DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/03/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all three groups share the same technical features that make a contribution over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the independent claim does not make a contribution over the prior art (see rejection of claim 1 below). As such, any shared technical feature is NOT a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art of record whether alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitations of claim 12 in the context of the limitations of claims 1 and 2 from which claim 12 depends.
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) 1-2 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuo et al (US 6,545,468).
Regarding claim 1:
Kuo teaches a substrate processing apparatus (200) [fig 3 & col 4, lines 32-41], comprising: a vacuum chamber (30) including a processing zone (interior of 30) for processing a substrate [fig 3 & col 4, lines 32-41]; an adjustable geometry trim coil (AGTC) (11a) configured to generate a supplemental magnetic field through the processing zone of the vacuum chamber [fig 3 & col 4, lines 32-41]; and a magnetic field controller (coil driver, 70) coupled to the AGTC (11a) [fig 3 & col 4, lines 32-41]; the magnetic field controller (70) configured to adjust at least one parameter of the AGTC (voltage and current level selections), causing the supplemental magnetic field to reduce a residual magnetic field within the vacuum chamber to a pre-determined value (drive voltage or current of each coil drive would be commanded in accordance with the desired system response by virtue of the calibration) [fig 3 & col 2-3, lines 44-40].
Regarding claim 2:
Kuo teaches the at least one parameter of the AGTC is at least one of: a geometry of the AGTC; a perimeter length of a coil conductor wire forming the AGTC; a current through the coil conductor wire; a relative location of the AGTC with respect to a magnetic component; and a position of a length of the coil conductor wire forming the AGTC including magnetic material to geometrically direct, concentrate or shield a magnetic flux from the current through the coil conductor wire (voltage and current level selections) [fig 3 & col 2-3, lines 44-40].
Regarding claim 7:
The claim limitations “wherein the AGTC is mounted on a support structure attached to a surface of a top plate of the vacuum chamber” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 8:
Kuo teaches at least another AGTC (11b) configured to generate at least another supplemental magnetic field through the processing zone of the vacuum chamber [fig 3 & col 4, lines 32-41].
Regarding claims 9-10:
The claim limitations “wherein one or both of the supplemental magnetic field and the at least another supplemental magnetic field AGTC are generated with a direction that is opposite a vertical component (Bz) of the residual magnetic field” and “wherein the at least another AGTC is configured to generate the at least another supplemental magnetic field with a direction that is opposite a horizontal component (Bh) of the residual magnetic field” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al (US 6,545,468) as applied to claims 1-2 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Smesny et al (US 5,444,637).
The limitations of claims 1-2 and 7-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 3:
Kuo teaches a magnetic field sensor (magnetic probe, 50) configured to detect the residual magnetic field within the vacuum chamber [fig 3 & col 4-5, lines 56-3].
Kuo does not specifically teach the magnetic field sensor is a wafer sensor placed within the processing zone of the vacuum chamber.
Smesny teaches a magnetic field sensor (12 can sense magnetic disturbance) is a wafer sensor placed within the processing zone of the vacuum chamber (placed upon wafer 10) [fig 1 & col 7-8, lines 62-19].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic field sensor of Kuo to be a wafer sensor, as in Smesny, to accurately determine processing condition gradients to which the wafer is exposed [Smesny – col 3-4, lines 52-10].
Regarding claims 4-6:
Modified Kuo teaches the wafer sensor (12) comprises an array of magnetic field sensors (sensors, 12) configured to measure magnitudes of the residual magnetic field at a plurality of locations within the processing zone (can sense magnetic disturbance) [Smesny - fig 1 & col 7-8, lines 62-19].
The claim limitations “wherein the magnetic field controller adjusts the at least one parameter of the AGTC based on the measured magnitudes”, “wherein the magnetic field controller adjusts the current through the coil conductor wire of the AGTC causing a magnitude of the supplemental magnetic field to match an average magnitude derived from the measured magnitudes of the residual magnetic field at the plurality of locations”, and “wherein the magnetic field controller adjusts the at least one parameter of the AGTC resulting in the magnitude of the supplemental magnetic field to match the average magnitude, and a direction of the supplemental magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the residual magnetic field” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al (US 6,545,468) as applied to claims 1-2 and 7-10 above, and further in view of O et al (US 6,022,460).
The limitations of claims 1-2 and 7-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 11:
Kuo does not specifically teach the AGTC and the at least another AGTC are configured as a Helmholtz pair, the Helmholtz pair configured to generate the supplemental magnetic field along a vertical axis or a horizontal axis of the vacuum chamber.
O teaches an AGTC and at least another AGTC are configured as a Helmholtz pair (Helmholtz coils, 70), the Helmholtz pair (70) configured to generate the supplemental magnetic field along a vertical axis or a horizontal axis of the vacuum chamber (a weak magnetic field is produced in the alternating axis direction) [fig 2 & col 3, lines 51-59 and col 5, lines 1-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the AGTC and the at least another AGTC of Kuo to be configured as a Helmholtz pair, as in O, to produce a weak magnetic field whereby a remarkable effect of giving rise to a decrease in electron temperature and an increase in plasma density can be obtained [O - col 5, lines 1-10].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ikeda et al (US 2012/0298303) and Banna et al (US 2014/0209244) teach an adjustable geometry trim coil [fig 7A and 2, respectively].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights