DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 4/2/2026 with an RCE.
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 (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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are pending (claims 1, 7, and 16 independent).
Claims 1-6 and 20 are withdrawn.
Claims 8-9 are canceled.
Claims 7, 10-13, and 16 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to due to a minor informality: line 2 should read “…coil member are vertically stacked…”.
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.
Claims 7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2013/0278136) in view of Li (US Pub. 2017/0011938).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches an antenna assembly provided to generate plasma (Fig. 6 antennas #400a/b, each embodied as the antenna #300 of Fig. 4; see [0066]), the antenna assembly comprising:
an inner coil member provided at a center portion at an upper side of a plasma processing chamber (Fig. 4, #400a at inner region); and
an outer coil member arranged outside the inner coil member (Fig. 4, #400b at outer region), and comprising a plurality of unit coils ([0056] and Fig. 4, antennas #301) branched from a feeding line (see Fig. 6) at a predetermined gap and spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction (see Fig. 4),
wherein the inner coil member comprises two inductive antennas of the same structure (see Fig. 4, antennas #301), the two inductive antennas being connected to each other in parallel (depicted in the same was as instant Fig. 13) and arranged to overlap with each other (see Fig. 4),
wherein the two inductive antennas comprise:
an outer upper section arranged over a first quadrant and a second quadrant of a first layer; an inner upper section connected to the outer upper section and arranged over a third quadrant and a fourth quadrant of the first layer; an inner lower section connected to the inner upper section and arranged over a first quadrant and a second quadrant of a second layer arranged below the first layer; and an outer lower section connected to the inner lower section and arranged over a third quadrant and a fourth quadrant of the second layer (see Figs. 4 and 6, #400a comprises upper/lower section and #400b comprises upper/lower section; depicted in the same was as instant Figs. 13 and 15).
Lee does not teach wherein the feeding line comprises a vertical feeding rod extending in the vertical direction and to which a radio frequency (RF) signal is applied, and wherein the plurality of unit coils are branched toward the same horizontal direction from the vertical feeding rod at different vertical positions.
However, Li teaches this limitation (Li – [0028] and Figs. 3-6, connection member #101 extends vertically, connects to coils 15’ and 15’’ at different vertical positions, wherein the coils extend from this connection toward the same horizontal direction).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the feeding structure of Lee (Fig. 5- four circumferential connection points) to comprise that of Li (single circumferential connection point, multiple vertical connection points) in order to supply current to the coils in the same directions, creating EM fields of the same direction (Li – [0028]), which ultimately adjusts plasma excitation efficiency (Li – [0036]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of unit coils of the outer coil member are vertically stacked at a predetermined gap (see Fig. 4; depicted in the same was as instant Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of unit coils of the outer coil member has a same spiral shape (see Fig. 4; depicted in the same was as instant Fig. 13).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2013/0278136) and Li (US Pub. 2017/0011938), as applied to claims 7 and 10-11 above, further in view of Jang (US 2012/0090785) with Holland (US 6,414,648) as a supporting reference.
The limitations of claims 7 and 10-11 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches wherein a first end of each unit coil of the plurality of unit coils is connected to the feeding line (see Figs. 4-5).
Modified Lee does not explicitly teach wherein a second end of each unit coil of the plurality of unit coils is connected to an earthing line (although Lee pars. [0026] and [0042] do describe wherein the antennas are grounded, and the Examiner submits that it is extremely likely the coils are grounded as claimed).
However, Jang teaches this limitation (Jang – Fig. 3, grounded ends of terminal coil portions).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the grounding arrangement of Jang for the coils of modified Lee in order to minimize cross-talk, stray reactances, and plasma non-uniformities (Holland – C9, L53-61).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the Jang reference itself could be used as evidence of obviousness (and proving the likely inherency of the structure included, but not shown, in Lee) without the Holland reference. Such a rejection would be an obvious use of a known technique (inclusion of RF grounds for inductive coils) to improve the Lee structure to obtain predictable results. Applicant is advised this rejection is made concurrently with the rejection above that utilizes Holland as a motivation for the aforementioned combination.
Regarding claims 13-15, modified Lee does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Jang teaches wherein the feeding line comprises: a common feeding node to which the RF signal is applied ([0033] and Fig. 3, coaxial line #142); horizontal feeding rods coupled to the common feeding node and extending in a horizontal direction (Jang – [0036] and Fig. 3, any of branching portions #152); and the vertical feeding rods coupled to the horizontal feeding rod and extending in the vertical direction and to which the plurality of unit coils is stacked and coupled (Jang – Fig. 3, vertically extending portions connecting #152 and #154).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the connection structure of Jang in the modified Lee apparatus in order to uniformly distribute RF power to generate uniform plasma density (Jang – [0010]-[0013]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 2013/0278136) in view of Jang (US Pub. 2012/0090785) and Li (US Pub. 2017/0011938).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches a plasma processing equipment (Fig. 6, entirety) comprising: a plasma processing chamber configured to perform a process treatment with respect to a substrate ([0060] and Fig. 6, vacuum container #50 with substrate #56); and a power supply apparatus configured to supply power to generate plasma in the plasma processing chamber ([0062] and related elements below), wherein the power supply apparatus comprises: a radio frequency (RF) power supply part configured to generate a RF signal ([0062] and Fig. 6, RF power supply #66); an impedance matching part connected to the RF power supply part ([0062] and Fig. 6, impedance matching network #64); and an antenna assembly provided to generate plasma (Fig. 6 antennas #400a/b, each embodied as the antenna #300 of Fig. 4; see [0066]), the antenna assembly comprising: an inner coil member provided at a center portion at an upper side of a plasma processing chamber (Fig. 4, #400a at inner region); and an outer coil member arranged outside the inner coil member (Fig. 4, #400b at outer region), and comprising a plurality of unit coils ([0056] and Fig. 4, antennas #301) branched from a feeding line (see Fig. 6) at a predetermined gap and spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction (see Fig. 4).
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of feeding lines are arranged at equal angles around a common feeding node.
However, Jang teaches this limitation (Jang - [0033] and Fig. 3, coaxial line #142 as common feeding node, branching portions #152 as horizontal feeding rods)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the connection structure of Jang in the Lee apparatus in order to uniformly distribute RF power to generate uniform plasma density (Jang – [0010]-[0013]).
Modified Lee does not teach wherein the feeding line comprises a vertical feeding rod extending in the vertical direction and to which a radio frequency (RF) signal is applied, and wherein the plurality of unit coils are branched toward the same horizontal direction from the vertical feeding rod at different vertical positions.
However, Li teaches this limitation (Li – [0028] and Figs. 3-6, connection member #101 extends vertically, connects to coils 15’ and 15’’ at different vertical positions, wherein the coils extend from this connection toward the same horizontal direction).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the feeding structure of modified Lee (see Lee Fig. 5- four circumferential connection points) to comprise that of Li (single circumferential connection point, multiple vertical connection points) in order to supply current to the coils in the same directions, creating EM fields of the same direction (Li – [0028]), which ultimately adjusts plasma excitation efficiency (Li – [0036]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0278136), Jang (US 2012/0090785), and Li (US Pub. 2017/0011938), as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Lee ‘675 (US Pub. 2018/0114675).
The limitations of claim 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Lee ‘675 teaches wherein the RF power supply part comprises: a first RF power supply configured to generate a first RF signal (Lee ‘675 – Fig. 1, RF source #312); a second RF power supply configured to generate a second RF signal having a frequency the same as the first RF signal (Lee ‘675 – Fig. 1, RF source #314; see [0119]), and the impedance matching part comprises: a first matching circuit connected to the first RF power supply (Lee ‘675 – Fig. 1, first matcher #322); and a second matching circuit connected to the second RF power supply (Lee ‘675 – Fig. 1, second matcher #324).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the dual power supply configuration of Lee ‘675 in the modified Lee apparatus in order to control center-to-edge processing uniformity (Lee ‘675 – [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Lee ‘675 teaches a decoupling circuit connected to the impedance matching part and the antenna assembly while being located therebetween (Lee ‘675 – [0043] and Fig. 1, inductors #342 and #344).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the decoupling circuit of Lee ‘675 in the modified Lee apparatus in order to minimize/reduce interference between first and second RF powers (Lee ‘675 – [0085]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0278136), Jang (US 2012/0090785), Li (US Pub. 2017/0011938), and Lee ‘675 (US 2018/0114675), as applied to claims 17-18 above, further in view of Tomoyasu (US 5,904,780) with “Basic Circuit Board Placement and Routing Considerations” (“Fabricating Printed Circuit Boards” by Jon Varteresian (2002), ISBN: 978-1-878707-50-5; hereinafter - Varteresian) as a supporting reference.
The limitations of claims 17-18 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, modified Lee does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Lee ‘675 teaches wherein the decoupling circuit comprises: a first decoupling inductor connected to the first matching circuit and the outer coil member while being located therebetween; a second decoupling inductor connected to the second matching circuit and the inner coil member while being located therebetween and coupled to the first decoupling inductor in a mutually magnetic coupling manner (Lee ‘675 – [0043] and Fig. 1, inductors #342 and #344; see also [0087] and Fig. 9).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the decoupling circuit of Lee ‘675 in the modified Lee apparatus in order to minimize/reduce interference between first and second RF powers (Lee ‘675 – [0085]).
Modified Lee does not teach a decoupling capacitor coupled to the first matching circuit and the second matching circuit.
However, Tomoyasu teaches this limitation (Tomoyasu – C6, L58-63 and Fig. 10C, variable capacitor in #30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to include the decoupling capacitor of Tomoyasu with the modified Lee apparatus in order to provide a shunt path to ground to avoid deleterious electrical noise (Varteresian – pg. 25).
Response to Arguments
To clarify the record, the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the amended feature of claims 7 and 16 shown in Fig. 3 does not constitute a unique feature of that embodiment, but is common to all embodiments.
The Requirement 5/13/2025 was intended to separate the overall structure of the number/placement of the coils and, in the case of Species D, the power supply scheme of two sub-embodiments. The Examiner notes the vertical feeding rod as added to the claims is shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and Fig. 9, as well as implied in Fig. 12A (all embodiments).
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous prior art rejections have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Li remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights