DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 14, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on April 2, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on July 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn since they are directed to nonelected Species II-III.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (U.S. 5,998,303) in view of Loewenhardt et al. (U.S. 2004/0221958) with evidentiary support by Kisakibaru et al. (U.S. 2019/0206704) and Kenworthy et al. (U.S. 2013/0264309).
Referring to Figure 2 and column 4, lines 40-63, Sato discloses a plasma etching apparatus, comprising: a processing chamber configured to receive etching gas, and to etch a wafer using plasma that has been formed according to a plasma source pulse and a bias pulse; and an acoustic wave generator 20B configured to generate an acoustic wave having a wavefront with a first direction parallel to the wafer, form, using the acoustic wave, a standing wave incident to the wafer, and periodically oscillate a pressure of a reactive gas of the plasma on a surface of the wafer, using the standing wave, to change a density of a reactive gas of the plasma (i.e. Ultrasonic waves can be intermittently applied at various frequencies-col. 7, lines 18-20. Additionally, a standing wave is formed when acoustic waves (i.e. ultrasonic wave) are provided between the acoustic wave generator and the wafer and when the wave is reflected back from the wafer.). Additionally, for evidentiary support, in Figure 3 and paragraph [0054], Kisakibaru et al. show that standing waves results when ultrasonic waves 80 are generated between the ultrasonic wave generator 52, 54 (i.e. acoustic wave generator) and the wafer 90. Furthermore, for evidentiary support, in paragraph [0024], Kenworthy et al. teach that acoustic waves affect the pressure oscillations. Therefore, since the apparatus of Sato discloses the structure and placement of an acoustic wave generator in a plasma chamber to cause standing waves, then the resulting apparatus would yield periodically oscillate a pressure of a reactive gas of the plasma on a surface of the wafer, using the standing wave, to change a density of a reactive gas of the plasma).
Sato is silent on a plasma source generator configured to generate the plasma source pulse and a bias generator configured to generate the bias pulse.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0017], Loewenhardt et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the plasma etching art to use a plasma source generator 135, 148 configured to generate the plasma source pulse and a bias generator 133, 144 configured to generate the bias pulse in order to create and sustain plasma (par.[0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Sato to include a plasma source generator configured to generate the plasma source pulse and a bias generator configured to generate the bias pulse as taught by Loewenhardt et al. since it is a conventionally known means to create and sustain plasma. The resulting apparatus of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. would yield a plasma source generator configured to generate the plasma source pulse and a bias generator configured to generate the bias pulse.
With respect to claim 2, the plasma etching apparatus of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. further includes wherein the acoustic wave generator 20B is disposed in an upper end portion of the processing chamber (Sato-Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 5, the plasma etching apparatus of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. further includes wherein: the acoustic wave is incident to the wafer in a second direction perpendicular to the wafer, and the acoustic wave forms the standing wave by an interference action of a reflected wave that is reflected from the wafer (Sato-Fig. 2 and column 4, lines 40-63).
With respect to claim 6, the plasma etching apparatus of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. further includes wherein the standing wave generates periodic oscillations of gas pressure on a surface of the wafer thereby causing periodic changes in the density of the reactive gas (Sato-Fig. 2 and column 4, lines 40-63, column 7, lines 18-20).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (U.S. 5,998,303) in view of Loewenhardt et al. (U.S. 2004/0221958) with evidentiary support by Kisakibaru et al. (U.S. 2019/0206704) and Kenworthy et al. (U.S. 2013/0264309) as applied to claims 1-2 and 5-6 above, and further in view of Peng (U.S. 2010/0055920).
The teachings of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. with evidentiary support by Kisakibaru et al. and Kenworthy et al. have been discussed above.
Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. with evidentiary support by Kisakibaru et al. and Kenworthy et al. fail to teach wherein the acoustic wave generator comprises a plurality of transducers configured to generate the acoustic wave.
Referring to paragraphs [0043]-[0046], Peng teach a plasma etching apparatus
wherein the acoustic wave generator 131 can comprise either a single transducer or a plurality of transducers configured to generate the acoustic wave in order to reach the optimal performance to meet the process requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the acoustic wave generator of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. with evidentiary support by Kisakibaru et al. and Kenworthy et al. to include a plurality of transducers configured to generate the acoustic wave as taught by Peng in order to reach the optimal performance to meet the process requirements. Hence, the resulting apparatus of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. with evidentiary support by (Kisakibaru et al. and Kenworthy et al.) and Peng would yield wherein the acoustic wave generator comprises a plurality of transducers configured to generate the acoustic wave.
With respect to claim 4, the plasma etching apparatus of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. with evidentiary support by (Kisakibaru et al. and Kenworthy et al.) and Peng further includes wherein: the processing chamber comprises an upper electrode comprising a plurality of point wave sources, and each transducer of the plurality of transducers is disposed in a corresponding point wave source of the upper electrode of the processing chamber (Note. Sato discloses an upper electrode 15 comprising a point wave source 20B (Fig. 2). Peng teaches a plurality of transducers 131(par.[0043]. Hence, the modified apparatus of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. and Peng would yield an upper electrode comprising a plurality of point wave sources, and each transducer of the plurality of transducers is disposed in a corresponding point wave source of the upper electrode of the processing chamber).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because newly applied reference Kenworthy et al. teach oscillate a pressure of a reactive gas of the plasma on a surface of the wafer.
Applicant has argued that Kisakibaru is not concerned with achieving advantageous effect of the presentation of stabilizing gas distribution and fail to disclose or suggest periodically oscillate a pressure of a reactive gas of the plasma on a surface of the wafer, using a standing wave, to change a density of a reactive gas of the plasma.
First, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Kisakibaru et al. was simply applied to teach that standing waves results when ultrasonic waves 80 are generated between the ultrasonic wave generator 52, 54 (i.e. acoustic wave generator) and the wafer 90 (Figure 3 and paragraph [0054]). Second, it should be noted that an acoustic wave generator of Sato includes a frequency of infrasound, ultrasound, or sonic waves. Hence, in Sato’s invention, an ultrasonic vibration applying means 20B is an acoustic wave generator (Fig. 2, column 4, lines 40-63). Third, the ultrasonic vibration applying means 20B of Sato is located and arranged in the upper electrode and parallel and facing the wafer and thus the structure functions the same as applicant’s acoustic wave generator (Fig. 2). Additionally, Kenworthy et al. teach that acoustic waves affect the pressure oscillations (par.[0024]). Fourth, Sato teaches that the ultrasonic waves can be intermittently applied at various frequencies in order to periodically change the ultrasonic waves (col. 7, lines 18-20). Thus, changes in the acoustic wave modify the standing wave pattern, which can alter gas dissociation rates, pressure, and consequently affect gas density. Lastly, 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 (MPEP 2114). Hence, since the apparatus of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. discloses the structure and placement of an acoustic wave generator in the plasma chamber to cause standing waves, then the resulting apparatus would yield periodically oscillate a pressure of a reactive gas of the plasma on a surface of the wafer, using the standing wave, to change a density of a reactive gas of the plasma. Therefore, the apparatus of Sato in view of Loewenhardt et al. with evidentiary support by Kisakibaru et al. and Kenworthy et al. satisfies the claimed requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bennett et al.’139 teach that a standing wave occurs on the wafer when an acoustic wave is applied. Choi et al.’257 and Mori’666 teach how standing waves affect plasma processing parameters such as gas flow, pressure, and Rf power levels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights