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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C.102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-22 are pending
Claims 17-19 have been withdrawn
Claim 2 has been cancelled
Claims 1, 3, and 10-16 have been amended
Claims 20-22 have been added
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1, 3-6, and 20-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a controller configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of a specific point on an outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma.” There is insufficient support in the written description for this limitation. The applicant’s disclosure does not provide specific written description that its moveable taps 213a and 213b are moved specifically “while the plasma generator generates the plasma.” Rather, the applicant’s disclosure merely discloses that its moveable taps may be adjusted when the substrate processing apparatus 100 is initially installed or when the processing conditions of the substrate processing apparatus 100 are changed [IA – 0058]. Furthermore, the applicant has no written support disclosing that the controller 221 specifically controls the movement of the taps; there is no mention of the controller 221 performing a tap moving step in Fig. 7 [IA – Fig. 7 & 0082- 0104].
Regarding Claims 3-16, and 21-22:
Claims 3-16 and 21-22 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the first movable tap is installed in the first resonance coil to be adjacent to the substrate support, and the second movable tap is installed in the second resonance coil to be adjacent to the substrate support.” There is insufficient support in the written description for this limitation. Fig. 1 of the applicant’s disclosure does not seem to show the moveable taps 213a and 213b being adjacent to the substate support 217, and there is nothing in the written description specifically disclosing the taps are adjacent to the substrate support 217 [IA – Fig. 1].
Claims 1, 3-16, and 20-22 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a controller configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of a specific point on an outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma.” This claim is indefinite because the applicant’s disclosure does not provide specific written description that its moveable taps 213a and 213b are moved specifically “while the plasma generator generates the plasma.” Rather, the applicant’s disclosure merely discloses that its moveable taps may be adjusted when the substrate processing apparatus 100 is initially installed or when the processing conditions of the substrate processing apparatus 100 are changed [IA – 0058]. Furthermore, the applicant has no written support disclosing that the controller 221 specifically controls the movement of the taps; there is no mention of the controller 221 performing a tap moving step in Fig. 7 [IA – Fig. 7 & 0082- 0104].
As such, it is unclear what exactly the applicant is referring to as the plasma generation step. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “a controller configured to be capable of controlling the plasma generator and the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the first movable tap, the second movable tap, and a specific point on an outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted when processing conditions change
Regarding Claims 3-10, 12-16, and 21-22:
Claims 3-10, 12-16, and 21-22 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the first resonance coil is set to be an integral multiple of a wavelength of a predetermined frequency of the high frequency power.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what value of the resonance coil is being set to be an integral multiple of a wavelength of a predetermined frequency of the high frequency power.” For purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “wherein the first resonance coil is powered
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the first movable tap is installed in the first resonance coil to be adjacent to the substrate support, and the second movable tap is installed in the second resonance coil to be adjacent to the substrate support.” There is insufficient support in the written description for this limitation. Fig. 1 of the applicant’s disclosure does not seem to show the moveable taps 213a and 213b being adjacent to the substate support 217, and there is nothing in the written description specifically disclosing the taps are adjacent to the substrate support 217 [IA – Fig. 1]. As such, it is unclear what exactly the applicant is referring to as “adjacent.” For purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “wherein the first movable tap is installed in the first resonance coil to be in the same apparatus as the substrate support, and the second movable tap is installed in the second resonance coil to be in the same apparatus the substrate support.”
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, 5-6, 8, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. (US 20140106573) in view of Rhee et al. (US 10109459), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20150083042).
Regarding Claim 1:
Terasaki teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (process chamber 201) in which a substrate is processed; a gas supply part (gas introduction port 234 and related parts, such as the gas supply sources 250a, 250b, and 250c) configured to supply a gas into the process chamber; a plasma generator (the plasma generation unit comprising the resonance coil 212, the RF sensor 272, the frequency matching device 274, and the high-frequency power source 273) provided with a resonance coil (coil 212) [Fig. 1 & 0023, 0032, 0049], comprising a resonance coil (coil 212) wound on a side of the process chamber [Fig. 1 & 0023, 0032, 0049], the plasma generator being configured to generate a plasma in the process chamber when a high frequency power is supplied to the resonance coil (the high-frequency power source 273 is configured to supply high-frequency power to the resonance coil 212 to induce a plasma) [Fig. 1 & 0043, 0076]; a substrate support (susceptor 217) on which the substrate is placed, a plasma generation space (plasma generation space 201a) provided adjacent to the resonance coil, a first movable tap (moveable tap 213) provided at least at one end of the first resonance coil (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the moveable tap is provided on an end of the resonance coil 212), and a controller (controller 221) configured to be capable of controlling the plasma generator such that relative positions of the first movable tap (moveable 213 can be adjusted to finely adjust the electrical length of resonance coil 212) are adjusted when processing conditions change [Fig. 1, & 0053, 0064, 0076].
Terasaki does not specifically disclose a first resonance coil wound on a side of the process chamber and a second resonance coil, arranged such that the first resonance coil and the second resonance coil are alternately provided adjacent to each other along a vertical direction, a second movable tap provided at least at one end of the second resonance coil.
Rhee teaches comprising a first resonance coil (second antenna 420) wound on a side of the process chamber and a second resonance coil (first antenna 410) arranged such that the first resonance coil and the second resonance coil are alternately provided adjacent to each other along a vertical direction (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the antennas 410 and 420 are adjacent to each other and alternative provided in the vertical direction) [Fig. 2-3 & Col. 7 lines 52-55].
It would be obvious to modify the resonance coil of Terasaki to comprise of two coils, as in Rhee, to prevent excessive heat buildup [Rhee - Col. 9 lines 60-65, Col. 11 lines 15-35]. Furthermore, utilizing two resonance coils as opposed to one would be a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
The combination of references would also disclose "a second movable tap provided at least at one end of the second resonance coil." Utilizing a plurality of resonance coils, as in Rhee, helps prevent excessive heat buildup [Rhee - Col. 9 lines 60-65, Col. 11 lines 15-35]. Terasaki also discloses utilizing a movable tap for a coil helps provide fine impedance/electrical length adjustment [Terasaki - 0045]. As such, utilizing a plurality of resonance coils in the chamber of Terasaki and providing each of those resonance coils with a moveable tap would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, duplicating the resonance coil (coil 212) and moveable tap 213 of Terasaki would be a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Modified Terasaki does not specifically disclose a rotating mechanism configured to control the substrate support to rotate or revolve; and a controller configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of a specific point on an outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma, controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of a specific point on an outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma (the pedestal 124 is also rotated during processing which may alleviate nonuniformities in the processing conditions within the processing chamber 100) [Fig. 1 & 0046].
It would be obvious to modify the support of Modified Terasaki to have capabilities for rotational movement, as in Kobayashi, to alleviate nonuniformities in the processing conditions within a processing chamber [Kobayashi - 0046].
Regarding Claim 5:
Terasaki teaches wherein the plasma generation space is provided in the process chamber, and the substrate support is further provided in a substrate processing space disposed under the plasma generation space (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the susceptor 217 is disposed within plasma generation space 201a, which itself is disposed within process chamber 201) [Fig. 1 & 0023, 0032, 0049].
Regarding Claim 6:
Terasaki does not specifically disclose wherein the first resonance coil is wound with a constant pitch.
Rhee teaches wherein the first resonance coil is wound with a constant pitch (the second antenna 420 may be wound at a regular interval) [Fig. 3 & Col. 8 lines 8-10].
It would be obvious to modify the resonance coil of Terasaki to comprise of two coils, as in Rhee, to prevent excessive heat buildup [Rhee - Col. 9 lines 60-65, Col. 11 lines 15-35].
Regarding Claim 8:
Terasaki does not specifically disclose wherein the first resonance coil is wound with a constant pitch.
Rhee teaches wherein the second resonance coil is wound with a constant pitch (the first antenna 410 may be wound at a regular interval) [Fig. 3 & Col. 7 lines 60-63].
It would be obvious to modify the resonance coil of Terasaki to comprise of two coils, as in Rhee, to prevent excessive heat buildup [Rhee - Col. 9 lines 60-65, Col. 11 lines 15-35].
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Terasaki (Terasaki modified by Rhee) does not specifically disclose wherein, when the relative positions are adjusted, the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that the substrate support revolves in a state a horizontal orientation of the substrate is maintained.
Kobayashi teaches wherein, when the relative positions are adjusted, the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that the substrate support revolves in a state a horizontal orientation of the substrate is maintained (the pedestal 124 is also rotated during processing which may alleviate nonuniformities in the processing conditions within the processing chamber 100) [Fig. 1 & 0046].
It would be obvious to modify the support of Modified Terasaki to have capabilities for rotational movement, as in Kobayashi, to alleviate nonuniformities in the processing conditions within a processing chamber [Kobayashi - 0046].
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. (US 20140106573) in view of Rhee et al. (US 10109459), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20150083042), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Hanawa et al. (US 20050211170).
The limitations of claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Terasaki teaches wherein the plasma is a donut-shaped induction plasma generated by the resonance coil (in the high-frequency electric field, induced plasma having a donut shape is excited at a location having a height corresponding to the electrical central point on the resonance coil 212 in the plasma generation space) [Fig. 1 & 0077].
Terasaki does not specifically disclose a first resonance coil wound on a side of the process chamber and a second resonance coil.
Rhee teaches a first resonance coil (second antenna 420) wound on a side of the process chamber and a second resonance coil (first antenna 410) [Fig. 2-3 & Col. 7 lines 52-55].
It would be obvious to modify the resonance coil of Terasaki to comprise of two coils, as in Rhee, to prevent excessive heat buildup [Rhee - Col. 9 lines 60-65, Col. 11 lines 15-35]. Furthermore, utilizing two resonance coils as opposed to one would be a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Modified Terasaki (Terasaki modified by Rhee and Kobayashi) does not specifically disclose the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the donut-shaped induction plasma and the specific point on the outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma.
Hanawa teaches controlling the horizontal movement of a substrate support (the vertical position of the vertical moving coils or the pitch of the vertical moving coils may be changed to vary the capacitive coupling of the RF power into the process chamber 110) [Fig. 1 & 0050].
It would be obvious to modify the rotation mechanism of Modified Terasaki to have capabilities for horizontal movement, as in Hanawa, to permit a larger variety of wafer sizes and to help achieve uniform ion flux [Hanawa - 0097].
Furthermore, while Hanawa does not specifically disclose the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the donut-shaped induction plasma are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma, it is noted that the limitations, providing capabilities for horizontal movement would result in the relative positions of donut-shaped plasma being adjusted. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 11:
Terasaki teaches wherein the first resonance coil is powered (coil 212 is powered by power source 273) [Fig. 1 & 0042].
Regarding Claim 12:
Terasaki teaches wherein the plasma is a donut-shaped induction plasma generated by the resonance coil (in the high-frequency electric field, induced plasma having a donut shape is excited at a location having a height corresponding to the electrical central point on the resonance coil 212 in the plasma generation space) [Fig. 1 & 0077].
Terasaki does not specifically disclose a first resonance coil wound on a side of the process chamber and a second resonance coil.
Rhee teaches a first resonance coil (second antenna 420) wound on a side of the process chamber and a second resonance coil (first antenna 410) [Fig. 2-3 & Col. 7 lines 52-55].
It would be obvious to modify the resonance coil of Terasaki to comprise of two coils, as in Rhee, to prevent excessive heat buildup [Rhee - Col. 9 lines 60-65, Col. 11 lines 15-35]. Furthermore, utilizing two resonance coils as opposed to one would be a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Modified Terasaki (Terasaki modified by Rhee and Kobayashi) does not specifically disclose the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the donut-shaped induction plasma and the specific point on the outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma.
Hanawa teaches controlling the horizontal movement of a substrate support (the vertical position of the vertical moving coils or the pitch of the vertical moving coils may be changed to vary the capacitive coupling of the RF power into the process chamber 110) [Fig. 1 & 0050].
It would be obvious to modify the rotation mechanism of Modified Terasaki to have capabilities for horizontal movement, as in Hanawa, to permit a larger variety of wafer sizes and to help achieve uniform ion flux [Hanawa - 0097].
Furthermore, while Hanawa does not specifically disclose “the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the donut-shaped induction plasma and the specific point on the outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma,” providing capabilities for horizontal movement would result in the relative positions of a plasma being adjusted. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 13:
Terasaki teaches wherein an electrical length of the second resonance coil is set (the electrical length of the resonance coil 212 is set to be an integer multiple of one wavelength of power supplied from the high-frequency power source 273 at a predetermined frequency) [Fig. 1 & 0051].
Regarding Claim 14:
Terasaki teaches wherein the plasma is a donut- shaped induction plasma generated by the resonance coil (in the high-frequency electric field, induced plasma having a donut shape is excited at a location having a height corresponding to the electrical central point on the resonance coil 212 in the plasma generation space) [Fig. 1 & 0077].
Terasaki does not specifically disclose a first resonance coil wound on a side of the process chamber and a second resonance coil.
Rhee teaches a first resonance coil (second antenna 420) wound on a side of the process chamber and a second resonance coil (first antenna 410) [Fig. 2-3 & Col. 7 lines 52-55].
It would be obvious to modify the resonance coil of Terasaki to comprise of two coils, as in Rhee, to prevent excessive heat buildup [Rhee - Col. 9 lines 60-65, Col. 11 lines 15-35]. Furthermore, utilizing two resonance coils as opposed to one would be a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Modified Terasaki (Terasaki modified by Rhee and Kobayashi) does not specifically disclose the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the first donut-shaped induction plasma generated by the first resonance coil, the second donut-shaped induction plasma generated by the second resonance coil, and the specific point on the outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma.
Hanawa teaches controlling the horizontal movement of a substrate support (the vertical position of the vertical moving coils or the pitch of the vertical moving coils may be changed to vary the capacitive coupling of the RF power into the process chamber 110) [Fig. 1 & 0050]. It would be obvious to modify the rotation mechanism of Modified Terasaki to have capabilities for horizontal movement, as in Hanawa, to permit a larger variety of wafer sizes and to help achieve uniform ion flux [Hanawa - 0097].
Furthermore, while Hanawa does not specifically disclose “the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the first donut-shaped induction plasma generated by the first resonance coil, the second donut-shaped induction plasma generated by the second resonance coil, and the specific point on the outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma,” providing capabilities for horizontal movement would result in the relative positions of a plasma being adjusted. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Terasaki teaches wherein the plasma is generated non-uniformly along a horizontal direction (a donut shapes plasma is generated and would therefore be horizontally non-uniform) [Terasaki - Fig. 1 & 0077].
Modified Terasaki does not specifically disclose relative positions of the donut-shaped induction plasma are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma.
Hanawa teaches controlling the horizontal movement of a substrate support (the vertical position of the vertical moving coils or the pitch of the vertical moving coils may be changed to vary the capacitive coupling of the RF power into the process chamber 110) [Fig. 1 & 0050].
It would be obvious to modify the rotation mechanism of Modified Terasaki to have capabilities for horizontal movement, as in Hanawa, to permit a larger variety of wafer sizes and to help achieve uniform ion flux [Hanawa - 0097].
Furthermore, while Hanawa does not specifically disclose “the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the plasma and the specific point on the outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma,” providing capabilities for horizontal movement would result in the relative positions of a plasma being adjusted. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. (US 20140106573) in view of Rhee et al. (US 10109459), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20150083042), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 5759282), with Nozawa (US 20170198395) as an evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Terasaki does not specifically disclose wherein a horizontal center position of a substrate placing surface of the substrate support in the process chamber does not overlap a horizontal center position of at least one of the first resonance coil or the second resonance coil.
Although Yang does not specifically disclose "wherein a horizontal center position of a substrate placing surface of the substrate support in the process chamber does not overlap a horizontal center position of at least one of the first resonance coil or the second resonance coil," Yang does disclose that support position is a result effective variable. Specifically, the position of a support can be adjusted to obtain desired deposition rates on different portions of a substrate [Yang - Col. 1 lines 35-50, Col. 4 lines 4-10 , 67-68, and Col. 5 lines 1-8]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum position for a substrate support to obtain desired deposition rates. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Nozawa (US 20170198395) also discloses that the horizontal position of a substrate support may be adjusted to account for non-uniformities in plasma distribution [Nozawa - Figs. 3-5 & 0038, 0057, 0065].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. (US 20140106573) in view of Rhee et al. (US 10109459), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20150083042), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20070221622) and Kim (US 20090151635)
The limitations of claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Terasaki does not specifically disclose wherein the first resonance coil and the second resonance coil are arranged so as to prevent a horizontal center position of the first resonance coil from overlapping a horizontal center position of the second resonance coil.
Although Kim '622 does not specifically disclose "wherein the first resonance coil and the second resonance coil are arranged so as to prevent a horizontal center position of the first resonance coil from overlapping a horizontal center position of the second resonance coil," Kim '622 does disclose that the distance of portions of a coil from a plasma chamber affects plasma density for that portion [Kim - 0041]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find the optimum distances of coils to a chamber to obtain desired plasma densities across specific areas of the chamber. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that adjusting the two coils of Modified Terasaki to each have different portions with varying distances to the chamber would result in different centers.
Additionally/alternatively, Kim (US 20090151635) discloses that side coil distance is a result effective variable. Specifically, side coil distance, sectional shape, and arrangement structure can be adjusted to change magnetic flux density (and therefore plasma density) [Kim '635 - 0034, 0037]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find the optimum diameters for side coils to obtain desired plasma densities. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. (US 20140106573) in view of Rhee et al. (US 10109459), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20150083042), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20090151635)
The limitations of claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Terasaki would disclose "wherein a diameter of the first resonance coil is greater than that of the substrate support." As evidenced by Fig. 1, the resonance coil (coil 212) of Terasaki has a larger diameter than the substrate support (susceptor 217). Rhee (as well as the duplication of parts rationale) has been used to modify the resonance coil of Terasaki to comprise of two coils, where the two coils are similar to the single coil 212 of Terasaki). Therefore, the modified form of Terasaki would comprise two coils that are both larger in diameter compared to the substrate support.
Additionally/alternatively, Kim (US 20090151635) discloses that side coil diameter is a result effective variable. Specifically, side coil diameter can be adjusted to change magnetic flux density (and therefore plasma density) [Kim '635 - 0034, 0037]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find the optimum diameters for side coils to obtain desired plasma densities. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Terasaki would disclose "wherein a diameter of the second resonance coil is greater than that of the substrate support." As evidenced by Fig. 1, the resonance coil (coil 212) of Terasaki has a larger diameter than the substrate support (susceptor 217). Rhee (as well as the duplication of parts rationale) has been used to modify the resonance coil of Terasaki to comprise of two coils, where the two coils are similar to the single coil 212 of Terasaki). Therefore, the modified form of Terasaki would comprise two coils that are both larger in diameter compared to the substrate support.
Additionally/alternatively, Kim (US 20090151635) discloses that side coil diameter is a result effective variable. Specifically, side coil diameter can be adjusted to change magnetic flux density (and therefore plasma density) [Kim '635 - 0034, 0037]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find the optimum diameters for side coils to obtain desired plasma densities. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. (US 20140106573) in view of Rhee et al. (US 10109459), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20150083042), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Subramanian et al. (US 20070181529).
The limitations of claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 21:
Modified Terasaki does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the gas supply part such that the gas is supplied therefrom after a start of a rotation of the substrate support.
Subramanian discloses wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the gas supply part such that the gas is supplied therefrom after a start of a rotation of the substrate support (the mechanical movement assembly 20 may be provided to raise, lower and/or rotate the support member 12 before or during operations) [Fig. 1 & 0020].
It would be obvious to modify the support of Modified Terasaki to have capabilities for substrate rotation prior to gas feeding, as in Subramanian, since Subramanian discloses that its rotation assembly (which is capable of movement prior to processing) is well known in the art [Subramanian - 0020]. Since Subramanian establishes that substrate rotation prior to operations is well-known, rotating the substrate support of Modified Terasaki prior to gas feeding would merely be applying a known technique to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I D).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. (US 20140106573) in view of Rhee et al. (US 10109459), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20150083042), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Hama et al. (US 5716451).
The limitations of claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 21:
Modified Terasaki teaches wherein the first resonance coil is connected to a first power supply, and the second resonance coil is connected to a second power supply that is different from the first power supply.
Hama teaches wherein the first resonance coil (RF antenna 146b) is connected to a first power supply (RF power supply 142b), and the second resonance coil (RF antenna 146a) is connected to a second power supply (RF power supply 142a) that is different from the first power supply [Fig. 3 & Col. 8 lines 13-31].
It would be obvious to modify the coils of Modified Terasaki to each have their own power supplies, as in Hama, to provide further control over plasma profiles [Hama - Col. 9 lines 1-15].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13 under 35 USC 12b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous reasoning for the rejections of claims 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13 have been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments, new rejections under 35 USC 112a and 112b have been set forth herein for claims 1, 3-16, and 20-22.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-16, and 20-22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose ”a first movable tap provided at least at one end of the first resonance coil; a second movable tap provided at least at one end of the second resonance coil; and a controller configured to be capable of controlling the plasma generator and the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the first movable tap, the second movable tap, and a specific point on an outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted while the plasma generator generates the plasma,” because Terasaki et al. (US 20140106573) cannot perform electrical length adjustment during processing because impedance matching would be disrupted.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; it’s noted that Terasaki discloses that its movable tap 213 is able to finely adjust impedance and electrical length when the device is initially installed or when process conditions are changed [Terasaki - 0045]. As such the applicant’s assertion that power and ground parameters cannot be adjusted during processing is unpersuasive by Terasaki’s own teachings. Furthermore, the examiner disagrees that one of ordinary skill in the art would never consider moving a tap during plasma generation when the applicant themselves claim that their taps are actively moved during plasma generation to control plasma behavior.
Furthermore, the applicant’s disclosure does not provide specific written description that its moveable taps 213a and 213b are moved specifically “while the plasma generator generates the plasma.” Rather, the applicant’s disclosure merely discloses that its moveable taps may be adjusted when the substrate processing apparatus 100 is initially installed or when the processing conditions of the substrate processing apparatus 100 are changed [IA – 0058]. Furthermore, the applicant has no written support disclosing that the controller 221 specifically controls the movement of the taps; there is no mention of the controller 221 performing a tap moving step in Fig. 7 [IA – Fig. 7 & 0082- 0104]. As such, this amendment has necessitated new rejections under 35 USC 112a and 112b, as disclosed in the rejection herein. Due to the rejections under 35 USC 112a and 112b, the examiner has interpreted the aforementioned limitation disclose ”a first movable tap provided at least at one end of the first resonance coil; a second movable tap provided at least at one end of the second resonance coil; and a controller configured to be capable of controlling the plasma generator and the rotating mechanism such that relative positions of the first movable tap, the second movable tap, and a specific point on an outer peripheral portion of the substrate are adjusted when processing conditions change or when process conditions are changed [Terasaki - 0045]. As such, the combination of references would disclose the aforementioned limitation.
Furthermore, the combination of references would disclose "a second movable tap provided at least at one end of the second resonance coil." Utilizing a plurality of resonance coils, as in Rhee et al. (US 10109459), helps prevent excessive heat buildup [Rhee - Col. 9 lines 60-65, Col. 11 lines 15-35]. Terasaki also discloses utilizing a movable tap for a coil helps provide fine impedance/electrical length adjustment [Terasaki - 0045]. As such, utilizing a plurality of resonance coils in the chamber of Terasaki and providing each of those resonance coils with a moveable tap would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, duplicating the resonance coil (coil 212) and moveable tap 213 of Terasaki would be a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
The applicant further argues that the combination of references does not disclose “wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the gas supply part such that the gas is supplied therefrom after a start of a rotation of the substrate support,” and “wherein the first resonance coil is connected to a first power supply, and the second resonance coil is connected to a second power supply that is different from the first power supply.” This argument has been fully considered but is moot because the argument does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Subramanian et al. (US 20070181529) and Hama et al. (US 5716451) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718