DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 1/12/2026.
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-6 and 20 are withdrawn.
Claim 8-9, 12, 14-15, and 17 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner continues to note that the JPO Office Action dated Oct. 31, 2023, listed on IDS filed 1/21/2024, has only been provided in the original Japanese (no translation). The information therein was not able to be considered since an English translation was not provided.
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.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2013/0278136).
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).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches 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).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches 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).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein the outer coil member comprises a plurality of unit coils 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).
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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0278136), as applied to claims 7-11 above, further in view of Jang (US 2012/0090785) with Holland (US 6,414,648) as a supporting reference.
The limitations of claims 7-11 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).
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 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 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, 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 a radio frequency (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 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 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 2013/0278136) in view of Jang (US 2012/0090785).
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]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0278136) in view of Jang (US 2012/0090785), as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Lee ‘675 (US 2018/0114675).
The limitations of claim 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Jang 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, Lee in view of Jang 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), 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, Lee in view of Jang 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
Claims 8 and 17 have been appropriately amended to correct minor informalities, thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claims 12-15 have been appropriately amended to correct issues of indefiniteness, thus the §112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning Lee as applied to the §102(a)(1) rejections of claims 7-11, the arguments have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
First, the Examiner notes Applicant has elected Species D (Figs. 12A-13) and not Species A (Figs. 3-5), thus the arguments contrasting Lee with the structure shown in instant Fig. 3 is moot as not being drawn to the elected invention.
Second, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization as Lee teaching “only a single continuous induction antenna loop per antenna structure” (Remarks, pg. 15). Lee appears to reasonably teach inner and outer coils groups (Fig. 4, #400a at inner region; #400b at outer region), where each coil group is embodied according to the antenna structure shown in Fig. 4. Lee explicitly states the following: “the antenna structure 300 may include two induction antennas 301 which have the same structure, are connected in parallel with one another, and are disposed to be overlapped” (par. [0056], emphasis added). Additionally, the structure shown in Fig. 4 is not a single continuous loop, as alleged by Applicant, it is two loops:
PNG
media_image1.png
538
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In accordance, the Examiner submits that the §102(a)(1) rejections over Lee are proper as previously (and currently) set forth.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning Lee and Jang as applied to the §103 rejections of claim 16, the arguments have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
First, the Examiner notes Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 16 and Lee are substantially the same as those of claim 7, thus the instant claim is rebutted for substantially the same reasons.
Second, Applicant alleges (Remarks, pg. 18) that “Jang’s branching occurs only at the incoming portion and does not include” various features. The Examiner notes Fig. 3 appears to show where a single feeding node is branched into multiple lines supporting a plurality of coils with vertically stacked relation. Applicant has merely asserted the reference does not teach these features without rebutting the Examiner’s position of what the reference does teach. As such, these arguments are not persuasive because they amount to merely arguments of counsel. See MPEP 716.01(c).
Third, Applicant alleges the combination lacks proper teaching/motivation (Remarks, pg. 18-19). Concerning the “uniformity” argument, the Examiner reiterates that Lee does not teach a single inductive loop, thus does not constitute an “incompatible design philosophy” (pg. 19, id.) with the structure of Jang. Further, Applicant merely states that the rationale supplied by the Examiner in the obviousness rejection “is insufficient and unsupported” (pg. 18, id.), but fails to provide any justification for said allegations or factual basis to rebut the Examiner’s position.
Fourth, Applicant alleges that the combination Lee in view of Jang would “defeat Lee’s purpose” (pg. 19, id.). Again, the Examiner reiterates that Lee does not teach a single inductive loop. Additionally, Applicant does not argue the structure of Jang- Applicant describes: “the claimed multi-feed, multi-coil, equal-angle DSS architecture” (pg. 19, id., emphasis added). This is incorrect- Applicant must rebut the structure of Jang, not the claimed structure. In addition, Applicant merely alleges that the Examiner’s proposed modification would “defeat Lee’s purpose” (pg. 19, id.), but again has not provided objective evidence, reasoning, or any description of how Lee’s purpose would be “defeated”.
In summary, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they rely upon an incorrect characterization of the Lee reference and utilize several rebuttal techniques (insufficient motivation, rendering unsuitable for intended purpose) that are mere assertions devoid of technical reasoning or explanation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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