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 Amendment
The amendment filed 02/12/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/14/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are pending.
Claims 2-6 and 15 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 1, 7, 11-12, and 21 are currently amended.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstyan (US 20190088449 A1) in view of Yamazawa (US 20110104902 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Galstyan teaches an apparatus for plasma processing (Fig. 2, [0043], substrate treating apparatus 10, using plasma), the apparatus comprising:
an RF power source (Fig. 2, [0067], RF power source 420); and
a set of resonating structures coupled to the RF power source (Fig. 2, [0067], internal antenna 11 and external antenna 413 are coupled to RF power source 420), the resonating structures comprising:
a first region comprising: a first antenna (Fig. 3, [0072], external antenna 413 is provided in an outer area); and
a first coupling circuit (Figs. 3 & 4, [0076]-[0077], additional antenna 460 has additional coils that are disposed next to external coil sections of external antenna 413 and affect local current coupling between the coil portions 413 and 460), the first coupling circuit being outside a coupling of the RF power source to the first region ([0072], additional antenna 460 is not connected to a high-frequency power source), wherein the first coupling circuit is configured to adjust a power distribution of the first region (Fig. 5, [0076]-[0077], controller adjusts closed circuit of additional antennas 461-1 through 461-4 to affect local current coupling between the coil portions 460 and 413); and
a second region adjacent to the first region, the second region comprising: a second antenna (Fig. 3, [0072], internal antenna 411 is provided in an inner area adjacent to external antenna 413).
Galstyan fails to teach the first coupling circuit comprising a semiconductor switch coupled to a ground potential node.
However, Yamazawa teaches the first coupling circuit comprising a semiconductor switch coupled to a ground potential node (Yamazawa, Fig. 34, [0262]-[0269], switch S1 is connected in parallel with variable capacitor 74 of coil 70, where moving electrode 126 is coupled to slider main body 140 via spring 142, which is coupled to feed screw 136).
Yamazawa is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the antennas of Galstyan with the coil design as taught by Yamazawa, including the switches/mechanical variable capacitor, as doing so would maintain the ability to adjust via variable capacitance while also enabling a means to selectively remove the effect of the associated capacitance from the coil completely (Yamazawa, [0262]-[0269]).
Regarding claim 7, Galstyan teaches wherein the first coupling circuit is an inductive coupling circuit, the inductive coupling circuit comprising a mutual coupling coil (Figs. 3 & 4, [0076]-[0077], additional antenna 460 has additional coils 461-1 through 461-4 that are disposed next to external coil sections of external antenna 413 and affect local current coupling between the coil portions 413 and 460).
Regarding claim 8, Galstyan teaches a controller, wherein the controller is coupled to the first coupling circuit, the controller being configured to control the first coupling circuit (Fig. 5, [0076]-[0077], controller adjusts closed circuit of additional antennas 461-1 through 461-4 to affect local current coupling between the coil portions 460 and 413); and a sensor, the sensor being coupled to the controller, wherein the sensor provides real time feedback to the controller (Fig. 5, [0076]-[0077], controller adjusts closed circuit of additional antennas 461-1 through 461-4 via feedback from a sensor, Fig. 9, [0079]).
Regarding claim 11, Galstyan teaches an apparatus for plasma processing (Fig. 2, [0043], substrate treating apparatus 10, using plasma), the apparatus comprising:
a resonating structure (Fig. 2, [0072], plasma generating unit 400]), the resonating structure having a cylindrical or axisymmetric shape (Fig. 3, internal antenna 411, external antenna 413, and additional antenna 460 of unit 400 are cylindrical in shape), the resonating structure comprising:
a plurality of azimuthal regions (Figs. 3 & 5, [0076], external coil 413 may include a plurality of coils 4131-1 through 4131-4, and inner coil 411 may have plurality of coils 4111-1 through 4111-2), wherein a first azimuthal region of the plurality of azimuthal regions comprises a first antenna and a first impedance control circuit coupled to the first antenna (Fig. 5, [0076], external coil portion 4131-1 has additional coil 461-1 adjacent to it to form a current control circuit), the first impedance control circuit configured to shift the resonance of one end of the first antenna (Fig. 5, [0076]-[0077], controller adjusts closed circuit of additional antenna 461-1 to locally affect local current coupling between it and the coil portion 4131-1), and wherein a second azimuthal region of the plurality of azimuthal regions comprises a second antenna (Fig. 5, [0076]-[0077], internal coil portions 4111-1 and 4111-2), and a second impedance control circuit coupled to the second antenna (Fig. 8, [0077], additional antenna 60 may be disposed inside external antenna 410 which would coincide with placement of the inductor coil of additional antennas 460 facing the internal antenna 411).
Galstyan fails to teach the first impedance control circuit comprising an inductor coupled to a ground potential node through a semiconductor switch.
However, Yamazawa teaches the first impedance control circuit comprising an inductor coupled to a ground potential node through a semiconductor switch (Yamazawa, Fig. 34, [0262]-[0269], switch S1 is connected in parallel with variable capacitor 74 of coil 70, where the coil itself is an inductor, where moving electrode 126 is coupled to slider main body 140 via spring 142, which is coupled to feed screw 136).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the antennas of Galstyan with the coil design as taught by Yamazawa, including the switches/mechanical variable capacitor, as doing so would maintain the ability to adjust via variable capacitance while also enabling a means to selectively remove the effect of the associated capacitance from the coil completely (Yamazawa, [0262]-[0269]).
Regarding claim 12, Galstyan fails to teach wherein the first impedance control circuit is mechanically adjustable.
However, Yamazawa teaches wherein the first impedance control circuit is mechanically adjustable (Yamazawa, Figs. 33-35D, [0262]-[0269], sliding mechanism 134 and moving electrode 126 of coil 70).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the antennas of Galstyan with the coil design as taught by Yamazawa, including the switches/mechanical variable capacitor, as doing so would maintain the ability to adjust via variable capacitance while also enabling a means to selectively remove the effect of the associated capacitance from the coil completely (Yamazawa, [0262]-[0269]).
Regarding claim 16, Galstyan teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are electrically isolated from each other (Figs. 4 & 5, [0075]-[0077], internal antenna 411 and external antenna are electrically isolated).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstyan (US 20190088449 A1) in view of Yamazawa (US 20110104902 A1), as applied in claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 16, and further in view of Kim (US 20190051498 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Galstyan fails to teach wherein the sensor is a voltage sensor.
However, Kim teaches wherein the sensor is a voltage sensor (Kim, Fig. 7, [0098], sensor 440 may be a voltmeter installed on antenna 410c that provides feedback to controller 70).
Kim is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the sensor of Kim into the apparatus of Galstyan as doing so would provide direct feedback to the controller of voltage measurements in a specific coil (Kim, [0098]), vs feedback of plasma density down at the support unit (Galstyan, [0077]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstyan (US 20190088449 A1) in view of Yamazawa (US 20110104902 A1), as applied in claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 16, and further in view of Nagabhirava (WO 2021173557 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, while Galstyan teaches a sensor provides plasma density feedback to the controller to make adjustments to the control circuit ([0077]), Galstyan fails to explicitly teach that the sensor is an optical sensor.
However, Nagabhirava teaches wherein the sensor is an optical sensor (Nagabhirava, [0080], optical emission spectroscopy sensor is utilized for measurement).
Nagabhirava is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have chosen an OES sensor as taught by Nagabhirava for the sensor of Galstyan as doing so would allow for plasma density and/or gas concentration to be measured by one or more optical emission spectroscopy sensors to use in a feedback loop for providing programmatic control of plasma power (Nagabhirava, [0080]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstyan (US 20190088449 A1) in view of Yamazawa (US 20110104902 A1), as applied in claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 16, and further in view of Lim (US 20180174802 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, modified Galstyan fails to teach wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are electrically coupled to each other through a third impedance control circuit.
However, Lim teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are electrically coupled to each other through a third impedance control circuit (Lim, Fig. 1, [0069]-[0071], first and second inductors 342 and 344 are coupled, respectively to first and second antennas 332 and 334, where inductors 332/334 are electromagnetically coupled together).
Lim is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the inductance circuit as taught by Lim into the apparatus of Galstyan as doing so would allow for offsetting any RF power interference potentially caused by any mutual inductances formed between the antennas (Lim, [0069]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Galstyan fails to teach wherein the coupling of the first antenna and the second antenna is electrically or mechanically controllable.
However, Lim teaches wherein the coupling of the first antenna and the second antenna is electrically or mechanically controllable (Lim, Fig. 1, [0069]-[0071], first and second inductors 342 and 344 are coupled, respectively to first and second antennas 332 and 334, where inductors 332/334 are electromagnetically coupled together, and the windings and/or coupling directions are physically configurable per the needs of the system).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the inductance circuit as taught by Lim into the apparatus of Galstyan as doing so would allow for offsetting any RF power interference potentially caused by any mutual inductances formed between the antennas (Lim, [0069]-[0071]).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstyan (US 20190088449 A1) in view of Fisk (US 20210373054 A1) and Yamazawa (US 20110104902 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Galstyan teaches an apparatus for plasma processing (Fig. 2, [0043], substrate treating apparatus 10, using plasma), the apparatus comprising:
an outer zone surrounding an inner zone (Fig. 3, internal antenna 411 is surrounded by external antenna 413), the outer zone comprising a first plurality of azimuthal regions and the inner zone comprising a second plurality of azimuthal regions (Figs. 3 & 5, [0076], external coil 413 may include a plurality of coils 4131-1 through 4131-4, and inner coil 411 may have plurality of coils 4111-1 through 4111-2).
Galstyan fails to teach each azimuthal region of the first and second pluralities of azimuthal regions comprising a coupling circuit configured to change a respective resonant frequency, each coupling circuit comprising a semiconductor switch coupled to a ground potential node, each azimuthal region of the first and second pluralities of azimuthal regions being configured to be independently controlled with radio frequency pulse modulation at the respective resonant frequency.
However, Fisk teaches each azimuthal region of the first and second pluralities of azimuthal regions comprising a coupling circuit configured to change a respective resonant frequency, being configured to be independently controlled with radio frequency pulse modulation (Fisk, Fig. 3, [0040]-[0043], RF generator 312a and RF generator 312b pulse RF powers to separate target loads 332, and include sensors 316a/b).
Fisk is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the RF power suites as taught by Fisk into the apparatus of Galstyan as doing so would enable the applied RF power to be pulsed and modulated in addition to continuous wave operation (Fisk, [0021]), as well the flexibility to synchronize or offset the applied pulsed signal across plural loads (Fisk, [0042]).
Modified Galstyan fails to teach wherein each coupling circuit comprising a semiconductor switch coupled to a ground potential node.
However, Yamazawa teaches wherein each coupling circuit comprising a semiconductor switch coupled to a ground potential node (Yamazawa, Fig. 34, [0262]-[0269], switch S1 is connected in parallel with variable capacitor 74 of coil 70, where moving electrode 126 is coupled to slider main body 140 via spring 142, which is coupled to feed screw 136).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the antennas of Galstyan with the coil design as taught by Yamazawa, including the switches/mechanical variable capacitor, as doing so would maintain the ability to adjust via variable capacitance while also enabling a means to selectively remove the effect of the associated capacitance from the coil completely (Yamazawa, [0262]-[0269]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “…each azimuthal region of the first and second pluralities of azimuthal regions comprising a coupling circuit configured to change a respective resonant frequency…being configured to be independently controlled with radio frequency pulse modulation “ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The RF generator suites of Fisk, which include pulsing capability, sensors, and capability of independent control of power delivery to different loads, are structural capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 22, Galstyan fails to teach wherein each azimuthal region of the first and second pluralities of azimuthal regions comprises a respective sensor.
However, Fisk teaches wherein each azimuthal region of the first and second pluralities of azimuthal regions comprises a respective sensor (Fisk, Fig. 3, [0040]-[0043], RF generator 312a and RF generator 312b pulse RF powers to separate target loads 332, and include sensors 316a/b, where sensors 316a/b may be located externally between the matching device and the load and provide various parameters sensed from the load, including voltage, current, etc, [0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the RF power suites as taught by Fisk into the apparatus of Galstyan as doing so would enable the applied RF power to be pulsed and modulated in addition to continuous wave operation (Fisk, [0021]), as well the flexibility to synchronize or offset the applied pulsed signal across plural loads (Fisk, [0042]).
Regarding claim 23, Galstyan teaches wherein the outer zone and the inner zone each comprise a respective radiating structure (Fig. 2, [0067], internal antenna 11 and external antenna 413 are coupled to RF power source 420 and created plasma in apparatus 10).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstyan (US 20190088449 A1) in view of Fisk (US 20210373054 A1) and Yamazawa (US 20110104902 A1), as applied in claims 21-23, and further in view of Yoo (US 20190035606 A1).
The limitations of claims 21-23 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 24, Galstyan teaches wherein the internal and external coils are concentric circles (Fig. 3, [0067]-[0068], internal antenna 411 is surrounded by external antenna 413) that generate plasma in the process space, but fails to teach wherein each respective radiating structure comprises a spiral arm.
However, Yoo teaches wherein an inner coil and outer coil that generate plasma in the process space of a chamber may have a spiral shape or a concentric shape (Yoo, Fig. 1, [0030], inner coil 50a, outer coil 50b of upper electrode 50). Yoo is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the internal and external antennas of Galstyan in a spiral shape like the inner and outer coils of Yoo since the two elements are recognized in the art as equivalents for plasma generation (Yoo, [0030]). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 02/12/2026, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Galstyan, teach the claim limitations “the first coupling circuit comprising a semiconductor switch coupled to a ground potential node” of independent claim 1 as newly amended, and similarly claims 1, 11, and 21. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
In the Applicant’s response, the Applicant asserts that reference Lim does not teach the claim limitation “…electrically coupled” as recited in claim 13. The Examiner has considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive. The limitation “are electrically coupled to each other through a third impedance control circuit” of claim 13 is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Lim teaches first and second inductors 342 and 344 are coupled, respectively to first and second antennas 332 and 334, and are located a small distance apart, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the limitations of the claim. 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. See MPEP 2114(II). In lieu of additional recitation of structure relating the manner in which the first antenna, second antenna, and control circuit are coupled, Lim is capable of meeting the limitations as currently presented.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights