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 (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.
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, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(l) as
being anticipated by Wakayanagi et al. (JP 2005-082849 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Wakayanagi et al. teach a plasma source, comprising: a housing (12),
wherein a fluidic channel passes from a first end to a second end of the housing along a
horizontal direction, the second end overlapping with the first end along a horizontal axis along
the horizontal direction; and an applicator intersecting the fluidic channel, wherein the applicator
comprises: a dielectric body (Fig. 5 - items 24, 32, 41, 51); and a pin (Figs. - item 16)
inserted in a hole in the dielectric body, the pin along a vertical direction, wherein the dielectric body intersects the fluidic channel along the horizontal axis (See Fig. 5 – where the dielectric body 51 intersects the fluidic channel along the horizontal axis) (Also see Paragraphs 0065, 066 – [0065] According to the present embodiment, the target portion can be easily replaced without affecting the plasma generation state. 5 shows an example in which the outer diameter of the target 51 is made larger than the outer diameter of the antenna 16, the outer diameter of the antenna 16 is made smaller so that the outer diameter of the target 51 is a cylindrical rod-shaped inner conductor. It is also possible to make it equal to the outer diameter of 20.
[0066] Even when a dielectric is used as the material of the target 51, it is possible to generate plasma on the surface of the target 51 by electromagnetic waves propagated by the antenna 16.)
PNG
media_image1.png
412
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Regarding claim 2, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein the sidewalls of the dielectric body 51 are spaced away from the sidewalls of the fluidic channel by a gap. (See Fig. 5; Paragraphs 0065, 0066)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
Regarding claim 4, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein a bottom of the dielectric body
Paragraph 0066) Even when a dielectric is used as the material of the target 51 is spaced
away from a bottom of the fluidic channel by a gap. (See Fig. 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
Regarding clam 6, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein the dielectric body is cylindrical.
(Paragraph 0028, 0030 - coaxial to the rod; Also paragraphs 0064-0066 - diameter)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Wakayanagi et al. teach further comprising: a gas inlet at the first
end of the housing; and an exhaust at the second end of the housing. (See Fig. 1 for example)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein the exhaust is fluidically coupled to
a processing chamber. (See Fig. 1 for example)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
Regarding claim 12, Wakayanagi et al. teach a semiconductor processing tool,
comprising: a processing chamber 12; and a plasma source fluidically coupled to the processing
chamber, wherein the plasma source comprises: a housing with a first end and a second end
along a horizontal direction., the second end overlapping with the first end along a horizontal
axis along the horizontal direction; a dielectric body at least partially within the housing between
the first end and the second end; and a pin in a hole in the dielectric body, the pin along a vertical
direction, wherein the dielectric body intersects the fluidic channel along the horizontal axis (See Fig. 5 – where the dielectric body 51 intersects the fluidic channel along the horizontal axis) (See Figs. 5; Paragraphs 0065,0066)
PNG
media_image2.png
439
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein sidewall surfaces of the dielectric
body and a bottom surf ace of the dielectric body are spaced away from internal surfaces of the
housing by a gap. (See Fig. 5)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Regarding claim 18, Wakayanagi et al. teach a semiconductor processing tool,
comprising: a processing chamber; and a plasma source coupled to the processing chamber,
wherein the remote plasma source comprises: a housing with a fluidic path along a horizontal
direction, wherein a gas inlet is provided at a first end of the fluidic path, and an exhaust is
provided at a second end of the fluidic path, the second end overlapping with the first end along
a horizontal axis along the horizontal direction, wherein the exhaust is coupled to the
processing chamber; and a microwave applicator intersecting the fluidic path, wherein the
remote plasma source is configured to flow a gas through the fluidic path around the microwave
applicator, the microwave applicator having a pin along a vertical direction wherein the dielectric body intersects the fluidic channel along the horizontal axis (See Fig. 5 – where the dielectric body 51 intersects the fluidic channel along the horizontal axis) (Also see Paragraphs 0065, 066
PNG
media_image2.png
439
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
Regarding claim 19, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein the microwave applicator
comprises a cylinder with the pin inserted in an axial center of the cylinder, wherein the cylinder
is a dielectric. (See Fig. 1 - item 24; Fig. 5 - item 51)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 3, 5, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayanagi et al. (JP 2005-082849 Al) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110993479 B).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3, 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the sidewalls of the dielectric body are separated from the sidewalls of the fluidic channel by a gap of approximately 10 mm or less.
Wang et al. teach "in one embodiment of the application, as shown in FIG. 1, the microwave antenna 2 is a cylindrical structure made of good conductor material. Specifically, the microwave antenna 2 can be made of aluminum and copper and other good conductor material, the specific structure can be cylindrical structure. Alternatively, the total length of the microwave antenna 2 can be 200 mm to 500 mm, the diameter of the microwave antenna 2 can be 10 mm to 40 mm the length of the first end 21 of the microwave antenna 2 into the waveguide 4 may be from O mm to 50 mm. Because the microwave antenna 2 corresponding to the length of the generating cavity 3 is set, so the inner diameter of the cavity 3 can be 100 millimeters to 200 millimeters, the cavity 3 of the axial length can be 300 millimeters to 60 millimeters. Adopting said design, it can make the embodiment application be applied to different processing technique, so as to effectively improve the application range of the embodiment application.".
Regarding claims 3, 16, Wang et al. suggest the a gap of approximately 10 mm using these numbers. (See Machine Translation)
PNG
media_image3.png
350
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bottom of the dielectric body is spaced
away from a bottom of the fluidic channel by a gap of 10 mm or less.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teach the gap to be approximately 10 mm. (See Machine
Translation)
PNG
media_image3.png
350
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cylinder is spaced away from an interior
surface of the housing by a gap that is approximately 10 mm or less.
Regarding claim 20, Wang et al. suggest the a gap of approximately IO mm using these
numbers. (See Machine Translation)
PNG
media_image3.png
350
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The motivation for utilizing the features of Wang et al. is that it allows increasing plasma
process density for improving the process. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Wakayanagi et al. by utilizing the features of Wang et al.
because it allows for increasing plasma process density for improving the process.
Claim(s) 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U. S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over
Wakayanagi et al. (JP 2005-082849 Al) in view of Kasai (U.S. PGPUB. 2006/0137613 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 9, 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the housing comprises aluminum.
Regarding claims 9, 17, Kasai teaches wherein the housing comprises aluminum.
(Paragraph 0044)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kasai is that it allows for containing the
plasma. (Paragraph 0045)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Wakayanagi et al. by utilizing the features of Kasia
because it allows for containing the plasma.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 13, 14 are rejected under 3 5 U.S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over
Wakayanagi et al. (JP 2005-082849 Al) in view of Sakai et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,297,594),
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a dielectric liner is provided along interior
surfaces of the fluidic channel.
Regarding claim 7, Sakai et al. teach a dielectric liner is provided along interior surfaces
of the fluidic channel. (Column 4 lines 32-36 - Item 24)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the dielectric liner comprises a ceramic.
Regarding claim 8, Sakai et al. teach wherein the dielectric liner comprises a ceramic.
(Column 4 lines 32-36 - alumina)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is a lining on an interior surface of the housing is not
discussed.
Regarding claim 13, Sakai et al. teach a lining on an interior surface of the housing.
(Column 4 lines 32-36 - Item 24)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the lining comprises a dielectric ceramic
material.
Regarding claim 14, Sakai et al teach wherein the lining comprises a dielectric ceramic
material. (Column 4 lines 32-36 - alumina)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sakai et al. is that it allows for preventing
heavy metal contamination. (Column 4 lines 32-36)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Wakayanagi et al. by utilizing the features of Sakai et al.
because it allows for preventing heavy metal contamination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art of record does not teach a dielectric body intersecting the fluidic channel along the horizontal axis along the horizontal axis, and a pin inserted in a hole in the dielectric, it is argued that Wakayanagi et al. teach in Fig. 5 a dielectric body intersecting the fluidic channel along the horizontal axis along the horizontal axis, and a pin inserted in a hole in the dielectric. (See Discussions above and Fig. 5)
PNG
media_image1.png
412
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights