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 .
Status of Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 29 Oct 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 2 are amended. Claims 7-20 are withdrawn. Examiner notes that claim 16 has the incorrect status identifier (“Original”), but should be “Withdrawn” in light of non-final rejection “Restriction/Election” dated 12 Aug 2025 and see also Applicant’s remarks dated 29 Oct 2025 page 1 second paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because the current status identifier “Original” is incorrect. The status identifier for Claim 16 should be “Withdrawn” in light of non-final rejection “Restriction/Election” dated 12 Aug 2025 and see also Applicant’s remarks dated 29 Oct 2025 page 1 second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The Examiner acknowledges and accepts Specification filed 29 Oct 2025. Specification objections discussed in the non-final rejection of 12 Aug 2025 is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner interprets “field concentrator” (claim 2) as comprising a ferromagnetic material in light of Specification para. [0044].
Examiner interprets “flux reducer” (claim 6) as comprising a dielectric or metal material in light of Specification para. [0045].
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 2 (and depending claims 3-4) is/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 2, limitation “wherein the inner side portion is spaced radially inward from the cavity and the outer side portion is spaced radially outward from the cavity; and the inner side portion is spaced radially inward from the cavity and radially outward from the inner side portion of the field concentrator, and the outer side portion is spaced radially outward from the cavity and radially inward from the outer side portion of the field concentrator” is unclear and confusing for the recitations of “the inner side portion” and “the outer side portion” that do not further have a modifier of “of the field concentrator” which inner side portion and outer side portion are being referred to since both the field concentrator and the insulator include respective inner side portions and outer side portions.
For the purpose of examination, the above discussed limitation shall be interpreted as “wherein the inner side portion of the field concentrator is spaced radially inward from the cavity and the outer side portion of the field concentrator is spaced radially outward from the cavity; and the inner side portion of the insulator is spaced radially inward from the cavity and radially outward from the inner side portion of the field concentrator, and the outer side portion of the insulator is spaced radially outward from the cavity and radially inward from the outer side portion of the field concentrator” in light of Fig. 6.
In light of the above, dependent claims 3-4 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Godyak (US2008/0050537A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Godyak teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising inductive plasma processing chamber/process chamber 100, Fig. 1, 3, para. [0023]-[0025],[0048]) comprising:
a processing chamber (comprising sidewall 102 and chamber 185, Fig. 1 and 3, para. [0054]. [0056]-[0057]) including a substrate support (comprising substrate holder 130, Fig. 1 and 3) operable to hold a substrate(para. [0049]);
a main plasma source (comprising a central/inner one of conductors 180, Fig. 1, 2, 3, para. [0049]) coupled with the processing chamber (comprising 120 and 185, Fig. 1 and 3 );
a plate (comprising dielectric wall 110, Fig. 1 and 3, para. [0037]) comprising an insulator (comprising 190 and lips 115, Fig. 3) having an inner side portion, an outer side portion, and a top portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of Godyak below);
a cavity (comprising region between lips 115, Fig. 3; see annotated Fig. 3 of Godyak below) housed within the plate (comprising 110, Fig. 1 and 3) and defined by the insulator and spaced radially outward from a dielectric sidewall of the main plasma source; and
an edge plasma generator(comprising outer one of 180, Fig. 1 and 3) disposed over the top portion (comprising thin window portion 190, Fig. 3) of the insulator (comprising 190 and 115, Fig. 3).
See annotated Fig. 3 of Godyak below
PNG
media_image1.png
760
1006
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
760
876
media_image2.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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaji et al. (US 2012/0034394 A1 hereinafter “Shaji”) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2010/0065215 A1 hereinafter “Jeon”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shaji teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 4A and 4B, para. [0077]-[0081], see also Fig. 2A-2C and para. [0055]-[0069]) comprising:
a processing chamber (comprising process chamber 230, Fig. 4A) including a substrate support (comprising 106, Fig. 4A) operable to hold a substrate (102, Fig. 4A) (para. [0077]);
a main plasma source (comprising central plasma chamber zones 310A-C, Fig. 3B, 3C, 3D, 4A) coupled with the processing chamber (comprising 230, Fig. 4A) (para. [0070]-[0077]);
a plate (comprising chamber top 202, Fig. 4A) comprising an insulator (comprising a dielectric side wall of the plasma chamber 310D and/or 310E, Fig. 4A, para. [0068]), comprising an inner side portion, an outer side portion, and a top portion (see annotated Fig. 2C below);
a cavity (comprising plasma chamber zones 310D and/or 310E having respective inner spaces, Fig. 4A and 4B) housed (i.e. held) within the plate (comprising 202, Fig. 4A) and defined by the insulator (comprising a dielectric sidewall of the plasma chamber 310D and/or 310E, Fig. 4A, para. [0068]) and spaced radially outward from a dielectric sidewall (comprising chamber wall of plasma chamber 310A-C, wherein the chamber wall comprises dielectric, Fig. 3B and 4A (para. [0068])) of the main plasma source (comprising central plasma chamber zones 310A-C, Fig. 3B and 4A); and
an edge plasma generator (comprising including respective inductive element/primary conductor 240 of plasma chamber zones 310D and/or 310E, Fig. 4A and 4B, para. [0069],[0075],[0079], [0087], [0088]).
See annotated Fig. 2C below.
PNG
media_image3.png
970
1251
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Shaji as applied above does not explicitly teach the edge plasma generator is disposed over the top portion of the insulator.
Examiner explains that the edge plasma generator (comprising 240, Fig. 2H) of Jeon is wrapped around the ferrites/flux concentrator (comprising 204, Fig. 2H) along the side to produce a magnetic field (comprising 622, Fig. 6A, para. [0088]) that circulates through the ferrites/flux concentrator (comprising 204, Fig. 2H, 6A) (see also Fig. 6A and 6B, para. [0086]-[0088]), wherein the edge plasma generator (comprising 240, Fig. 2H) is disposed along a side of the insulator (chamber wall of plasma chamber 310A-C, wherein the chamber wall comprises dielectric, Fig. 3B and 4A (para. [0068]) to produce a plasma in the cavity defined by the insulator (para. [0087]-[0088]).
Additionally, Jeon teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising Fig. 1, abstract) including a plasma generator (comprising antenna coil 25, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0043]) is wrapped around a top of a ferrite/flux concentrator (comprising ferrite core 21, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0051]) disposed over the top portion of the insulator (comprising plasma channel comprising ceramic tube, Fig. 1 and 5, para. [0052]-[0054]). Jeon teaches that such a configuration enables producing a magnetic field (comprising 40, Fig. 5) in the flux generator/ferrite (comprising 21, Fig. 1 and 5) and enables producing a plasma in the cavity defined by the insulator (comprising 22, Fig. 1 and 5) (para. [0055]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the edge plasma generator (Shaji: comprising inductive element 240 of plasma chamber zones 310D and/or 310E, Fig. 4A and 4B, Fig. 2C and 2H) to be wrapped around the top portion of the ferrite/flux concentrator (Shaji: comprising 204, Fig. 2C) such that the edge plasma generator is disposed over the top portion of the insulator (Shaji: comprising upper wall of plasma chamber zones 310D and/or 310E, Fig. 4A and 4B) because Jeon teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable alternative configuration of a plasma generator configuration having a flux concentrator/ferrite that is suitable for producing a plasma in a cavity defined by the insulator. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 2, Shaji in view of Jeon teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above and Shaji further teaches the edge plasma generator (comprising 310D and/or 310E, Fig. 4A and 4B) further comprises a field concentrator (comprising ferrites 204D or 204E, Fig. 4A and 4B, para. [0058]) comprising an inner side portion (comprising a radially inward one of ferrite 204D or 204E, Fig. 4A and 4B; see also Fig. 2C) and an outer side portion (comprising a radially outward one of ferrite 204D or 204E, Fig. 4A and 4B; see also Fig. 2C), wherein the inner side portion is spaced radially inward from the cavity and the outer side portion is spaced radially outward from the cavity (comprising inner space of one of plasma chamber zones 310D and/or 310E, Fig. 4A); and wherein the inner side portion of the insulator is spaced radially inward from the cavity (comprising inner space of one of 310D or 310D, Fig. 4A) and radially outward from the inner side portion of the field concentrator (comprising radially inward one of ferrite 204D or 204E, Fig. 4A) and the outer side portion of the insulator is spaced radially outward from the cavity and radially inward from the outer side portion of the field concentrator (comprising radially outward one of ferrite 204D or 204E, Fig. 4A). Examiner has provided annotated Fig. 2C below. Examiner explains that Fig. 2C best shows the configuration of a single one of the plasma chambers. Examiner explains that Fig. 3B, 3C and 4A embodiments are understood to comprise a plurality of the plasma chambers of Fig. 2C in light of para. [0072]-[0074][0087].
PNG
media_image4.png
970
1251
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Shaji in view of Jeon teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 2 as applied above and Shaji further teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 2 above and further teaches wherein the field concentrator (comprising 204, Fig. 2C; comprising 204A-E, Fig. 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B) includes a ferromagnetic material (ferrite) (para. [0058], [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Shaji in view of Jeon teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the edge plasma generator uses a power supply with a frequency between 1 MHz and 15 MHz
However, Shaji further teaches wherein the edge plasma generator (comprising plasma chamber zones 310D and/or 310E including respective inductive element/primary conductor, Fig. 4A and 4B) uses a power supply with a frequency between 10kHz to 1MHz, or 10 kHz to 5 MHz or 10 kHz to 13 MHz (para. [0084]-[0088]).
Thus, Shaji teaches overlapping range to the claimed range of 1 MHz and 15 MHz. Shaji additionally teaches that lower frequency operation provides significantly lower cost relative to high frequency RF plasma system and affects ion bombardment energies which affects plasma erosion on the plasma chamber surface (para. [0084], [0085]). In other words, Shaji teaches the frequency is a result-effective variable that affects the cost of operation, ion bombardment energies and the life of the plasma chamber due to erosion.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the frequency of the power supply used in the edge plasma generator because Shaji teaches the frequency is a result-effective variable which affects cost of operation, ion bombardment energies and the life of the plasma chamber due to erosion wherein optimizing the frequency would optimize the ion bombardment for optimal substrate processing and optimizing cost of operation.
Furthermore, the courts have held that the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)(See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Shaji in view of Jeon teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above including a cavity (comprising 210, Fig. 2A; plasma chamber zones 310D and/or 310E having respective inner spaces, Fig. 4A and 4B) but does not clearly and explicitly teach a flux reducer (interpreted as comprising a dielectric or metal material) positioned below the cavity.
However, Shaji teaches that a portion of the plate (comprising 202, Fig. 2C, 4A) is positioned below the cavity (comprising 210, Fig. 2C; comprising 310D and/or 310E, Fig. 4A). Shaji also teaches that suitable material for constructing the plasma apparatus include dielectric/ceramic or metal material (para. [0067]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a portion of the top plate 202 that is below the cavity to be a flux reducer by selecting a dielectric/ceramic or metal material because Shaji teaches that such materials are suitable for the construction of a plasma apparatus (Shaji: para. [0067]). 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaji et al. (US 2012/0034394 A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2010/0065215 A1 hereinafter “Jeon”) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6 and further in view of Godyak (US 2008/0050537 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shaji in view of Jeon teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 2, 3 as applied above but does not teach wherein the ferromagnetic material has an upper frequency range greater than 2MHz.
However, Godyak teaches a field concentrator (i.e. magnetic flux concentrator) comprising a ferromagnetic material with a magnetic permeability of 10 or greater at the RF power frequency (para. [0020], [0059]). Godyak further teaches that the loss factor of a ferromagnetic material of a field concentrator (i.e. magnetic flux concentrator) depends on the RF excitation frequency and the suitability of a material in any particular application depends on the selected power frequency (para. [0059]).
Furthermore, Shaji teaches a radio frequency of 10 kHz to 13 MHz or 10 kHz and 5 MHz or 10 kHz to 1MHz (para. [0084]).
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 of the ferromagnetic material of the field concentrator to have an upper frequency range of greater than 2MHz because Shaji teaches an embodiment including a range of operating frequency greater than 2MHz and because Godyak teaches that the selection of a suitable ferromagnetic material for a field concentrator depends on the desired operating frequency (Godyak: para. [0059]). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7-10) regarding rejections of the independent claim 1 that the references (Nagorny, Shaji, Godyak) cited alone or in combination do not teach, show or suggest amended claim 1 limitations as discussed in the interview of 20 Oct 2025.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Currently claim 1 is rejected as being anticipated by Godyak as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Claim 1 is additionally as being unpatentable over Shaji in view of Jeon as discussed in detail in claims rejections above wherein teachings/suggestions of Jeon are combined with teachings of Shaji to teach amended claim limitations regarding the edge plasma generating being disposed over a top portion of the insulator. Nagorny is no longer cited in the current rejections and therefore Applicant’s arguments directed toward Nagorny are moot.
In light of the above, independent claims 1 is rejected.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claim 1, the dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected, as detailed above.
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 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