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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 368, 902, 1129. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 365 (Fig. 3B), 129 (Fig. 11C). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objections and thus the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 10, 12-13, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Noro (US 20170088950 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mori (US 20100095888 A1) teaches a CVD apparatus including a reaction container 14 where plasma is formed (plasma process chamber), a substrate table 16 (pedestal) for supporting a substrate 12 (workpiece) in a processing volume of the reaction chamber, an array of a plurality of antenna elements 22 (inductive elements) composed of a conductive rod covered by a dielectric and having adjustable inductance in a portion of the processing volume above the pedestal, wherein the antenna (inductive) elements are arranged parallel to each other on the same plane, and a top side of the chamber 14 (chamber top) arranged over the array of inductive elements 22 and connected to an inlet (para 0049-0050, 0053, 0056-0057; Fig. 1-2).
Mori fails to explicitly teach the pedestal is rotatable relative to the array of inductive elements. However, Noro (US 20170088950 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches antennas 92 (array of inductive elements) for forming a plasma for a CVD process, wherein the wafer W and its mounting table 2 (pedestal) may be rotated about a vertical axis (relative to the array of inductive elements) to control the thickness distribution/uniformity (para 0045, 0051, 0053-0054, 0060; Fig. 8, 12). Mori teaches the invention may be used as a CVD apparatus (para 0049, 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substrate table/pedestal or Mori with the rotatable pedestal of Noro to allow for more control of the film distribution deposited by CVD because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mori and Noro teaches each of the parallel and planar antenna (inductive) elements 22 comprises a conductive rod surrounded by a dielectric/quartz tube (Mori para 0056-0057; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mori and Noro teaches the antenna (inductive) elements 22 penetrate/protrude through mutually opposite walls of the process chamber (Mori para 0065; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mori and Noro teaches the antenna (inductive) elements 22 are fed a high-frequency power (and thus current) from a power source 28 through impedance matching members 26 (matching network) via a branched distribution of wires 42 (recursive transmission line current-splitting structure from one side of the array of inductive elements), wherein the high-frequency power may be 10-130 MHZ, which lies within the radio-frequency (RF) range and thus the inductive elements are configured to be fed an RF current (Mori para 0050, 0059, 0062; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mori and Noro teaches capacitance elements 26a-b (one or more capacitors) for controlling the impedance matching of the antenna elements, wherein the capacitance elements are serially connected to the antenna elements (coupled in series with the array of inductive elements) (Mori para 0060, 0076-0078; Fig. 2, 4, 5A-5B)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mori and Noro teaches the array of antenna elements 22 use impedance matching to control the phase between the alternating antennas such that there is no phase difference (Mori para 0062-0063, 0076; Fig. 2), which results in opposing RF magnetic fields.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mori and Noro teaches power and current is supplied to the array of antenna elements 22 using branched distribution wires 42 with separate/parallel paths (Mori para 0059; Fig. 2), resulting in the antenna elements configured to be electrically driven in parallel.
Regarding claim 24, Mori (US 20100095888 A1) teaches a CVD apparatus including a reaction container 14 where plasma is formed (plasma process chamber) with an array of antenna elements 22 (inductive elements) each composed of a conductive rod covered/surrounded by a dielectric/quartz tube and having adjustable inductance, wherein the antenna (inductive) elements are arranged parallel to each other on the same plane, and wherein a substrate table 16 (pedestal) for holding a substrate 12 is disposed below the array of inductive elements 22 (para 0049-0050, 0056-0057; Fig. 1-2).
Mori fails to explicitly teach the pedestal is rotatable relative to the array of inductive elements. However, Noro (US 20170088950 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches antennas 92 (array of inductive elements) for forming a plasma for a CVD process, wherein the wafer W and its mounting table 2 (pedestal) may be rotated about a vertical axis (relative to the array of inductive elements) to control the thickness distribution/uniformity (para 0045, 0051, 0053-0054, 0060; Fig. 8, 12). Mori teaches the invention may be used as a CVD apparatus (para 0049, 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substrate table/pedestal or Mori with the rotatable pedestal of Noro to allow for more control of the film distribution deposited by CVD because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Noro (US 20170088950 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collins (US 20180374684 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mori and Noro teaches the substrate table (pedestal) may be supplied with a bias voltage with respect to a chamber ground (Mori para 0052) but fails to explicitly teach an RF bias. However, Collins (US 20180374684 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches an RF bias power generator 142 may be coupled to the workpiece support (pedestal) (para 0056; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bias supply of Mori with an RF bias power generator of Collins because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mori and Noro teaches capacitance elements 26a-b (one or more capacitors) for controlling the impedance matching of the antenna elements (Mori para 0060, 0076-0078; Fig. 2, 4, 5A-5B) but fails to explicitly teach the one or more capacitors are coupled in parallel with the array of inductive elements. However, Collins (US 20180374684 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a plurality of filaments including a conductor surrounded by a cylindrical insulating shell (antenna) having a bus coupled to each group of filaments/antennas including switches connected in parallel to allow finer control of plasma uniformity, wherein the switches may include capacitors connected in parallel (Abstract, para 0010, 0021, 0114, 0181, 0208-0209; Fig. 5A-5C). Mori similarly teaches an array of antenna elements 22 with impedance matching to generate uniform plasma (para 0075; Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the distributor wire arrangement of Mori with the bus arrangement of Collins, which includes capacitors arranged in parallel to the antenna/inductive elements, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of producing a uniform plasma. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mori and Noro fails to explicitly teach the array of inductive elements is configured for aiding RF magnetic fields. However, Collins (US 20180374684 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a plurality of filaments including a conductor surrounded by a cylindrical insulating shell (antenna) having alternating filaments connected to different RF signals with 180 degrees of phase difference resulting in generation of aiding RF magnetic fields or signals with 0 degrees of phase difference resulting in generation of opposing RF magnetic fields as alternatives (Abstract, para 0181, 0185-0187, 0195-0196; Fig. 8A-8B). Mori similarly teaches an array of antenna elements 22 with impedance matching to control the phase between the alternating antennas such that there is no phase difference (para 0062-0063, 0076; Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the 0 degree phase difference of Mori with a 180 degree phase difference, as described by Collins, which results in aiding RF magnetic fields, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mori and Noro fails to explicitly teach the array of inductive elements is configured for opposing RF magnetic fields. However, Collins (US 20180374684 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a plurality of filaments including a conductor surrounded by a cylindrical insulating shell (antenna) having alternating filaments connected to different RF signals with 180 degrees of phase difference resulting in generation of aiding RF magnetic fields or signals with 0 degrees of phase difference resulting in generation of opposing RF magnetic fields as alternatives (Abstract, para 0181, 0185-0187, 0195-0196; Fig. 8A-8B). Mori similarly teaches an array of antenna elements 22 with impedance matching to control the phase between the alternating antennas such that there is no (0 degree) phase difference (para 0062-0063, 0076; Fig. 2). Therefore, because Collins teaches that such RF magnetic fields were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate opposing RF magnetic fields by controlling the alternating antennas to have 0 degree phase difference with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mori and Noro fails to explicitly teach the pedestal includes an electrostatic chuck. However, Collins (US 20180374684 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a workpiece support (pedestal) may include an electrostatic chuck (para 0056). Therefore, because Collins teaches that such electrostatic chucks were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electrostatic chuck in the pedestal of Mori in view of Noro with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Noro (US 20170088950 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Rauner (NPL – “Impact of Internal Faraday Shields on RF Driven Hydrogen Discharges”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mori and Noro fails to explicitly teach each of the plurality of parallel and planar inductive elements further comprises a Faraday shield or electrostatic shield between the conductive rod or tube and the dielectric tube. However, Rauner (NPL), in the analogous art of ICP antennas, teaches including Faraday shields between a dielectric vessel and the RF coil/antenna to shield dielectric vessels from erosion and suppress capacitive coupling, wherein the RF antenna (conductive rod) may be mounted at the center of a discharge tube made of quartz with an internal Faraday shield between the tube and antenna (pg. 280-283; Fig. 1). Because Rauner teaches that such Faraday shields were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a Faraday shield between the conductive tube and dielectric/quartz tube of Mori to prevent erosion of the quartz tube with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Noro (US 20170088950 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Stowell (US 20100078320 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mori and Noro fails to explicitly teach the dielectric tube is cooled from the inside. However, Stowell (US 20100078320 A1), in the analogous art of inductive elements in plasma processing, teaches an antenna including a metallic/conductive waveguide 206 surrounded by a dielectric tube 204 made of quartz, wherein air or nitrogen gas may be filled in the space between the dielectric tube and waveguide for cooling the antenna (dielectric tube is cooled from the inside) (para 0006, 0039, 0045; Fig. 2). Mori teaches antenna elements to emit an electromagnetic wave comprising a rod or pipe shaped conductor and a dielectric/quartz tube surrounding the conductor (para 0057). Because Stowell teaches that such cooling methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool the antenna elements of Mori by flowing gas within the dielectric tube with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 8 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Noro (US 20170088950 A1), as applied to claims 7 and 24 above, and further in view of Ando (US 20160099130 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mori and Noro fails to explicitly teach a second, opposite side of the array of inductive elements has current returned to the matching network or to ground through a recursive transmission line current-combining structure. However, Ando (US 20160099130 A1), in the analogous art of inductive/antenna elements, teaches a group of antennas may be grounded together by coils 67a-67b in which their currents are combined at a terminal end of the antenna opposite to the current feeding side connected to a matching circuit 58a-b (para 0071, 0190-0193; Fig. 18). Mori teaches a group of antennas 22 connected to branched distribution wires on one end (para 0059; Fig. 2). Therefore, because Ando teaches that such grounding methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ground each group of antenna elements of Mori by rejoining the currents using branched wires and connecting them to a single grounding coil (second, opposite side of the array of inductive elements has current returned to ground through a recursive transmission line current-combining structure) with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Mori and Noro teaches the array of antenna (inductive elements) is fed a high-frequency power (and thus current) from a power source 28 through impedance matching members 26 (matching network) via a branched distribution of wires 42 (recursive transmission line current-splitting structure from one side of the array of inductive elements), wherein the high-frequency power may be 10-130 MHZ, which lies within the radio-frequency (RF) range and thus the inductive elements are configured to be fed an RF current (Mori para 0050, 0059, 0062; Fig. 2).
The combination of Mori and Noro fails to explicitly teach a second opposite side of the array of inductive elements is configured to have current returned to the matching network or to ground through a recursive transmission line current-combining structure. However, Ando (US 20160099130 A1), in the analogous art of inductive/antenna elements, teaches a group of antennas may be grounded together by coils 67a-67b in which their currents are combined at a terminal end of the antenna opposite to the current feeding side connected to a matching circuit 58a-b (para 0071, 0190-0193; Fig. 18). Mori teaches a group of antennas 22 connected to branched distribution wires on one end (para 0059; Fig. 2). Therefore, because Ando teaches that such grounding methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ground each group of antenna elements of Mori by rejoining the currents using branched wires and connecting them to a single grounding coil (second, opposite side of the array of inductive elements has current returned to ground through a recursive transmission line current-combining structure) with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Noro (US 20170088950 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (NPL – “The influence of antenna configuration and standing wave effects on density profile in a large-area inductive plasma source”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mori and Noro fails to explicitly teach the array of inductive elements is configured to be electrically driven in series. However, Wu (NPL), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches an array of antenna in an inductive plasma source, wherein the antenna may be connected in a series path or in various other configurations (pg. 210-211, 215; Fig. 1, 7). Mori similarly teaches an array of inductive antenna elements for generating a plasma (para 0011; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the parallelly arranged antenna array of Mori with a serially connected antenna array, as described by Wu, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of generating a plasma. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Kim (NPL – “Characteristics of a Large-Area Plasma Source Using Internal Multiple U-Type Antenna”) and Noro (US 20170088950 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Mori (US 20100095888 A1) teaches a CVD apparatus including a reaction container 14 where plasma is formed (plasma process chamber), a substrate table 16 (pedestal) for supporting a substrate 12 (workpiece) in a processing volume of the reaction chamber, an array of a plurality of antenna elements 22 (inductive elements) composed of a conductive rod covered by a dielectric and having adjustable inductance in a portion of the processing volume above the pedestal, and a top side of the chamber 14 (chamber top) arranged over the array of inductive elements 22 and connected to an inlet (para 0049-0050, 0053, 0056-0057; Fig. 1-2).
Mori fails to explicitly teach the array of inductive elements has a rectangular loop arrangement. However, Kim (NPL), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a plasma source including a plurality of antennas arranged in a U-type (rectangular loop) arrangement and connected to a matching network and wherein a uniform plasma can be formed (pg. 256-258; Fig. 1). Mori similarly teaches an array of antenna elements 22 for generating a plasma, wherein the antennas are connected to impedance matching members 26 and can generate a uniform plasma (para 0011, 0050, 0056, 0075; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the antenna arrangement of Mori with the U-type (rectangular loop) arrangement of Kim because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of generating a uniform plasma. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Mori fails to explicitly teach the pedestal is rotatable relative to the array of inductive elements. However, Noro (US 20170088950 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches antennas 92 (array of inductive elements) for forming a plasma for a CVD process, wherein the wafer W and its mounting table 2 (pedestal) may be rotated about a vertical axis (relative to the array of inductive elements) to control the thickness distribution/uniformity (para 0045, 0051, 0053-0054, 0060; Fig. 8, 12). Mori teaches the invention may be used as a CVD apparatus (para 0049, 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substrate table/pedestal or Mori with the rotatable pedestal of Noro to allow for more control of the film distribution deposited by CVD because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination of Mori, Kim, and Noro teaches the substrate table (pedestal) may be supplied with a bias voltage with respect to a chamber ground (Mori para 0052) but fails to explicitly teach an RF bias. However, Kim teaches a substrate may be biased using an RF power supply (pg. 258). Because Kim teaches that such power supplies were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bias supply of Mori with an RF bias power supply, as described by Kim, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mori, Kim, and Noro teaches each of the antenna (inductive) elements 22 comprises a conductive rod surrounded by a dielectric/quartz tube (Mori para 0056-0057; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Mori, Kim, and Noro teaches the rectangular loop arrangement is a multi-loop arrangement including multiple U-type rectangular loops (Kim Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Kim (NPL – “Characteristics of a Large-Area Plasma Source Using Internal Multiple U-Type Antenna”) and Noro (US 20170088950 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Rauner (NPL – “Impact of Internal Faraday Shields on RF Driven Hydrogen Discharges”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mori, Kim, and Noro fails to explicitly teach each of the inductive elements further comprises a Faraday shield or electrostatic shield between the conductive rod or tube and the dielectric tube. However, Rauner (NPL), in the analogous art of ICP antennas, teaches including Faraday shields between a dielectric vessel and the RF coil/antenna to shield dielectric vessels from erosion and suppress capacitive coupling, wherein the RF antenna (conductive rod) may be mounted at the center of a discharge tube made of quartz with an internal Faraday shield between the tube and antenna (pg. 280-283; Fig. 1). Because Rauner teaches that such Faraday shields were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a Faraday shield between the conductive tube and dielectric/quartz tube of Mori to prevent erosion of the quartz tube with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Kim (NPL – “Characteristics of a Large-Area Plasma Source Using Internal Multiple U-Type Antenna”) and Noro (US 20170088950 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Stowell (US 20100078320 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mori, Kim, and Noro fails to explicitly teach the dielectric tube is cooled from the inside. However, Stowell (US 20100078320 A1), in the analogous art of inductive elements in plasma processing, teaches an antenna including a metallic/conductive waveguide 206 surrounded by a dielectric tube 204 made of quartz, wherein air or nitrogen gas may be filled in the space between the dielectric tube and waveguide for cooling the antenna (dielectric tube is cooled from the inside) (para 0006, 0039, 0045; Fig. 2). Mori teaches antenna elements to emit an electromagnetic wave comprising a rod or pipe shaped conductor and a dielectric/quartz tube surrounding the conductor (para 0057). Because Stowell teaches that such cooling methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool the antenna elements of Mori by flowing gas within the dielectric tube with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Kim (NPL – “Characteristics of a Large-Area Plasma Source Using Internal Multiple U-Type Antenna”) and Noro (US 20170088950 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ando (US 20160099130 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Mori, Kim, and Noro fails to explicitly teach the rectangular loop arrangement comprises coil segments electrically connected in series or parallel. However, Ando (US 20160099130 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches an array of antennas 20 including a resistance coil 67 at the terminal end 55 of each antenna before grounding to increase antenna potential and improve efficiency of plasma generation (para 0158, 0162-0163; Fig. 16). Kim teaches the ends of the antennas are connected to ground in parallel to each other (pg. 256; Fig. 1). Because Ando teaches that such resistance coils were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include resistance coils between the end of each antenna and ground (connected in parallel to the rectangular loop arrangement) to increase antenna potential/voltage with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20100095888 A1) in view of Kim (NPL – “Characteristics of a Large-Area Plasma Source Using Internal Multiple U-Type Antenna”) and Noro (US 20170088950 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Collins (US 20180374684 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Mori and Kim fails to explicitly teach the pedestal includes an electrostatic chuck. However, Collins (US 20180374684 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a workpiece support (pedestal) may include an electrostatic chuck (para 0056). Therefore, because Collins teaches that such electrostatic chucks were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electrostatic chuck in the pedestal of Mori with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11-12, filed 2/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Noro (US 20170088950 A1).
Noro (US 20170088950 A1) teaches a rotating pedestal for use in CVD apparatuses.
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights