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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 Oct 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 15 Oct 2025. Claims 1-7, 21-28 are pending. Claims 8-20 are canceled. Claims 25-28 are new. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 21 are identified as amended. However, claim 4 shows the same amendments that were previously presented in amendments filed 05 May 2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 have improper markings (i.e. underline or strikethrough) showing previously presented amended limitations or showing previously deleted limitations and are objected to as further discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6 are objected to for having incorrect underline or strike through.
Claim 4 is objected to for having incorrect status identifier and for showing amendments that were previously presented.
Claim 1 and 21 are additionally objected to for having a typographical error.
Regarding claim 1: see annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
1412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner assumes that what was previously deleted was meant to be deleted and what was previously added was meant to remain added. Thus, the Examiner interprets that claim 1, should have been presented in the amendments filed 15 Oct 2025 as the following (emphasis added to limitations/amendments that had errors in underline and strikethrough markings and were corrected by the Examiner):
1. (Currently Amended) An apparatus, comprising:
a process chamber, the process chamber comprising:
a chamber body; and
a substrate support configured to support a substrate within a processing region;
a remote plasma source coupled to the chamber body through a connector, the remote plasma source comprising:
a body, the body having a first end, a second end, and a toroidal tube spanning between the first end and the second end;
an inlet coupled to a gas source configured to introduce one or more gases into the toroidal tube through the first end of the body, wherein first end of the body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone;
an inductive coil looped around the toroidal tube; and one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body, wherein the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone.
Examiner further notes regarding claim 1, that “wherein first end of the body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone” should read as “wherein the first end of the body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone” to correct typographical error.
Regarding claim 3, “at an angle [[of]] from 5º [[and]] to 25º” was previously presented in amendments filed 05 May 2025 and thus should have been presented as “at an angle from 5º to 25º” in the amendments to the claims filed 15 Oct 2025. Additionally, Examiner acknowledges that claim 3 is amended in the current claim amendments filed 15 Oct 2025 to further include a “first UV source.”
Regarding claim 4: Examiner further explains that claim 4 filed 15 Oct 2025 show the same amendments that were previously presented in the amendments filed 05 May 2025 and thus claim 4 should have a status identifier should be “Previously Presented” and “at an angle [[of]] from 5º [[and]] to 25º” should have been presented as “at an angle from 5º to 25º” in the amendments to the claims filed 15 Oct 2025.
Regarding claim 6, see annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
353
1444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner assumes that what was previously deleted was meant to be deleted and what was previously added was meant to remain added. Thus, the Examiner interprets that claim 6, should have been presented in the amendments filed 15 Oct 2025 as the following (emphasis added to limitations/amendments that had errors in underline and strikethrough markings and were corrected by the Examiner):
6. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the inductive coil looped around the toroidal tube includes a plurality of metal cores and a conductive coil, wherein the metal cores have an opening through which the toroidal tube is disposed, an outer wall and an inner wall, and wherein the conductive coil surrounds the outer wall of the metal cores.
Regarding claim 21, “wherein first end of the body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone” should read as “wherein the first end of the body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone” to correct typographical error.
Drawings
Amended Fig. 3A and 3B filed 15 Oct 2025 are acknowledged but not accepted. The filed 15 Oct 205 drawings are objected to because: Examiner explains that the opening 370 pertains to the opening in the metal cores 319 disclosed in original specification para. [0044] and Fig. 3A and 3B. Examiner explains that though Fig. 3A and 3B indicate an opening 370, the opening 370 is not understood to show “The metal cores 319 have an opening 370 through which the tube 310 is disposed.” See annotated Fig. 3A and 3B showing where Examiner understands the opening 370 should be.
PNG
media_image3.png
733
1193
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
686
1182
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, limitation “connector” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a structure which connects two other structures.
Regarding claim 1, limitation “plasma strike zone” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as comprising a region/zone of the remote plasma source where plasma is ignited/generated.
Regarding claim 5, limitation “strike zone of the remote plasma source” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as comprising a region of the remote plasma source where plasma is ignited/generated.
Regarding claim 21 and 22, “grid” is interpreted in light of instant application original Specification para. [0020] as comprising a showerhead.
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.
Claim 5, 25 and 27 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.
Regarding claim 5, limitation “a strike zone of the remote plasma source” is unclear and confusing if this is the same or different from “a plasma strike zone” recited in claim 1.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as “[[a]] the plasma strike zone of the remote plasma source”
Regarding claim 25, limitation “the light emitted from the first UV source and the light emitted from the second UV source” lack proper antecedent basis in the claims. Examiner explains that claim 1, on which claim 25 depends recite “one or more UV sources” without first establishing that there is a first and a second UV source.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets claim 25 as “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more UV sources comprises a first UV source and a second UV source, wherein the plasm strike zone is positioned within the toroidal tube at an intersection of [[the]] a light emitted from the first UV source and [[the]] a light emitted from the second UV source.”
Regarding claim 27, limitation “the light emitted from the first UV source and the light emitted from the second UV source” lack proper antecedent basis in the claims. Examiner explains that claim 21, on which claim 27 depends recite “one or more UV sources” without first establishing that there is a first and a second UV source.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets claim 27 as “The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the one or more UV sources comprises a first UV source and a second UV source, wherein the plasm strike zone is positioned within the toroidal tube at an intersection of [[the]] a light emitted from the first UV source and [[the]] a light emitted from the second UV source.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui et al. (US 2009/0277874 A1 hereinafter “Rui”) in view of Liao (US 2022/0115211 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Rui teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a process chamber (comprising processing chamber 100, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0032]), the process chamber comprising:
a chamber body (comprising side walls 130, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0024]); and
a substrate support (comprising substrate support assembly 126, Fig. 1, para. [0025]) configured to support a substrate within a processing region (comprising interior volume 174, Fig. 1, para. [0025]);
a remote plasma source (comprising 202, Fig. 2, para. [0032]-[0038]) coupled to the chamber body (comprising 130, Fig. 2) through a connector (comprising a portion of outlet port 204 that is in the sidewall 130, Fig. 2, para. [0033]), the remote plasma source comprising:
a body (comprising toroidal plasma chamber 212, Fig. 2), the body having a first end (comprising the end of 212 that connects to inlet 220, Fig. 2), a second end (comprising the end that includes the outlet of 204, Fig. 2), and a toroidal tube (comprising toroidal plasma chamber 212, Fig. 2, para. [0032]-[0033]) spanning between the first end (comprising the end that connects to 220, Fig. 2) and the second end (comprising the end that connects to 204, Fig. 2);
an inlet (comprising 220, Fig. 2, para. [0033]) coupled to a gas source (comprising gas panel 208, Fig. 2, para. [0033]) configured to introduce one or more gases into the toroidal tube (comprising 212, Fig. 2) through the first end (comprising the end the connects to 220, Fig. 2) of the body;
an inductive coil (comprising magnetically permeable cores 210 and coils 214, Fig. 2) looped around the toroidal tube (comprising 212, Fig. 2) (para. [0032]).
Rui does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein the first end of the body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone; one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body, wherein the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone.
Examiner notes that the first end of the body and the toroidal tube defines a gas inlet region of the remote plasma source that is upstream of the inductive coil (comprising 214, Fig. 2) of Rui as understood from Fig. 2 of Rui.
However, Liao teaches an apparatus (comprising plasma processing system 100, Fig. 1, para. [0041]) one or more UV sources (comprising semiconductor laser 10, Fig. 1 and 4A, para. [0049]) coupled to the first end (i.e. gas inlet end) of the body (comprising upper chamber 1a, Fig. 1, para. [0049]), wherein the one or more UV sources (comprising 10, Fig. 1) are directed at the plasma strike zone (i.e. a region upstream of the coil 2 near the process gas inlet) (para. [0022],[0051], [0082]-[0084]). Liao teaches that such a configuration enables igniting plasma in a short time without causing undesirable arcing in the chamber (para. [0009]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first end of the body and the toroidal tube to define a plasma strike zone and provide one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body, wherein the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone because Rui teaches that the first end of the body and the toroidal tube defines a gas inlet region that is upstream of the inductive coil and because Liao further teaches that providing one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of a body upstream of an inductive coil and directed at the plasma strike zone that is upstream of the coil is a configuration that enables igniting plasma in a short time in a plasma processing apparatus without causing undesirable arcing (Liao: para. [0009], [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein a UV source of the one or more UV sources is angled perpendicular to the inlet.
However, Liao further teaches different positions of the UV source (comprising 10, Fig. 1 and 3A) suitable for igniting the plasma including a configuration wherein the UV source (comprising 10, Fig. 3A) is perpendicular to the gas inlet (as understood from Fig. 3A para. [0074]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the UV source to be perpendicular to the gas inlet because Liao teaches such a rearrangement is an obvious configuration that would also be suitable for igniting the plasma.
Regarding claim 26, Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and Liao further teaches wherein an electric field produced by the inductive coil is strongest in the plasma strike zone (para. [0083]). Thus, the combination would meet claim 26 limitations.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui et al. (US 2009/0277874 A1 hereinafter “Rui”) in view of Liao (US 2022/0115211 A1) as applied in claim 1, 2, 26 and further in view of Savas et al. (US 2021/0050213 A1 hereinafter “Savas”).
Regarding claim 3, Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein a first UV source of the one or more UV sources is positioned at an angle of between 5° and 25° from the inlet.
However, Liao teaches positioning the UV source (comprising 10, Fig. 1, 3A and 3B) at various angles with respect to the gas inlet with one embodiment having an angle of about 60 degrees. See annotated Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image5.png
759
699
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Savas further teaches an embodiment (see annotated Fig. 3 below) wherein the UV source 160 is positioned at an angle of about 29° from the inlet (comprising 150, Fig. 3). Savas also teaches an embodiment wherein the UV source 160 is parallel to the gas inlet (see Fig. 1, 5, 6 embodiment). Savas teaches that the positioning of the UV source enables directing the beam of UV light in a desired position within the remote plasma source to assist in plasma ignition (para. [0049]). In other words, the positioning of the UV source is a result-effective variable that enables directing the UV light from the UV source to a desired position within the chamber for suitable ignition of plasma.
PNG
media_image6.png
883
863
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the angle of the UV source with respect to the inlet because Liao already teaches/suggest different positions of the UV source and because Savas teaches the angle/position of the UV source is a result-effective variable that enables directing the UV light from the UV source to a desired region of the remote plasma source for suitable plasma ignition (Savas: para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Rui in view of Liao and Savas as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 3, as applied above but does not explicitly teach a second UV source of the one or more UV sources is positioned at an angle of between 5° and 25° from the inlet.
However, Savas teaches providing one or more UV sources (para. [0020]). Additionally, Savas already teaches UV source 160 is positioned at an angle of about 29° from the inlet (comprising 150, Fig. 3), as discussed in detail above in claim 3 rejection. Savas teaches that the positioning of the UV source enables directing the beam of UV light in a desired position within the remote plasma source to assist in plasma ignition (para. [0049]). In other words, the positioning of the UV source is a result-effective variable that enables directing the UV light from the UV source to a desired position within the chamber for suitable ignition of plasma.
The examiner further explains that providing a second UV source would be a mere duplication of UV source 160 (Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second UV source of the one or more UV sources and further to optimize the angle of the UV source with respect to the inlet because Savas teaches providing one or more UV sources (Savas: para. [0020]) and because Savas teaches the angle/position of the UV source is a result-effective variable that enables directing the UV light from the UV source to a desired region of the remote plasma source for suitable plasma ignition (Savas: para. [0049]), wherein it would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that providing an additional UV source would provide additional energy for plasma ignition.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui et al. (US 2009/0277874 A1 hereinafter “Rui”) in view of Liao (US 2022/0115211 A1) as applied in claim 1, 2, 26 and further in view of Chen (US 2008/0142729 A1) and Ohmi et al. (US 2004/0118834 A1 hereinafter “Ohmi”).
Regarding claim 5, Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including a UV source but does not explicitly teach the UV source is positioned 1 cm to 10 cm from the plasma strike zone of the remote plasma source.
However, Liao teaches that the UV source has a function of facilitating ignition/generation of the plasma (para. [0009], [0022]) and also has a lens to create a beam spot (para. [0050]).
Additionally, Chen teaches an apparatus comprising an ignition source (comprising 109, Fig. 1) wherein the ignition source can be placed within or partially within the vessel/plasma generation chamber (comprising 111, Fig. 1) and the ignition source (comprising 109, Fig. 1) can comprise an ultraviolet source (para. [0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that having an ignition source/ultraviolet source within the plasma generation chamber would mean the distance between the ultraviolet source and a strike zone/plasma generation region would be approximately 0 centimeters.
Further, Ohmi teaches an apparatus (comprising microwave plasma processing apparatus 10, Fig. 1) comprising a remote plasma source (comprising plasma excitation space 26 and magnetron 24, Fig. 1, para. [0022]-[0023]) including a UV source (comprising a deuterium lamp 30, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0027]), wherein the UV source facilitates plasma ignition (para. [0027]) and the position of the UV source and where the light reaches into the plasma generation region/strike zone (comprising 26, Fig. 1) depends on the focal length of the transmission window/lens (comprising 32, Fig. 1 and 2) which can focus the vacuum ultraviolet rays to increase the strength of the ultraviolet light in the remote plasma source chamber (para. [0030]-[0031]). In other words, the distance of the UV source from the plasma generation region/strike zone is a result-effective variable that can affect the strength/focus of the ultraviolet light used for plasma generation/ignition.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, via routine optimization, the distance of the one or more UV sources from a strike zone/plasma generation region of the remote plasma chamber because Savas teaches that the UV source is for plasma ignition wherein Chen teaches that the plasma ignition source can be placed within the plasma generation region (i.e. 0 cm from the strike zone) and because Ohmi further teaches that the distance of the UV source from the plasma generation region/strike zone is a result-effective variable that can affect the strength/focus of the ultraviolet light used for plasma generation/ignition.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui et al. (US 2009/0277874 A1 hereinafter “Rui”) in view of Liao (US 2022/0115211 A1) as applied to claim 1, 2, 26 above and further in view of Lai et al. (US 2013/0014894 A1 hereinafter “Lai”).
Regarding claim 6, Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Rui further teaches wherein the inductive coil (comprising magnetically permeable cores 210 and coils 214, Fig. 2) looped around the toroidal tube (comprising 212, Fig. 2) (para. [0032]) includes a plurality of cores (comprising magnetically permeable cores 210, Fig. 2) and a conductive coil (comprising 214, Fig. 2), wherein the cores have an opening through which the toroidal tube (comprising 212, Fig. 2) is disposed (as understood from Fig. 2), an outer wall and an inner wall, and wherein the conductive coil is wrapped surrounds the outer wall of the cores (comprising 210, Fig. 2) (as understood from Fig. 2).
Rui is silent regarding the cores being metal.
However, Rui teaches and that the remote plasma source is a toroidal plasma source type that includes the cores that are magnetically permeable with coils wrapped around the cores (para. [0032]).
Additionally, Lai teaches a toroidal plasma source (Fig. 1, para. [0016]) comprising cores (comprising rings 137 or 139, Fig. 1) of metal (i.e. copper {Cu} or iron {Fe}) with conductive coils (comprising 136, Fig. 1) wrapped around the cores (para. [0019).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material such as metal (i.e. copper or iron) because Lai teaches that a metal (i.e. copper or iron) is a known suitable material for the cores for generating plasma in a toroidal plasma source. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui et al. (US 2009/0277874 A1 hereinafter “Rui”) in view of Liao (US 2022/0115211 A1) and Lai et al. (US 2013/0014894 A1 hereinafter “Lai”) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Agarwal (US 2002/0072244 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Rui in view of Savas and Lai teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more UV sources have a power range greater than 500 W.
However, Agarwal teaches an apparatus comprising a remote plasma source (comprising 8, Fig. 1) and a UV source (comprising photo energy source 7/UV lamps, Fig. 1, para. [0021]) having a power range greater than 500W (para. [0034] discloses 500W to 4000W). Agarwal teaches that such a configuration enables providing energy to the plasma for sustaining active species while being transported to the process chamber for improved device characteristics (i.e. substrate processing) (para. [0021]-[0023],[0034]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the UV source to have a power range of greater than 500W because Agarwal teaches that such a configuration can provided added energy to the plasma for sustaining active species for improved substrate processing (Agarwal: para. [0021]-[0023], [0034]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui et al. (US 2009/0277874 A1 hereinafter “Rui”) in view of Liao (US 2022/0115211 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 26 above and further in view of Ueda et al. (JPS60235346A hereinafter “Ueda” and referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 25, Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more UV sources comprises a first UV source and a second UV source, wherein the plasma strike zone is positioned within the toroidal tube at an intersection of a light emitted from a first UV source and a light emitted from a second UV source.
However, Ueda teaches a plasma strike zone (comprising ion generation space 4, Fig. 2) positioned at an intersection of a light emitted from a first laser light source (comprising laser beam B1, Fig. 2) and a light emitted from a second laser light source (comprising laser beam B3, Fig. 2) (page 2 and 7). Ueda teaches that such a configuration enables improving ionization efficiency (page 8 last line).
Examiner further notes that the plasma strike zone in the apparatus of Rui in view of Liao is already understood to be in the toroidal tube in light of combination discussed in detail in claim 1 rejection.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the one or more UV sources to comprise a first UV source and a second UV source and configure the plasma strike zone is positioned within the toroidal tube at an intersection of a light emitted from a first UV source and a light emitted from a second UV source because Ueda teaches/suggests that such a configuration of providing a first and second light source for plasma ignition is a known suitable configuration for generating a plasma that would improve ionization efficiency.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (US 2007/0051471 A1 hereinafter “Kawaguchi”) in view Liao (US 2022/0115211 A1) and Holber et al. (US 2004/0206730 A1 hereinafter “Holber”).
Regarding independent claim 21, Kawaguchi teaches an apparatus (comprising stripping reactor 1000, Fig. 1, para. [0032]), comprising:
a process chamber (comprising chamber 190 including chamber wall 195, Fig. 1, para. [0037]), the process chamber comprising:
a chamber body (comprising chamber wall 195, Fig. 1); and
a substrate support (comprising wafer pedestal 200, Fig. 1, para. [0033]) configured to support a substrate (comprising 300, Fig. 1) within a processing region (comprising 190, Fig. 1);
a remote plasma source (comprising remote plasma source 100, Fig. 1, para. [0038]) coupled to the chamber body (comprising 195, Fig. 1) through a connector (comprising liner 170, Fig. 1, para. [0041]), the remote plasma source comprising:
a body (comprising tube 120 having toroidal geometry, Fig. 1), the body having a first end (comprising upper end of 120, Fig. 1), a second end (comprising lower end of 120, Fig. 1), and a toroidal tube (comprising 120 having toroidal geometry, Fig. 1, para. [0026]) spanning between the first end and the second end;
an inlet (comprising the opening of entrance orifice 110, Fig. 1, para. [0026]) coupled to a gas source configured to introduce one or more gases (i.e. precursor gases, para. [0026]) into the toroidal tube (comprising 120, Fig. 1) through the first end (comprising upper end of 120, Fig. 1) of the body (comprising 120, Fig. 1);
an inductive coil (comprising ferrite core 130 and wires 140, Fig. 1, para. [0026]) looped around the toroidal tube (comprising 120, Fig. 1).
Kawaguchi does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein the first end of the body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone; one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body and a gas body connecting the inlet to the first end of the body, wherein the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone; the gas body comprising one or more grids.
Examiner notes that the first end of the body and the toroidal tube (comprising 120, Fig. 1) defines a gas inlet region of the remote plasma source that is upstream of the inductive coil (comprising ferrite core 130 and wires 140, Fig. 1) of Kawaguchi as understood from Fig. 1 of Kawaguchi.
However, Liao teaches an apparatus (comprising plasma processing system 100, Fig. 1, para. [0041]) one or more UV sources (comprising semiconductor laser 10, Fig. 1 and 4A, para. [0049]) coupled to the first end (i.e. gas inlet end) of the body (comprising upper chamber 1a, Fig. 1, para. [0049]), wherein the one or more UV sources (comprising 10, Fig. 1) are directed at the plasma strike zone (i.e. a region upstream of the coil 2 near the process gas inlet) (para. [0022],[0051], [0082]-[0084]). Liao teaches that such a configuration enables igniting plasma in a short time without causing undesirable arcing in the chamber (para. [0009]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first end of the body and the toroidal tube to define a plasma strike zone and provide one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body, wherein the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone because Kawaguchi teaches that the first end of the body and the toroidal tube defines a gas inlet region that is upstream of the inductive coil and because Liao further teaches that providing one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of a body upstream of an inductive coil and directed at the plasma strike zone that is upstream of the coil is a configuration that enables igniting plasma in a short time in a plasma processing apparatus without causing undesirable arcing (Liao: para. [0009], [0022]).
Kawaguchi in view of Liao as applied above does not explicitly teach a gas body connecting the inlet to the first end of the body the gas body comprising one or more grids.
However, Holber teaches a remote plasma source (comprising 1500, Fig. 16, para. [0007]-[0008], [0185]) including a gas body (comprising one or more showerheads 1551, Fig. 16; comprising gas showerheads 1553, Fig. 17A and 17B) connecting the inlet (comprising the opening of input port 1541, Fig. 16) to the first end (comprising upper end of 1510, Fig. 16) of the body (comprising dielectric vessel 1510, Fig. 16, para. [0185]), the gas body comprising one or more grids (comprising 1551, Fig. 16) (para. [0188]-[0191]). Holber teaches that such a configuration enables improved gas distribution and improved stability of plasma and more uniform power distribution in the body/vessel, wherein showerheads that limit creation of turbulence and reduce erosion of a vessel/body wall (para. [0189],[0191]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provided a gas body comprising one or more grids and disposing the gas body to connect the inlet to the first end of the body because Holber teaches that such a configuration enables improved gas distribution and improved stability of plasma (para. [0189], [0191]).
Regarding claim 22, Kawaguchi in view of Liao and Holber teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 as applied above and further teaches wherein the gas body comprises a first grid and a second grid. Examiner explains that Holber explicitly teaches one or more grids (comprising shower heads 1553, Fig. 16, para. [0188]-[0191]), wherein “more grids” is understood to include at least two grids. Thus, when modifying Kawaguchi in view of Liao in claims 21 rejection with the teachings of Holber, the resulting apparatus would meet claim 22 limitations.
Regarding claim 23 and 24, Kawaguchi in view of Liao and Holber teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 as applied above but does not explicitly teach: regarding claim 23, wherein the one or more grids comprise a transparent material; regarding claim 24, wherein the transparent material comprises quartz or an aluminum oxide.
However, Kawaguchi teaches a gas distribution plate (comprising 180, Fig. 1) comprising quartz (para. [0066], claim 27) and additionally teaches that the body (comprising 120, Fig. 1) comprises quartz (para. [0027]). Kawaguchi teaches that such a material can minimize recombination losses for particular applications (para. [0027],[0066]).
Regarding claim 23 and 24, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a transparent material such as quartz as the material of the one or more grids because Kawaguchi teaches that quartz is a known suitable material for a gas body/grid that can minimize recombination losses (para. [0027],[0066]). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 28, Kawaguchi in view of Liao and Holber teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 21 above and Liao further teaches wherein an electric field produced by the inductive coil is strongest in the plasma strike zone (para. [0083]). Thus, the combination would meet claim 28 limitations.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (US 2007/0051471 A1 hereinafter “Kawaguchi”) in view Liao (US 2022/0115211 A1) and Holber et al. (US 2004/0206730 A1 hereinafter “Holber”) as applied to claims 21-24, 28 above and further in view of Ueda et al. (JPS60235346A hereinafter “Ueda” and referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 27, Kawaguchi in view of Liao and Holber teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 21 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more UV sources comprises a first UV source and a second UV source, wherein the plasma strike zone is positioned within the toroidal tube at an intersection of a light emitted from a first UV source and a light emitted from a second UV source.
However, Ueda teaches a plasma strike zone (comprising ion generation space 4, Fig. 2) positioned at an intersection of a light emitted from a first laser light source (comprising laser beam B1, Fig. 2) and a light emitted from a second laser light source (comprising laser beam B3, Fig. 2) (page 2 and 7). Ueda teaches that such a configuration enables improving ionization efficiency (page 8 last line).
Examiner further notes that the plasma strike zone in the apparatus of Kawaguchi in view of Liao and Holber is already understood to be in the toroidal tube in light of combination discussed in detail in claim 21 rejection.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the one or more UV sources to comprise a first UV source and a second UV source and configure the plasma strike zone is positioned within the toroidal tube at an intersection of a light emitted from a first UV source and a light emitted from a second UV source because Ueda teaches/suggests that such a configuration of providing a first and second light source for plasma ignition is a known suitable configuration for generating a plasma that would improve ionization efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Rui and Savas, alone or in combination do not teach, show or otherwise render obvious a "body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone", "one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body", and "one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone" as recited in amended independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 4 dependent thereon.
Examiner responds independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 4 rejections have been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments filed 15 Oct 2025. Currently claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui in view of Liao wherein Liao teaches a plasma strike zone and one or more UV sources coupled to a first end of a body and the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone and wherein the combination of Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1 as discussed in detail in claim 1 rejections. In the current rejections, Savas is no longer cited to teach the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues (remarks page 8) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 5, Rui, Savas, Chen, Ohmi alone or in combination do not teach show, suggest or otherwise render obvious at least an apparatus including a "body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone", "one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body" and "one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone" as recited in independent claim 1 and claim 5 dependent thereon.
Examiner responds independent claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments filed 15 Oct 2025. Currently claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui in view of Liao wherein Liao teaches a plasma strike zone and one or more UV sources coupled to a first end of a body and the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone and wherein the combination of Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1 as discussed in detail in claim 1 rejections. In the current rejections, Savas is no longer cited to teach the limitations of claim 1. Chen and Ohmi are cited to teach/suggest the limitations of claim 5 and not the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 6, Rui, Savas, Lai alone or in combination do not teach show, suggest or otherwise render obvious at least an apparatus including a "body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone", "one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body" and "one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone" as recited in independent claim 1 and claim 6 dependent thereon.
Examiner responds independent claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments filed 15 Oct 2025. Currently claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui in view of Liao wherein Liao teaches a plasma strike zone and one or more UV sources coupled to a first end of a body and the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone and wherein the combination of Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1 as discussed in detail in claim 1 rejections. In the current rejections, Savas is no longer cited to teach the limitations of claim 1. Lai is cited to teach the limitations of claim 6 and not the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9-10) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 7, Rui, Savas, Lai, Agarwal alone or in combination do not teach show, suggest or otherwise render obvious at least an apparatus including a "body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone", "one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body" and "one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone" as recited in independent claim 1 and claim 7 dependent thereon.
Examiner responds independent claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments filed 15 Oct 2025. Currently claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rui in view of Liao wherein Liao teaches a plasma strike zone and one or more UV sources coupled to a first end of a body and the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone and wherein the combination of Rui in view of Liao teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1 as discussed in detail in claim 1 rejections. In the current rejections, Savas is no longer cited to teach the limitations of claim 1. Lai is cited to teach/suggest the limitations of claim 6 and not the limitations of claim 1. Agarwal is cited to teach/suggest the limitations of claim 7 and not the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues (remarks page 10-11) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 21, Kawaguchi, Savas, Holber either alone or in combination, do not teach show, suggest or otherwise render obvious at least an apparatus including a "first end of the body and the toroidal tube define a plasma strike zone", "one or more UV sources coupled to the first end of the body" and "UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone" as recited in independent claim 21, and claims 22, 23 and 24 dependent therefrom.
Examiner responds independent claim 21 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments filed 15 Oct 2025. Currently claim 21 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi in view of Liao and Holber, wherein Liao teaches a plasma strike zone and one or more UV sources coupled to a first end of a body and the one or more UV sources are directed at the plasma strike zone and wherein the combination of Kawaguchi in view of Liao and Holber teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 21 as discussed in detail in claim 21 rejections. In the current rejections, Savas is no longer cited to teach the limitations of claim 21.
In light of the above, independent claim 1 and claim 21 are rejected as detailed above in claims rejections.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claim 1, the dependent claims 2-7 and dependent claims 22-28 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights