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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claimed limitation “each linear plasma source is configured to generate a substantially uniform, continuous line of plasma in a substantially linear subregion extending from the first edge to the second edge” has been taught in the specification as alleged.
Applicant cites the disclosure from specification in paragraph [0041]:
“Each plasma source 104 may extend approximately from one end of a target plasma generate zone 112 to an opposite end of target plasma generation zone 112.”
The above disclosure teaches the plasma source may extend from one end to opposite end. It simply teaches area of plasma coverage from one end to opposite end.
However, the claim recites “each linear plasma source is configured to generate a substantially uniform, continuous, line of plasma in a substantially linear subregion extending from the first edge to the second edge.” It specifically claims that the line plasma (uniform, continuous) is generated from one edge (at first) to the second edge (at last).
As shown above, the specification teaches the plasma covers the area or zone that from one edge to another edge while the claim claims that the plasma is generated from one edge to another edge. Therefore, they are not consistent with each other. Further, “substantially uniform, continuous, line of plasma” has not been taught in the specification.
Applicant argues that Watanabe (5,609,690) teaches distinct electrodes such as semi-spherical electrodes, deltaic lattice, etc.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Semi-spherical electrodes, deltaic lattice are some examples of the embodiments of Watanabe. In one embodiment, Watanabe clearly discloses the electrodes are formed in straight lines (See fig. 11). In Figure 11, Watanabe each electrode (a or b) extends along the approximately straight line from a first edge of the plasma generating region…to a second edge opposite the first edge.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 21, “each plasma source of the array of plasma sources is configured to generate a substantially uniform linear region of electric field extending between the pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes, extending from the first edge to the second edge, wherein the substantially uniform linear region of electric field causes the substantially uniform, continuous, line of plasma to be generated” has not been disclosed in specification to enable one skilled in the art to make or use the invention. The specification does not teach electric field between the pair of linear substantially parallel electrode, the substantially uniform linear region of electric field causes the substantially uniform, continuous, line of plasma to be generated.
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.
Claims 1-9, 21 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 1, “each linear plasma source is configured to generate plasma in a substantially linear subregion extending from the first edge to the second edge” is not consistent with the specification and abstract of the application.
According to the abstract, paragraphs [005], [006], [007], [037], [038], the disclosure literally teaches “The first electrode extends from a first edge of a plasma generating region to a second edge of the plasma generating region.” It seemingly teaches that the plasma generating region extending from a first edge to a second edge. However, it appears that it does not teach the plasma source generating plasma from the first edge to the second edge. Clarification is respectfully encouraged.
Claims 2-9 are not clear due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, “each plasma source of the array of plasma sources is configured to generate a substantially uniform linear region of electric field extending between the pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes, extending from the first edge to the second edge, wherein the substantially uniform linear region of electric field causes the substantially uniform, continuous, line of plasma to be generated” has not been disclosed in specification. The specification does not teach any electric field between the pair of linear substantially parallel electrode, the substantially uniform linear region of electric field causes the substantially uniform, continuous, line of plasma to be generated.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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) 1-5, 8, 9, 21 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (5,609,690) in view of Imamura et al. (2022/0277938).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe (5,609,690) discloses a plasma generating component for a process chamber, comprising:
an array of plasma sources (formed as an array, figs. 2, 11) wherein:
each of plasma source (electrodes) of the array (figs. 2 and 11) of the plasma sources forming substantially linear plasma sources (all the electrodes in row a form as a plasma source. So do row b and row c), extending along an approximate straight line (all a, b, c electrodes are extending along a straight line, see figs. 2, 11);
the linear plasma sources of the array of the plasma sources are substantially parallel to each other (15a, b, c are parallel each other, figs. 2, 11);
each plasma source of the array of plasma sources, comprises a pair of substantially parallel electrodes (15a, b, c are parallel, see figs. 2, 11), and wherein each electrode extends along the approximately straight line from a first edge (15c on the left edge, fig. 1) of a plasma generating region of the plasma generating component to a second edge (15b on the right edge, fig. 1), opposite the first edge, of the plasma generating region (fig. 1), and each linear plasma source is configured to generate plasma (Col. 4, lines 60-62) in a substantially linear subregions (See annotated figure 2 below. Each labeled elongated rectangle illustrates a linear subregion) extending from the first edge (the left c, annotated below) to the second edge (the right b, annotated below).
a dielectric support (susceptor 13) to which electrodes of the array of substantially parallel linear plasma sources are secured (figs. 1, 19); and
a dielectric material (insulating component 33, fig. 20) disposed opposite the dielectric support (13, fig. 19) with respect to the array of substantially parallel linear plasma sources (32) (fig. 20) (Col. 5, lines 14-25).
PNG
media_image2.png
1003
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, Watanabe essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not literally disclose linear plasma sources to generate a substantially uniform continuous, line of plasma.
However, Imamura teaches linear plasma sources (rod-shaped electrodes) to generate a substantially uniform continuous, line of plasma (figs. 3, 4, 6) to generate substantially uniform continuous, line of plasma (since they are rod-shaped electrodes) and reduce the number of reference electrodes (paragraph [0054]).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided linear electrodes in Watanabe to in order to generate a substantially uniform, continuous, line of plasma (since the electrodes taught by Imamura are rod-shaped) and reduce number of electrodes as taught by Imamura.
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe in view of Imamura discloses the plasma generating component of claim 1, wherein a first electrode (15a on the left column) of each pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes is electrically coupled to a first terminal of a power supply (16a) (fig. 1), and a second electrode (15a in the middle column) of each pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes is electrically coupled to a second terminal of the power supply (16a) (fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe in view of Imamura discloses the plasma generating component of claim 2, wherein the first electrode (15a on the left column near the left edge, fig. 2) of each pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes is electrically coupled to the first terminal proximate the first edge (left edge) of the plasma generating region, and wherein the second electrode of each pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes is electrically coupled to the second terminal of the power supply proximate the second edge (15a on right column near the right edge) of the plasma generating region.
Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe in view of Imamura discloses the plasma generating component of claim 2, wherein a first electrode (15a on the left column near the left edge, fig. 2) of a first pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes is adjacent a second electrode (15a on right column near the right edge) of a second pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes, and wherein the first electrode (15a on the left column near the left edge, fig. 2) of the first pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes is electrically coupled to the first terminal of the power supply (16a), and the second electrode (15a on right column near the right edge) of the second pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes is electrically coupled to the first terminal of the power supply (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Watanabe in view of Imamura discloses the plasma generating component of claim 1, wherein a first plurality of substantially parallel linear plasma sources (15a) are electrically coupled together (fig. 2), and electrically decoupled from a linear plasma source (15b, fig. 2) of the plasma generating component that is not of the first plurality of substantially parallel linear plasma sources (15b is not part of 15a, and they are decoupled from each other, fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Watanabe in view of Imamura discloses the plasma generating component of claim 1, further comprising: a first gas inlet (17) disposed on a first side of the plasma generating component (fig. 1); and a gas outlet (18), fluidly coupled to the gas inlet, disposed on a second side of the plasma generating component, opposite the first side (fig. 1).
As discussed above, Watanabe essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of gas outlets, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided multiple gas outlets in Watanabe in order to release more gas as desired which does not involve novel and unexpected result.
Regarding Claim 9, as discussed above, Watanabe essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the plasma generating component of claim 8, further comprising a second gas inlet fluidly coupled to a second plurality of gas outlets, wherein the first plurality of gas outlets are disposed in a first gas delivery zone, and the second plurality of gas outlets are disposed in a second gas delivery zone.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided multiple gas inlets in another gas delivery zone in Watanabe in order to inject more gas to the chamber as desired which does not involve novel and unexpected result.
Regarding Claim 21, as discussed above, Watanabe essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the plasma generating component of claim 1, wherein each plasma source of the array of plasma sources is configured to generate a substantially uniform linear region of electric field extending between the pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes, extending from the first edge to the second edge, wherein the substantially uniform linear region of electric field causes the substantially uniform, continuous, line of plasma to be generated.
However, Imamura teaches linear plasma sources (rod-shaped electrodes) to generate a substantially uniform continuous, line of plasma (since they are rod shaped electrodes. Figs. 3, 4, 6) and reduce the number of reference electrodes (paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided rod shaped electrodes as the array of plasma sources to generate a substantially uniform linear region of electric field extending between the pair of linear substantially parallel electrodes, extending from the first edge to the second edge, wherein the substantially uniform linear region of electric field causes the substantially uniform, continuous, line of plasma to be generated in order to generate line of plasma in Watanabe as taught by Imamura.
Claim(s) 6, 7 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (5,609,690) in view of Imamura et al. (2022/0277938), further in view of Sato et al. (2018/0012768).
Regarding Claim 6, as discussed above, Watanabe in view of Imamura discloses the claimed invention but does not essentially disclose the plasma generating component of claim 1, wherein a power supply is electrically coupled to a first linear plasma source of the array of substantially parallel linear plasma sources and a second linear plasma source of the array of substantially parallel linear plasma sources; and wherein the power supply is configured to provide power to the first linear plasma source for a first duration, and to provide power to the second linear plasma source for a second duration, different from the first duration.
However, Sato et al. (2018/0012768) discloses a first linear plasma source of the array of substantially parallel linear plasma sources (E1) and a second linear plasma source of the array of substantially parallel linear plasma sources (E2); and wherein the power supply (21c) is configured to provide power to the first linear plasma source for a first duration (period of time, paragraphs [0099], [0100], [0107]), and to provide power to the second linear plasma source for a second duration, different from the first duration (duration controlled by the switches 25, fig. 9 of Sato).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided power within periods of time to the electrodes in Watanabe in order to generate desired plasma density as taught by Sato.
Regarding Claim 7, Watanabe in view of Imamura further in view of Sato discloses the plasma generating component of claim 6, wherein a first plurality of linear plasma sources comprises the first plasma source, and is disposed proximate an edge of the plasma generating region, and wherein a second plurality of linear plasma sources comprises the second plasma source, and is disposed to intersect a central area of the plasma generating region (fig. 2).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights