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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranjan et al., US 2020/0058469.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ranjan et al. shows the invention as claimed including a method for processing a substrate comprising: providing a plasma processing apparatus including a plasma processing chamber 210, a substrate support disposed in the plasma processing chamber, a lower electrode 19/819 disposed in the substrate support, and an antenna 915 disposed above the chamber; supplying a pulsed source RF signal 11 (from a RF generator source 1/881) to the antenna, the pulsed source RF signal including a plurality of source cycles, each source cycle having a source operating state during a source operating period and a source non-operating state during a source non-operating period after the source operating period; and
supplying a pulsed bias RF signal 412 (from a bias RF generator source 2/882) to the lower electrode, the pulsed bias RF signal including a plurality of bias cycles having a same pulse frequency as that of the plurality of source cycles, each bias cycle having a bias operating state during a bias operating period and a bias non-operating state during a bias non-operating period after the bias operating period; wherein a transition timing to the bias operating state in each bias cycle is delayed with respect to a transition timing to the source operating state in a corresponding source cycle; the source non-operating period overlaps with the bias non-operating period; and the bias operating period in each bias cycle overlaps with source operating period in a next source cycle; (see, for example, 409 in the timing diagram 400 in Fig. 4). For a complete description of the apparatus, see, for example, Figs. 1-2, 4, 8-9, and 11, and their descriptions, especially paragraphs 0034 and 0067, and Figs. 4 and 9, modified Fig. 4 and Fig. 9 are shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
175
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
472
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to independent claim 15, it should be noted that the claim includes the same limitations as independent claim 1, except that the pulsed source RF signal is supplied to an upper electrode instead of an antenna. It should be noted that Ranjan et al. further discloses that the teachings of the reference can be implemented by various apparatuses, such as those depicted in Figs. 8-11, which include capacitive, inductive and microwave plasma apparatuses, with Fig. 8 being directed to a capacitive apparatus in which the pulsed source RF signal 11 would be supplied to an upper electrode 815 (see, for example, paragraph 0079 and Fig. 8 and its description, Fig 8 is shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
169
319
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tokashiki et al., US 2010/0130018.
Regarding independent claim 1, Tokashiki et al. shows the invention as claimed including a method for processing a substrate comprising: providing a plasma processing apparatus including a plasma processing chamber, a substrate support 20 disposed in the plasma processing chamber, a lower electrode disposed in the substrate support, and an antenna 10 disposed above the chamber; supplying a pulsed source RF signal (Source RF signal in Fig. 5) from a RF generator source 38 to the antenna, the pulsed source RF signal including a plurality of source cycles, each source cycle having a source operating state during a source operating period and a source non-operating state during a source non-operating period after the source operating period (see, for example, the First Modified Fig. 5 below); and supplying a pulsed bias RF signal (Bias RF signal of mode 10 in Fig. 5) from a bias RF generator source 48 to the lower electrode, the pulsed bias RF signal including a plurality of bias cycles having a same pulse frequency as that of the plurality of source cycles, each bias cycle having a bias operating state during a bias operating period and a bias non-operating state during a bias non-operating period after the bias operating period (see, for example, the First Modified Fig. 5 below); wherein a transition timing to the bias operating state in each bias cycle is delayed with respect to a transition timing to the source operating state in a corresponding source cycle (see, for example, Fig. 5); the source non-operating period overlaps with the bias non-operating period (see, for example, the Second Modified Fig. 5 below); and the bias operating period in each bias cycle overlaps with source operating period in a next source cycle (see, for example, the Second Modified Fig. 5 below). For a complete description of the apparatus, see, for example, Figs. 1 and 5, and their descriptions. A First Modified Fig. 5 and a Second Modified Fig. 5 are shown below for a better understanding of the teachings of the Tokashiki et al. reference).
FIRST MODIFIED FIG. 5 SECOND MODIFIED FIG. 5
PNG
media_image4.png
554
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
560
440
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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) 2-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan et al., US 2020/0058469.
Regarding the limitations recited on claims 2-14 and 16-20, Ranjan et al. clearly discloses that power is a plasma process parameter that impacts plasma properties (see, for example, paragraph 0029). Rajan et al. further discloses that a controller 250 is used to set, monitor and/or control plasma process parameters, such as power level for both the source power and the bias power, to control the plasma generated and the delivering of ions to the surface of the substrate (see, for example, paragraph 0063). Rajan et al. further discloses that plasma processing parameters, such as the source power and the bias power, are chosen and vary depending on the specific process characteristic such as gas used (see, for example, paragraphs 0076-0078). Therefore, in view of these teachings, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the source power and the bias power during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristics, and such limitations would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokashiki et al., US 2010/0130018 in view of Ranjan et al., US 2020/0058469.
With respect to independent claim 15, it should be noted that the claim includes the same limitations as independent claim 1, except that the pulsed source RF signal is supplied to an upper electrode instead of an antenna. It should be noted that Tokashiki et al. further discloses that the teachings of the reference can be implemented by various apparatuses, such as capacitive coupling and inductive coupling apparatuses, wherein in the capacitive coupling plasma apparatus the RF power is generated between two parallel plates (see, for example, paragraph 0006 and 0081). Ranjan et al. discloses a method for processing a substrate, wherein the method processing teachings of the reference can be implemented by various apparatuses, such as those depicted in Figs. 8-11, which include capacitive, inductive and microwave plasma apparatuses, with Fig. 8 being directed to a capacitive apparatus in which the pulsed source RF signal 11 would be supplied to an upper electrode 815 (see, for example, paragraph 0079 and Fig. 8 and its description, Fig 8 is shown below). Therefore, in view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to supply the pulsed sourced RF signal to an upper electrode in a capacitive coupling apparatus because such configuration in known and used in the art as a suitable configuration to effectively and efficiently generate capacitive coupling plasma.
Regarding the limitations recited on claims 2-14 and 16-20, Tokashiki et al. discloses that plurality of pulse modulated RF powers can be supplied in order to provide various operation modes (see, for example, paragraph 0083. Additionally, it is known in the art, as clearly disclosed by Ranjan et al., that power is a plasma process parameter that impacts plasma properties (see, for example, paragraph 0029). Rajan et al. further discloses that the controller 250 is used to set, monitor and/or control plasma process parameters, such as power level for both the source power and the bias power, to control the plasma generated and the delivering of ions to the surface of the substrate (see, for example, paragraph 0063). Rajan et al. further discloses that plasma processing parameters, such as the source power and the bias power, are chosen and vary depending on the specific process characteristic such as gas used (see, for example, paragraphs 0076-0078). Therefore, in view of these teachings, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the source power and the bias power during routine experimentation depending upon, for example, the desired plasma characteristics, and such limitations would not lend patentability to the instant application absent the showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Otsubo et al. (US 4,808,258) is cited because of its teachings of performing a plasma processing method using a source RF generator and a bias RF generator configured to generate a pulse source RF signal and a pulse bias RF signal, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUZ L ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/LUZ L ALEJANDRO MULERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
April 4, 2026