DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 11/14/2025.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-16 and 19) and Species A (Fig. 1) in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant asserts claims 1-10, 12-16, and 19 read on the elected invention/species, and the Examiner agrees.
In accordance, claims 11 and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 11 and 17-18 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-10, 12-16, and 19 have been examined herein on the merits, with claims 1 and 19 independent.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebe (US Pub. 2014/0150975) in view of Nishimura (US Pub. 2010/0269980).
Regarding claim 1, Ebe teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1A, entirety) comprising: a process chamber ([0034] and Fig. 1A, chamber #11) in which a substrate is processed ([0034] and Fig. 1A, base body S); a gas supplier through which a process gas is supplied to the process chamber ([0034] and Fig. 1A, gas introduction ports #14); a plasma generator provided so as to protrude into the process chamber ([0035], Fig. 1A, and particularly the embodiment in Fig. 5A: antenna unit #20), constituted by a coil ([0036] and Fig. 5A, antenna #23) and an insulator ([0035] and Fig. 5A, dielectric housing #21 can be quartz or alumina; instant PG-Pub par. [0033] states the insulator can be quartz or alumina), and configured to generate a plasma of the process gas in the process chamber ([0034]).
Ebe does not teach an adjuster capable of adjusting a gap distance between the coil and the insulator.
However, Nishimura teaches an adjuster capable of adjusting a gap distance between the coil and the insulator (Nishimura – [0102] and Fig. 8, actuator #148 moving antennas #142A/B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coil of Ebe to comprise the actuator of Nishimura in order to spatially control plasma potential (Nishimura – [0085]) and adjust resonant frequencies of the coil without changing its physical length (Nishimura – [0097]).
Regarding claim 6, Ebe does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nishimura teaches wherein the adjuster comprises a moving structure capable of vertically moving the coil (Nishimura – [0102] and Fig. 8, actuator #148 moving antennas #142A/B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coil of Ebe to comprise the actuator of Nishimura in order to spatially control plasma potential (Nishimura – [0085]) and adjust resonant frequencies of the coil without changing its physical length (Nishimura – [0097]).
Regarding claim 8, Ebe does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nishimura teaches wherein the coil is fixed to a fixing structure (Nishimura – Fig. 8, structure enveloping #142A/B), and wherein the moving structure is configured to vertically move the fixing structure (Nishimura – [0102] and Fig. 8, actuator #148 moving antennas #142A/B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coil of Ebe to comprise the actuator of Nishimura in order to spatially control plasma potential (Nishimura – [0085]) and adjust resonant frequencies of the coil without changing its physical length (Nishimura – [0097]).
Regarding claim 9, Ebe teaches wherein the plasma generator is provided above the process chamber (see Figs. 1A, 5A).
Regarding claim 10, Ebe teaches one or more plasma generators ([0034] and Fig. 1A, plurality of antenna units #20), wherein each of the one or more plasma generators is provided so as to protrude into the process chamber (see Fig. 1A), constituted by a coil and an insulator and configured to generate the plasma of the process gas in the process chamber ([0035]-[0036] and Fig. 1A, 5A: housing #21 and antenna #23; [0039]: plasma generation).
Regarding claim 13, Ebe does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nishimura teaches a shield arranged above the coil to cover the coil (Nishimura – [0052] and Fig. 8, shield member #160).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coil of Ebe to comprise the actuator/shield assembly of Nishimura in order to spatially control plasma potential (Nishimura – [0085]) and adjust resonant frequencies of the coil without changing its physical length (Nishimura – [0097]).
Regarding claim 15, Ebe does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nishimura teaches an adjuster capable of adjusting a gap distance between the coil and the insulator (Nishimura – [0102] and Fig. 8, actuator #148 moving antennas #142A/B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coil of Ebe to comprise the actuator of Nishimura in order to spatially control plasma potential (Nishimura – [0085]) and adjust resonant frequencies of the coil without changing its physical length (Nishimura – [0097]).
For clarity, the limitation: “wherein an efficiency of generating the plasma is capable of being changed by adjusting the gap distance between the coil and the insulator by using the adjuster” is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus, and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses. 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).
Modified Ebe is regarded as capable of adjusting plasma generating efficiency by virtue of the structure/operation/teachings of Nishimura (see at least pars. [0085] and [0097] as previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, Ebe teaches a plasma generating apparatus comprising (Figs. 1A and 5A, elements as follows): a plasma generator ([0035], Fig. 1A, and particularly the embodiment in Fig. 5A: antenna unit #20) provided so as to protrude into a process chamber ([0034] and Fig. 1A, chamber #11) in which a substrate is processed ([0034] and Fig. 1A, base body S), constituted by a coil ([0036] and Fig. 5A, antenna #23) and an insulator ([0035] and Fig. 5A, dielectric housing #21 can be quartz or alumina; instant PG-Pub par. [0033] states the insulator can be quartz or alumina), and configured to generate a plasma of a process gas in the process chamber ([0034]).
Ebe does not teach an adjuster capable of adjusting a gap distance between the coil and the insulator.
However, Nishimura teaches an adjuster capable of adjusting a gap distance between the coil and the insulator (Nishimura – [0102] and Fig. 8, actuator #148 moving antennas #142A/B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coil of Ebe to comprise the actuator of Nishimura in order to spatially control plasma potential (Nishimura – [0085]) and adjust resonant frequencies of the coil without changing its physical length (Nishimura – [0097]).
Claims 2-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebe (US Pub. 2014/0150975) and Nishimura (US Pub. 2010/0269980), as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 above, and further in view of Johnson (GB 2317265).
The limitations of claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ebe does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Johnson teaches wherein the coil is provided with a spiral-shaped portion of at least 0.5 winding turn (Johnson – C3, L31 and Fig. 1, coil #6).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shape of the coil of modified Ebe to be a spiral coil similar to Johnson as a matter of obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
The Examiner notes the Ebe and Johnson apparatuses are extremely similar in form and function, and differ primarily only in the shape of the disclosed antennas.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge in a variety of disciplines. As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would expect either the coil of Ebe or Johnson to be suitable for generating a plasma.
Regarding claim 3, Ebe teaches wherein the insulator is provided so as to protrude into the process chamber (see Fig. 5A, #23 inside #21 in a conformal manner).
Modified Ebe does not teach wherein the insulator is of a hemispherical shape or a semi-spheroid shape.
However, Johnson teaches wherein the insulator is of a hemispherical shape or a semi-spheroid shape (Johnson – C3, L31 and Fig. 1, insulating shroud #7).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shape of the insulator of modified Ebe to be a hemispherical shape similar to Johnson as a matter of obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
The Examiner notes the Ebe and Johnson apparatuses are extremely similar in form and function, and differ primarily only in the shape of the disclosed antennas and their insulating members.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge in a variety of disciplines. As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would expect either the coil of Ebe or Johnson to be suitable for generating a plasma. As both Ebe and Johnson teach wherein the coils are shaped conformally to their insulating members, it would also follow that a PHOSITA would select the appropriately shaped insulating member based upon their selection of a particular coil shape.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Ebe teaches wherein of the coil is shaped such that a surface of the coil approximately fits into the insulator (see Fig. 5A, #23 inside #21 in a conformal manner).
Modified Ebe does not teach wherein the coil has a curved surface with a contour and a curvature, nor wherein the insulator has a curved surface.
However, Johnson teaches wherein the coil has a curved surface (Johnson – C3, L31 and Fig. 1, coil #6), and wherein the insulator has a curved surface (Johnson – C3, L31 and Fig. 1, insulating shroud #7).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shape of the coil and insulator of modified Ebe to be curved shape similar to Johnson as a matter of obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
The Examiner notes the Ebe and Johnson apparatuses are extremely similar in form and function, and differ primarily only in the shape of the disclosed antennas and their insulating members.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the PECVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge in a variety of disciplines. As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would expect either the coil of Ebe or Johnson to be suitable for generating a plasma. As both Ebe and Johnson teach wherein the coils are shaped conformally to their insulating members, it would also follow that a PHOSITA would select the appropriately shaped insulating member based upon their selection of a particular coil shape.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebe (US Pub. 2014/0150975) and Nishimura (US Pub. 2010/0269980), as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 above, and further in view Maeda (US Pub. 2013/0267098).
The limitations of claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Ebe does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nishimura teaches wherein the plasma generator is shielded by a plate of a cylindrical shape or of a rectangular parallelepiped shape (Nishimura – [0052] and Fig. 8, shield member #160 is cylindrical).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the coil of Ebe to comprise the actuator/shield assembly of Nishimura in order to spatially control plasma potential (Nishimura – [0085]) and adjust resonant frequencies of the coil without changing its physical length (Nishimura – [0097]).
Modified Ebe does not explicitly teach wherein the plate is a conductive metal (Nishimura is silent on the composition of shield #160).
However, Maeda teaches wherein a shield is a conductive metal (Maeda – [0031]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the shield plate of modified Ebe (particularly, Nishimura) from metal as an obvious selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebe (US Pub. 2014/0150975) and Nishimura (US Pub. 2010/0269980), as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 above, and further in view of Maher (US Patent 4,715,921)
The limitations of claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ebe does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Nishimura teaches wherein the moving structure comprises a motor/actuator – [0058], [0088]).
While Maher does not explicitly teach wherein the moving structure comprises a micrometer, and wherein the coil is vertically moved by rotating the micrometer, Maher does teach wherein micrometers and actuators are art recognized equivalents for the same purpose (Maher – C8, L25-29).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to substitute a micrometer similar to Maher for the moving structure of modified Ebe as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Maher specifically teaches wherein actuators and micrometers are usable for electrode movement (Maher – C8, L25-29) and, importantly, teaches where micrometers are advantageously used in place of actuators (id.).
Additionally, the courts have held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is supportive of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebe (US Pub. 2014/0150975) and Nishimura (US Pub. 2010/0269980), as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 above, and further in view of Redeker (US Patent 5,800,621).
The limitations of claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, Ebe teaches wherein a first end of the coil is connected to a high frequency power supply (Ebe – Fig. 5A, left side of #23), and a second end of the coil is connected to a ground (Ebe – Fig. 5A, right side of #23).
Modified Ebe does not teach wherein a first end of the coil is connected to a matcher.
However, Redeker teaches wherein a first end of a coil is connected to a matcher (C5, L62 and Fig. 2, match network #318).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Ebe apparatus to comprise a matcher similar to Redeker in order to maximize RF power delivered to the chamber (Redeker – C5, L11-20).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebe (US Pub. 2014/0150975) and Nishimura (US Pub. 2010/0269980), as applied to claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 above, and further in view Kobayashi (US Patent 5,968,327).
The limitations of claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ebe does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kobayashi teaches wherein a shield is connected to a ground (Kobayashi – Abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shield of modified Ebe to be connected to ground in order to prevent plasma formation in unnecessary places (Kobayashi – Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leou (US 6,150,763, Figs. 3-5), Ni (US 6,229,264, Figs. 2-3), Chandrachood (US 7,419,551, Figs. 1 and 5), Chen (US 7,829,815, Figs. 6A-B), Kim (US 9,496,121, Figs. 2-9), Kato (US Pub. 2013/0087097, Fig. 4), Toyoda (US 9,171,734, Fig. 10), and Kato (US Pub. 2018/0073146, Fig. 12) all teach variations on movable inductive coils.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718