, mentions a Hill function with respect to two different figures, Fig. 5A and Fig. 5B, however, the specification does not specifically define the claimed terminology. As clearly shown by these two pictures the solid curves in both figures, which applicant discloses as representing a Hill function, have different shapes/curvatures, and therefore, the claimed limitation is not clear. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fink et al., US 2003/0087488.
With respect to independent claim 1, Fink et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed an antenna assembly, comprising an antenna 90; and a dielectric enclosure 96, surrounding the antenna; and a Faraday shield 92, disposed around the antenna, and arranged between the antenna and the dielectric enclosure, wherein the Faraday shield comprises a non-uniform opacity along an antenna axis of the antenna, wherein a first opacity of the Faraday shield at a first position (a position in the Faraday shield where there is no opening 98, shown in the modified Figs. 5A-5C below by the area not encircled by the rectangles) along the antenna axis is greater than a second opacity of the Faraday shield at a second position (a position in the Faraday shield where there is an opening 98, shown in the modified Figs. 5A-5C below by the area encircled by the rectangles and pointed by the arrows) along the antenna axis of the antenna; (see, for example, Figs. 4A-4B and 5A-5C, and their descriptions, Figs. 4A and Figs. 5A-5C are shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
171
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
388
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2 and 10, it should be noted that the Faraday shield of the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Fink et al. would be affix to an inner wall of the dielectric enclosure.
Regarding claim 4, it should be noted that Fink et al. further discloses an embodiment wherein the antenna assembly of the apparatus comprises a linear antenna 242, having a grounded end and a powered end, the linear antenna extending along an antenna axis; wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis (see, for example, Fig. 7A and its description, Fig. 7A is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
278
441
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, it should be noted that Sakai et al. further discloses a processing system 200 comprising a plasma chamber 210, wherein the antenna assembly is disposed within the plasma chamber, wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis, and wherein the antenna 242 is a linear antenna having a grounded end and a powered end, the linear antenna extending along an antenna axis; (see, for example, Fig. 7A above).
Concerning claim 14, as broadly claimed, Finks et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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) 3, 5, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 in view of Long, US 2022/0208529.
Fink et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose that the claimed Faraday shield configuration. Long discloses a plasma processing apparatus having a Faraday shield 200 comprising a plurality of ribs 210, and a spine functioning structure 230/232 arranged to connect the plurality of ribs to one another; (see, for example, Figs. 2-8, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
515
349
media_image5.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 Faraday shield of the apparatus of Fink et al., as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively, efficiently, and selectively transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method perform in the apparatus. It should be noted that in the apparatus of Fink et al. modified by Long, the Faraday shield circumferentially surrounds the antenna.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 in view of Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Fink et al. is applied as above and further discloses an embodiment wherein plurality of linear antennas are connected to each other with electrical elements 291 (see, for example, Fig. 7B and its description, Fig. 7B is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
287
437
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fink et al. does not expressly disclose that the linear antenna has the claimed hairpin structure, however, the configuration of the claimed antenna is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the antenna is significant. This notwithstanding, Iwakoke discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 3, wherein the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion 3(A) that extends from a powered end 3a1, a second linear portion 3(B) that extends from the grounded end 3b2, and a connecting portion 12, connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end 3a1.
PNG
media_image7.png
321
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Also, Yeom et al. discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 32, wherein the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion that extends from a powered end (the end where RF power is connected), a second linear portion that extends from the grounded end, and a connecting portion (the U shaped connecting section) connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its description, Fig. 2 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end.
PNG
media_image8.png
326
423
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Fink et al. so as to comprise a hairpin structure because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generating inductive coupling plasma by electrically connecting adjacent antenna portions so that high frequency currents in opposite directions flow through the first antenna portion and the second antenna portion.
Concerning claim 7, as broadly claimed, Fink et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 in view of Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814, as applied to claims 6-7 and 13 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 8, Fink et al., Iwakoke, and Yeom et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Fink et al. modified by Iwakoke or Yeom et al., as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 15, Fink et al. is applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Fink et al. as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 in view of Godet et al., US 2015/0325410.
Regarding claim 16, Fink et al. is applied as above, and it further discloses a processing system 200 comprising a plasma chamber 210; wherein the antenna assembly is disposed within the plasma chamber, wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis, wherein the antenna 242 is a linear antenna having a grounded end and a powered end, the linear antenna extending along an antenna axis; and a substrate holder 20; (see, for example, Fig. 7A below).
PNG
media_image3.png
278
441
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It should further be noted that an opacity of the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Fink et al. changes along the antenna axis. Fink et al. does not expressly disclose the claimed extraction plate. Godet et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising an extraction plate 114, disposed on a side of a plasma chamber (see, for example, Fig. 1A and its description, Fig. 1A is shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
390
373
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Fink et al. as to further comprise an extraction plate because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently extracting ions as an ion beam and direct the ion beam toward the substrate holder. It should be noted that the incorporation of the extraction plate of Godet et al. into the apparatus of Fink et al. would create a plasma chamber above the extraction plate, and a processing chamber below the extraction plate, wherein the processing chamber has a substrate holder.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 in view of Godet et al., US 2015/0325410, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Long, US 2022/0208529.
Regarding claim 17, Fink et al. and Godet et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the claimed Faraday shield configuration. Long discloses a plasma processing apparatus having a Faraday shield 200 comprising a plurality of ribs 210, and a spine functioning structure 230/232 arranged to connect the plurality of ribs to one another; (see, for example, Figs. 2-8, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
515
349
media_image5.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 Faraday shield of the apparatus of Fink et al. modified by Godet et al., as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively, efficiently, and selectively transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method perform in the apparatus. It should be noted that in the apparatus of Fink et al. modified by Godet et al. and Long, the Faraday shield circumferentially surrounds the antenna.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 in view of Godet et al., US 2015/0325410, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814.
Regarding claim 18, Fink et al. and Godet et al. are applied as above, and Fink et al. further discloses an embodiment wherein plurality of linear antennas are connected to each other with electrical elements 291 (see, for example, Fig. 7B and its description, Fig. 7B is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
287
437
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fink et al. does not expressly disclose that the linear antenna has the claimed hairpin structure, however, the configuration of the claimed antenna is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the antenna is significant. This notwithstanding, Iwakoke discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 3, wherein the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion 3(A) that extends from a powered end 3a1, a second linear portion 3(B) that extends from the grounded end 3b2, and a connecting portion 12, connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end 3a1.
PNG
media_image7.png
321
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Also, Yeom et al. discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 32, wherein the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion that extends from a powered end (the end where RF power is connected), a second linear portion that extends from the grounded end, and a connecting portion (the U shaped connecting section) connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its description, Fig. 2 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end.
PNG
media_image8.png
326
423
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Fink et al. modified by Godet et al., as to comprise a hairpin structure because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generating inductive coupling plasma by electrically connecting adjacent antenna portions so that high frequency currents in opposite directions flow through the first antenna portion and the second antenna portion.
Concerning claim 19, as broadly claimed, Finks et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 in view of Godet et al., US 2015/0325410 and Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814, as applied to claims 18-19 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 20, Fink et al. and Godet et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Fink et al. modified by Godet et al., as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., WO 2018/173892 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488.
With respect to independent claim 1, Sakai et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed an antenna assembly, comprising an antenna 3; and a dielectric enclosure 10, surrounding the antenna; (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its disclosure, Fig. 1 shown below).
PNG
media_image14.png
311
507
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Sakai et al. does not expressly disclose the claimed Faraday shield. Fink et al. discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 90; a dielectric enclosure 96 surrounding the antenna; and a Faraday shield 92, disposed around the antenna, and arranged between the antenna and the dielectric enclosure, wherein the Faraday shield comprises a non-uniform opacity along an antenna axis of the antenna, wherein a first opacity of the Faraday shield at a first position (a position in the Faraday shield where there is no opening 98, shown in the modified Figs. 5A-5C below by the area not encircled by the rectangles) along the antenna axis is greater than a second opacity of the Faraday shield at a second position (a position in the Faraday shield where there is an opening 98, shown in the modified Figs. 5A-5C below by the area encircled by the rectangles and pointed by the arrows) along the antenna axis of the antenna; (see, for example, Figs. 4A-4B and 5A-5C, and their descriptions, Figs. 4A and Figs. 5A-5C are shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
171
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
388
336
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 antenna assembly of the apparatus of Sakai et al. as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, it should be noted that the Faraday shield of the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. would be affix to an inner wall of the dielectric enclosure.
Regarding claim 4, it should be noted that the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Sakai et al. comprises a linear antenna, having a grounded end 3b, and a
powered end 3a, the linear antenna extending along the antenna axis; wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis (see, for example, Fig. 1 and its description, Fig. 1 shown above).
With respect to claim 9, it should be noted that Sakai et al. further discloses a processing system comprising a plasma chamber 2, wherein the antenna assembly is disposed within the plasma chamber, wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis, and wherein the antenna 3 is a linear antenna having a grounded end 3a and a powered end 3b, the linear antenna extending along an antenna axis; (see, for example, Fig. 1 above).
Concerning claim 14, as broadly claimed, Finks et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 5, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., WO 2018/173892 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 14 above, and further in view of Long, US 2022/0208529.
Sakai et al. and Fink et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the claimed Faraday shield configuration. Long discloses a plasma processing apparatus having a Faraday shield 200 comprising a plurality of ribs 210, and a spine functioning structure 230/232 arranged to connect the plurality of ribs to one another; (see, for example, Figs. 2-8, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
515
349
media_image5.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 Faraday shield of the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al., as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively, efficiently, and selectively transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method perform in the apparatus. It should be noted that in the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. and Long, the Faraday shield circumferentially surrounds the antenna.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., WO 2018/173892 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 14 above, and further in view of Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Sakai et al. and Fink et al. are applied as above and Fink et al. further discloses an embodiment wherein plurality of linear antennas are connected to each other with electrical elements 291 (see, for example, Fig. 7B and its description, Fig. 7B is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
287
437
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fink et al. does not expressly disclose that the linear antenna has the claimed hairpin structure, however, the configuration of the claimed antenna is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the antenna is significant. This notwithstanding, Iwakoke discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 3, wherein the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion 3(A) that extends from a powered end 3a1, a second linear portion 3(B) that extends from the grounded end 3b2, and a connecting portion 12, connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end 3a1.
PNG
media_image7.png
321
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Also, Yeom et al. discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 32, wherein the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion that extends from a powered end (the end where RF power is connected), a second linear portion that extends from the grounded end, and a connecting portion (the U shaped connecting section) connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its description, Fig. 2 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end.
PNG
media_image8.png
326
423
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. as to comprise a hairpin structure because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generating inductive coupling plasma by electrically connecting adjacent antenna portions so that high frequency currents in opposite directions flow through the first antenna portion and the second antenna portion.
Concerning claim 7, as broadly claimed, Fink et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., WO 2018/173892 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 and Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814, as applied to claims 6-7 and 13 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 8, Sakai et al., Fink et al., Iwakoke, and Yeom et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. and Iwakoke or Yeom et al. as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., WO 2018/173892 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 14 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 15, Sakai et al. and Fink et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., WO 2018/173892 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 14 above, and further in view of Godet et al., US 2015/0325410.
Regarding claim 16, Sakai et al. and Fink et al. are applied as above, and Sakai et al. further discloses a processing system comprising a plasma chamber 2; wherein the antenna assembly is disposed within the plasma chamber, wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis, wherein the antenna 3 is a linear antenna having a grounded end 3a and a powered end 3b, the linear antenna extending along an antenna axis; and a substrate holder 8 (see, for example, Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image14.png
311
507
media_image14.png
Greyscale
It should further be noted that an opacity of the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. changes along the antenna axis. Sakai et al. and Fink et al. do not expressly disclose the claimed extraction plate. Godet et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising an extraction plate 114, disposed on a side of a plasma chamber (see, for example, Fig. 1A and its description, Fig. 1A is shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
390
373
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. as to further comprise an extraction plate because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently extracting ions as an ion beam and direct the ion beam toward the substrate holder. It should be noted that the incorporation of the extraction plate of Godet et al. into the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified Fink et al. would create a plasma chamber above the extraction plate, and a processing chamber below the extraction plate, wherein the processing chamber has a substrate holder.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., WO 2018/173892 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 and Godet et al., US 2015/0325410, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Long, US 2022/0208529.
Regarding claim 17, Sakai et al., Fink et al., and Godet et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the claimed Faraday shield configuration. Long discloses a plasma processing apparatus having a Faraday shield 200 comprising a plurality of ribs 210, and a spine functioning structure 230/232 arranged to connect the plurality of ribs to one another; (see, for example, Figs. 2-8, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
515
349
media_image5.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 Faraday shield of the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al., as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively, efficiently, and selectively transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method perform in the apparatus. It should be noted that in the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al. and Long, the Faraday shield circumferentially surrounds the antenna.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., WO 2018/173892 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 and Godet et al., US 2015/0325410, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814.
Regarding claim 18, Sakai et al., Fink et al., and Godet et al., are applied as above and Fink et al. further discloses an embodiment wherein plurality of linear antennas are connected to each other with electrical elements 291 (see, for example, Fig. 7B and its description, Fig. 7B is shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
287
437
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fink et al. does not expressly disclose that the linear antenna has the claimed hairpin structure, however, the configuration of the claimed antenna is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the antenna is significant. This notwithstanding, Iwakoke discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 3, wherein the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion 3(A) that extends from a powered end 3a1, a second linear portion 3(B) that extends from the grounded end 3b2, and a connecting portion 12, connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end 3a1.
PNG
media_image7.png
321
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Also, Yeom et al. discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 32, wherein the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion that extends from a powered end (the end where RF power is connected), a second linear portion that extends from the grounded end, and a connecting portion (the U shaped connecting section) connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its description, Fig. 2 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end.
PNG
media_image8.png
326
423
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al., as to comprise a hairpin structure because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently generating inductive coupling plasma by electrically connecting adjacent antenna portions so that high frequency currents in opposite directions flow through the first antenna portion and the second antenna portion.
Concerning claim 19, as broadly claimed, Fink et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., WO 2018/173892 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 and Godet et al., US 2015/0325410 and Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814, as applied to claims 18-19 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 20, Sakai et al., Fink et al., and Godet et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Sakai et al. modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al., as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488.
With respect to independent claim 1, Yeom et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed an antenna assembly, comprising an antenna 32; and a dielectric enclosure 30, surrounding the antenna; (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its disclosure, Fig. 2 shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
326
423
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Yeom et al. does not expressly disclose the claimed Faraday shield. Fink et al. discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 90; a dielectric enclosure 96 surrounding the antenna; and a Faraday shield 92, disposed around the antenna, and arranged between the antenna and the dielectric enclosure, wherein the Faraday shield comprises a non-uniform opacity along an antenna axis of the antenna, wherein a first opacity of the Faraday shield at a first position (a position in the Faraday shield where there is no opening 98, shown in the modified Figs. 5A-5C below by the area not encircled by the rectangles) along the antenna axis is greater than a second opacity of the Faraday shield at a second position (a position in the Faraday shield where there is an opening 98, shown in the modified Figs. 5A-5C below by the area encircled by the rectangles and pointed by the arrows) along the antenna axis of the antenna; (see, for example, Figs. 4A-4B and 5A-5C, and their descriptions, Figs. 4A and Figs. 5A-5C are shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
171
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
388
336
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 antenna assembly of the apparatus of Yeom et al. as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, it should be noted that the Faraday shield of the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. would be affix to an inner wall of the dielectric enclosure.
Regarding claim 4, it should be noted that the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Yeom et al. comprises a linear antenna, having a grounded end (end connected to ground), and a powered end (end connected to RF power), the linear antenna extending along the antenna axis; wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its description, Fig. 2 shown above).
Concerning claims 6 and 13, Yeom et al. further discloses that the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion that extends from a powered end (the end where RF power is connected), a second linear portion that extends from the grounded end, and a connecting portion (the U shaped connecting section) connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its description, Fig. 2 is shown above). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end.
Concerning claims 7 and 14, as broadly claimed, Fink et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, it should be noted that Yeom et al. further discloses a processing system comprising a plasma chamber 10, wherein the antenna assembly is disposed within the plasma chamber, wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis, and wherein the antenna 32 is a linear antenna having a grounded end (end connected to ground) and a powered end (end connected to RF power), the linear antenna extending along an antenna axis; (see, for example, Fig. 2 above).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of Long, US 2022/0208529.
Yeom et al. and Fink et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the claimed Faraday shield configuration. Long discloses a plasma processing apparatus having a Faraday shield 200 comprising a plurality of ribs 210, and a spine functioning structure 230/232 arranged to connect the plurality of ribs to one another; (see, for example, Figs. 2-8, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
515
349
media_image5.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 Faraday shield of the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al., as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively, efficiently, and selectively transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method perform in the apparatus. It should be noted that in the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. and Long, the Faraday shield circumferentially surrounds the antenna.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 8, Yeom et al. and Fink et al., are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 15, Yeom et al. and Fink et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of Godet et al., US 2015/0325410.
Regarding claim 16, Yeom et al. and Fink et al. are applied as above, and Yeom et al. further discloses a processing system comprising a plasma chamber 10; wherein the antenna assembly is disposed within the plasma chamber, wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis, wherein the antenna 32 is a linear antenna having a grounded end (the end connected to ground) and a powered end (the end connected to RF power), the linear antenna extending along an antenna axis; and a substrate holder 20 (see, for example, Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
326
423
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It should further be noted that an opacity of the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. changes along the antenna axis. Yeom et al. and Fink et al. do not expressly disclose the claimed extraction plate. Godet et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising an extraction plate 114, disposed on a side of a plasma chamber (see, for example, Fig. 1A and its description, Fig. 1A is shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
390
373
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. as to further comprise an extraction plate because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently extracting ions as an ion beam and direct the ion beam toward the substrate holder. It should be noted that the incorporation of the extraction plate of Godet et al. into the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified Fink et al. would create a plasma chamber above the extraction plate, and a processing chamber below the extraction plate, wherein the processing chamber has a substrate holder.
Regarding claim 18, Yeom et al. further discloses that the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion that extends from a powered end (the end where RF power is connected), a second linear portion that extends from the grounded end, and a connecting portion (the U shaped connecting section) connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 2 and its description, Fig. 2 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end.
PNG
media_image8.png
326
423
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 19, as broadly claimed, Finks et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 and Godet et al., US 2015/0325410, as applied to claims 16 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Long, US 2022/0208529.
Regarding claim 17, Yeom et al., Fink et al., and Godet et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the claimed Faraday shield configuration. Long discloses a plasma processing apparatus having a Faraday shield 200 comprising a plurality of ribs 210, and a spine functioning structure 230/232 arranged to connect the plurality of ribs to one another; (see, for example, Figs. 2-8, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
515
349
media_image5.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 Faraday shield of the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al., as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively, efficiently, and selectively transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method perform in the apparatus. It should be noted that in the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al. and Long, the Faraday shield circumferentially surrounds the antenna.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 and Godet et al., US 2015/0325410 and Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814, as applied to claims 16 and 18-19 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 20, Yeom et al., Fink et al., and Godet et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Yeom et al. modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al., as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakoke, US 2021/0022236 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488.
With respect to independent claim 1, Iwakoke shows the invention substantially as claimed an antenna assembly, comprising an antenna 3; and a dielectric enclosure 10, surrounding the antenna; (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its disclosure, Fig. 3 shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
321
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Iwakoke does not expressly disclose the claimed Faraday shield. Fink et al. discloses an antenna assembly comprising an antenna 90; a dielectric enclosure 96 surrounding the antenna; and a Faraday shield 92, disposed around the antenna, and arranged between the antenna and the dielectric enclosure, wherein the Faraday shield comprises a non-uniform opacity along an antenna axis of the antenna, wherein a first opacity of the Faraday shield at a first position (a position in the Faraday shield where there is no opening 98, shown in the modified Figs. 5A-5C below by the area not encircled by the rectangles) along the antenna axis is greater than a second opacity of the Faraday shield at a second position (a position in the Faraday shield where there is an opening 98, shown in the modified Figs. 5A-5C below by the area encircled by the rectangles and pointed by the arrows) along the antenna axis of the antenna; (see, for example, Figs. 4A-4B and 5A-5C, and their descriptions, Figs. 4A and Figs. 5A-5C are shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
171
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
388
336
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 antenna assembly of the apparatus of Iwakoke as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, it should be noted that the Faraday shield of the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. would be affix to an inner wall of the dielectric enclosure.
Regarding claim 4, it should be noted that the antenna assembly of the apparatus of Iwakoke comprises a linear antenna, having a grounded end 3b2, and a powered end 3a1, the linear antenna extending along the antenna axis; wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 shown above).
Concerning claims 6 and 13, Iwakoke further discloses that the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion 3(A) that extends from a powered end 3a1, a second linear portion that extends from the grounded end 3b2, and a connecting portion 12 connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 is shown above). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end 3a1.
Concerning claims 7 and 14, as broadly claimed, Fink et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, it should be noted that Iwakoke further discloses a processing system comprising a plasma chamber 2, wherein the antenna assembly is disposed within the plasma chamber, wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis, and wherein the antenna 3 is a linear antenna having a grounded end 3b2 and a powered end 3a1, the linear antenna extending along an antenna axis; (see, for example, Fig. 2 below and Fig. 3 above).
PNG
media_image15.png
292
422
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 5, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakoke, US 2021/0022236 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of Long, US 2022/0208529.
Iwakoke and Fink et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the claimed Faraday shield configuration. Long discloses a plasma processing apparatus having a Faraday shield 200 comprising a plurality of ribs 210, and a spine functioning structure 230/232 arranged to connect the plurality of ribs to one another; (see, for example, Figs. 2-8, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
515
349
media_image5.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 Faraday shield of the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al., as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively, efficiently, and selectively transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method perform in the apparatus. It should be noted that in the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. and Long, the Faraday shield circumferentially surrounds the antenna.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakoke, US 2021/0022236 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 8, Iwakoke and Fink et al., are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakoke, US 2021/0022236 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 15, Iwakoke and Fink et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakoke, US 2021/0022236 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of Godet et al., US 2015/0325410.
Regarding claim 16, Iwakoke and Fink et al. are applied as above, and Iwakoke further discloses a processing system comprising a plasma chamber 2; wherein the antenna assembly is disposed within the plasma chamber, wherein the dielectric enclosure is elongated along the antenna axis, wherein the antenna 3 is a linear antenna having a grounded end 3b2 and a powered end 3a1, the linear antenna extending along an antenna axis; and a substrate holder 6 (see, for example, Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image15.png
292
422
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It should further be noted that an opacity of the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. changes along the antenna axis. Iwakoke and Fink et al. do not expressly disclose the claimed extraction plate. Godet et al. discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising an extraction plate 114, disposed on a side of a plasma chamber (see, for example, Fig. 1A and its description, Fig. 1A is shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
390
373
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. as to further comprise an extraction plate because such means is known and used in the art as a suitable means for effectively and efficiently extracting ions as an ion beam and direct the ion beam toward the substrate holder. It should be noted that the incorporation of the extraction plate of Godet et al. into the apparatus of Iwakoke modified Fink et al. would create a plasma chamber above the extraction plate, and a processing chamber below the extraction plate, wherein the processing chamber has a substrate holder.
Regarding claim 18, Iwakoke further discloses that the antenna is a linear antenna comprising a hairpin structure, the hairpin structure comprising a first linear portion 3(A) that extends from a powered end 3a1, a second linear portion that extends from the grounded end 3b2, and a connecting portion 12 connecting the first linear portion to the second linear portion, wherein the grounded end is disposed next to the powered end; (see, for example, Fig. 3 and its description, Fig. 3 is shown below). It should also be noted that the side of the linear antenna where the grounded end and powered end are disposed comprises a higher voltage side of the linear antenna, and the side of the linear antenna where the connecting portion is located comprises a lower voltage region of the linear antenna, since the voltage would be higher at the powered end 3a1.
PNG
media_image7.png
321
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 19, as broadly claimed, Fink et al. teaches that the Faraday shield exhibits the first opacity at a first end of the Faraday shield, and exhibits the second opacity at a second end of the Faraday shield (see, for example, modified Figs. 5A-5C below). It should be noted that the in the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. the first end surrounds the powered end of the linear antenna, and the second end surrounds the connecting portion of the linear antenna.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakoke, US 2021/0022236 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 and Godet et al., US 2015/0325410, as applied to claims 16 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Long, US 2022/0208529.
Regarding claim 17, Iwakoke, Fink et al., and Godet et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the claimed Faraday shield configuration. Long discloses a plasma processing apparatus having a Faraday shield 200 comprising a plurality of ribs 210, and a spine functioning structure 230/232 arranged to connect the plurality of ribs to one another; (see, for example, Figs. 2-8, and their descriptions, Fig. 2 is shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
515
349
media_image5.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 Faraday shield of the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al., as to further comprise the claimed Faraday shield because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively, efficiently, and selectively transmit inductive coupling power from the antenna to the plasma region while minimizing capacitive coupling between the antenna and the plasma region, thereby optimizing the apparatus and the method perform in the apparatus. It should be noted that in the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al. and Long, the Faraday shield circumferentially surrounds the antenna.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakoke, US 2021/0022236 in view of Fink et al., US 2003/0087488 and Godet et al., US 2015/0325410 and Iwakoke US 2021/0022236 or Yeom et al., US 2004/0221814, as applied to claims 16 and 18-19 above, and further in view of George et al., US 2004/0244691 or Khater et al., US 6,459,066 or Young et al., US 5,903,106.
Concerning claim 20, Iwakoke, Fink et al., and Godet et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the non-uniform opacity varies along the antenna axis as claimed. George et al. discloses a Faraday shield 470 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of slots having a variation in their opening; (see, for example, Figs. 8a-8b, and their descriptions, modified Figs. 8a and 8b are shown below showing the slots having the opening variation within a rectangle).
PNG
media_image9.png
262
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
262
275
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, Khater et al. discloses a Faraday shield 1500 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 610 spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Figs. 6c, and its description, Fig. 6c is shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
193
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Young et al. discloses a Faraday shield 19 having a non-uniform opacity that would vary along an antenna axis as claimed by the use of reduction slots 33 having a variation in their openings and/or spaced apart by a desired spacing; (see, for example, Fig. 6, and its description, Fig. 6 is shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
286
422
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Faraday shield of the apparatus of Iwakoke modified by Fink et al. and Godet et al., as to have a non-uniform opacity that varies as claimed because such configuration is known and used in the art as a suitable configuration for effectively and efficiently affect the plasma density and radial uniformity over a range of plasma process parameters by moderating the RF penetration/transmission into the plasma chamber, and thereby optimize the apparatus and the method performed within the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yeom et al. (US 2005/0199186) is cited for its teaching of a plasma processing apparatus having an antenna assembly comprising a linear antenna surrounded by a dielectric enclosure and disposed within a plasma chamber.
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
April 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights