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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art
relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species A1, C1, and C2, drawn to claims 1-20, in
the reply filed on 01/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no
excessive burden comes from the search and examination of all pending claims. Examiner disagrees. The species have mutually exclusive structural features which would require different search strategies and/or syntaxes. As such, a serious search burden would exist. This
requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the first conductor is a spiral comprising a plurality of turns disposed about the first portion of the enclosure.” There is insufficient support in the written specification for this limitation. It is noted that on the reply filed 01/29/2026, species A1 (directed to the embodiments depicted in Fig. 1A, and 1B) was elected, and species A1 is directed to a remote plasma apparatus utilizing flat sheet conductors.
Claims 5, 9-10, and 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the first conductor is a spiral comprising a plurality of turns disposed about the first portion of the enclosure.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how the first conductor 108 is a spiral conductor when it is depicted as a sheet in the embodiment of Fig. 1A. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, claim 5 will be read as “wherein the first conductor is
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the first conductor, the second conductor, and the dielectric layer are dimensioned and arranged about the enclosure to have a resonance at an RF frequency within a range of about 400 kHz to 10,000 GHz.” Reference to a resonance is indefinite because a plurality of structural elements can contribute to a structure resonating at a certain frequency. This limitation is indefinite by reference to an object that is variable because a resonance frequency is being related to unspecified “dimensions.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, claim 9 will be read as “wherein the first conductor, the second conductor, and the dielectric layer are dimensioned and arranged about the enclosure
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “one or more capacitors in electrical communication between the first conductor and the second conductor such that the remote plasma apparatus has a resonance at an RF frequency within a range of about 400 kHz to 10,000 GHz.” Reference to a resonance is indefinite because a plurality of structural elements can contribute to a structure resonating at a certain frequency. This limitation is indefinite by reference to an object that is variable because a resonance frequency is being related to unspecified structural elements. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, claim 10 will be read as “one or more capacitors in electrical communication between the first conductor and the second conductor
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the first conductor, the second conductor, and the dielectric layer are dimensioned and arranged about the enclosure to have a resonance at an RF frequency within a range of about 400 kHz to 10,000 GHz.” Reference to a resonance is indefinite because a plurality of structural elements can contribute to a structure resonating at a certain frequency. This limitation is indefinite by reference to an object that is variable because a resonance frequency is being related to unspecified “dimensions.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation be read as “wherein the first conductor, the second conductor, and the dielectric layer are dimensioned and arranged about the
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “one or more capacitors in electrical communication between the first conductor and the second conductor such that the remote plasma apparatus has a resonance at an RF frequency within a range of about 400 kHz to 10,000 GHz.” Reference to a resonance is indefinite because a plurality of structural elements can contribute to a structure resonating at a certain frequency. This limitation is indefinite by reference to an object that is variable because a resonance frequency is being related to unspecified “dimensions.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). For purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation be read as “one or more capacitors in electrical communication between the first conductor and the second conductor
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032) and Ye et al. (US 6158384), with Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), and Jewett et al. (US 20050194099) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Jeon teaches a remote plasma apparatus, comprising: an enclosure (plasma generating unit 25) surrounding a cavity (the interior of generating unit 25); a gas inlet (plasma gas supply passage 12) configured to flow a gas into the cavity; and a gas outlet (bias electrode 30) disposed in a bottom of the enclosure and configured to flow the gas out of the cavity [Fig. 3 & 0053-0054].
Jeon does not specifically disclose a first conductor surrounding a first portion of the enclosure; a second conductor surrounding a second portion of the enclosure wherein the first portion of the enclosure and the second portion of the enclosure overlap by an overlap amount, a dielectric layer disposed between and separating the first conductor and the second conductor.
Keller teaches a first conductor (first RF coil 37) surrounding a first portion of the enclosure; a second conductor (second RF coil 38) surrounding a second portion of the enclosure
wherein the first portion of the enclosure and the second portion of the enclosure overlap by an overlap amount (the RF coils 37 and 38 surround the dielectric window 32, and as such, surround portions that overlap with each other), a dielectric layer (insulating layer 39) disposed between and separating the first conductor and the second conductor [Fig. 6 & Col. 4 lines 65-67, Col. 5 lines 1-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jeon to include first and second conductors with a dielectric layer therebetween, as in Keller, to provide capacitive coupling, thereby helping clean in the inside of a plasma chamber [Keller - Col. 2 lines 38-59].
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein each of the first conductor and the second conductor are circumferentially discontinuous.
Ye teaches and wherein each of the first conductor and the second conductor are circumferentially discontinuous (the antenna 5000 is separated into arcuate segments) [Fig. 10F & Col. 17 lines 5-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conductors of Modified Jeon to be circumferentially discontinuous, as in Ye, to suppress eddy currents [Ye - Col. 17 lines 5-13]. It is also noted that circumferentially discontinuous coils are a well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), and Jewett et al. (US 20050194099) [Forster - Col. 6 lines 14-20; Ishii - Col. 9 lines 45-59; Jewett - 0034].
Regarding Claim 2:
Jeon teaches wherein the first portion and the second portion are different (the first and second portions can be arbitrarily set so as to be different from each other) [Fig. 3 & 0053-0054].
Regarding Claim 5:
Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the first conductor is a spiral comprising a plurality of turns disposed about the first portion of the enclosure.
Keller teaches wherein the first conductor is disposed about the first portion of the enclosure (as evidenced by Fig. 6, the first RF coil 37 surrounds at least a portion of the dielectric window 32) [Fig. 6 & Col. 4 lines 65-67, Col. 5 lines 1-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jeon to include first and second conductors with a dielectric layer therebetween, as in Keller, to provide capacitive coupling, thereby helping clean in the inside of a plasma chamber [Keller - Col. 2 lines 38-59].
Regarding Claim 6:
Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the first conductor and the second conductor are electrically connected at one location.
Keller teaches wherein the first conductor and the second conductor are electrically connected at one location (the RF coils 37 and 38 are connected by capacitor 50) [Fig. 6 & Col. 4 lines 65-67, Col. 5 lines 1-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jeon to include first and second conductors with a dielectric layer therebetween, as in Keller, to provide capacitive coupling, thereby helping clean in the inside of a plasma chamber [Keller - Col. 2 lines 38-59].
Regarding Claim 9:
Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the first conductor, the second conductor, and the dielectric layer are dimensioned and arranged about the enclosure.
Keller teaches wherein the first conductor, the second conductor, and the dielectric layer are dimensioned and arranged about the enclosure (the RF coils 37 and 38 are arranged around the dielectric window 32) [Fig. 6 & Col. 4 lines 65-67, Col. 5 lines 1-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jeon to include first and second conductors with a dielectric layer therebetween, as in Keller, to provide capacitive coupling, thereby helping clean in the inside of a plasma chamber [Keller - Col. 2 lines 38-59].
Regarding Claim 10:
Jeon does not specifically disclose one or more capacitors in electrical communication between the first conductor and the second conductor.
Keller teaches one or more capacitors in electrical communication between the first conductor and the second conductor (the RF coils 37 and 38 are connected by capacitor 50) [Fig. 6 & Col. 4 lines 65-67, Col. 5 lines 1-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jeon to include first and second conductors with a dielectric layer therebetween, as in Keller, to provide capacitive coupling, thereby helping clean in the inside of a plasma chamber [Keller - Col. 2 lines 38-59].
Regarding Claim 14:
Jeon teaches a gas distribution plate (bias electrode 30) covering the gas outlet, the gas distribution plate comprising a plurality of holes (through holes 31) disposed therethrough [Fig. 3 - 0054].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032) and Ye et al. (US 6158384), with Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), and Jewett et al. (US 20050194099) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 above, and further in view of Mohn et al. (US 6401652).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein a surface area of the first conductor is essentially equal to a surface area of the second conductor.
Mohn does not specifically disclose "wherein a surface area of the first conductor is essentially equal to a surface area of the second conductor," but it does disclose that coil surface area is a result effective variable. Specifically, Mohn discloses that coil turn surface area determines capacitive coupling to an inner cavity [Mohn - Col. 5 lines 14-17, 49-51]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum surface area taken up by a plasma coil turn to obtain a desired plasma profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032) and Ye et al. (US 6158384), with Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), and Jewett et al. (US 20050194099) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 above, and further in view of Mohn et al. (US 6401652) and Lee (US 20140102641), with Choi et al. (US 20120000610) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Jeon (Jeon modified by Keller) teaches wherein the enclosure comprises a top and a plurality of sidewalls having an enclosure circumference and an enclosure height such that the cavity is formed within the plurality of sidewalls and the top (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the plasma generating unit 25 comprises a top end and sidewalls with a cavity therein) [Fig. 3 & 0053-0054].
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose and wherein the first conductor and the second conductor are each C-shaped metal sheets, each having a conductor length of less than or equal to about 99% of the enclosure circumference.
Ye teaches wherein the first conductor and the second conductor are each C-shaped metal sheets (the antenna 5000 is separated into arcuate segments), each having a conductor length of less than or equal to about 99% of the enclosure circumference (as evidenced by Fig. 10F, each antenna 5000 segment has a circumference less than 99 % of the port 5270) [Fig. 10F & Col. 17 lines 5-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conductors of Modified Jeon to be circumferentially discontinuous, as in Ye, to suppress eddy currents [Ye - Col. 17 lines 5-13]. It is also noted that circumferentially discontinuous coils are a well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), and Jewett et al. (US 20050194099) [Forster - Col. 6 lines 14-20; Ishii - Col. 9 lines 45-59; Jewett - 0034].
Modified Jeon (Jeon modified by Keller and Ye) does not specifically disclose a conductor height of greater than or equal to about 50% of the enclosure height.
Mohn discloses that coil surface area is a result effective variable. Specifically, Mohn discloses that coil turn surface area determines capacitive coupling to an inner cavity [Mohn - Col. 5 lines 14-17, 49-51]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum surface area taken up by a plasma coil turn to obtain a desired plasma profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Lee discloses that the number of turns a coil has is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of turns a coil has can be changed to adjust plasma density [Lee - 0024]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum number of turns for a coil to obtain a desired plasma density. Lee also discloses that adjusting capacitive coupling from an antenna can control plasma density [Lee - 0032]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the number of coil turns to 1 and adjust the surface area of the coil such that a flat plate antenna forms with a height greater than or equal to about 50% of the enclosure height.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Jeon teaches wherein the first conductor is disposed over an outer surface of the enclosure, wherein the dielectric layer comprises a sheet of dielectric material disposed over an outer surface of the first conductor and the outer surface of the enclosure (the insulating layer 39 is a sheet that separates the first RF coil 37 from the second RF coil 38), and wherein the second conductor is disposed over an outer surface of the dielectric layer (as evidenced by Fig. 6, the first RF coil 37 is disposed on an outer surface of dielectric window 32, and the second RF coil 38 is disposed over an outer surface of the insulating layer 39) [Keller - Fig. 6 & Col. 4 lines 65-67, Col. 5 lines 1-7].
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the first conductor comprises a metal sheet disposed over an outer surface of the enclosure, and wherein the second conductor is a metal sheet disposed over an outer surface of the dielectric layer.
Mohn discloses that coil surface area is a result effective variable. Specifically, Mohn discloses that coil turn surface area determines capacitive coupling to an inner cavity [Mohn - Col. 5 lines 14-17, 49-51]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum surface area taken up by a plasma coil turn to obtain a desired plasma profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Lee discloses that the number of turns a coil has is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of turns a coil has can be changed to adjust plasma density [Lee - 0024]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum number of turns for a coil to obtain a desired plasma density. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the number of coil turns to 1 and adjust the surface area of the coil such that a flat plate antenna forms. Choi et al. (US 20120000610) also discloses that flat plate antennas may be beneficial so as to provide uniform plasma over a large area [Choi - 0052].
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the second conductor is movable with respect to the first conductor to change the overlap amount.
Lee teaches wherein the second conductor is movable with respect to the first conductor to change the overlap amount (a second positioning mechanism that can change the entire vertical position of the vertical inductive coil or changes the pitch of the vertical inductive coil) [Fig. 2 & 0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Jeon to make the conductors moveable, as in Lee, to provide more control over plasma uniformity [Lee - 0050-0051].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032), Ye et al. (US 6158384), Mohn et al. (US 6401652), and Lee (US 20140102641), with Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), Jewett et al. (US 20050194099), Choi et al. (US 20120000610) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 4, 7, and 11 above, and further in view of Khater et al. (US 20020023899), with Baldwin et al. (US 6280563) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 4, 7, and 11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the first conductor and the second conductor comprises at least one hole disposed therethrough and/or a non-linear edge.
Khater teaches wherein at least one of the first conductor and the second conductor comprises at least one hole disposed therethrough and/or a non-linear edge (faraday shield 150 comprises slots 152) dimensioned and arranged to reduce or eliminate eddy currents induced into the remote plasma apparatus during use (slots 152 suppress eddy currents) [Fig. 1a & 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conductors of Modified Jeon to have holes, as in Khater, to suppress eddy currents [Khater - 0030]. Baldwin et al. (US 6280563) also discloses that holes in a metal sheet can help disrupt eddy currents [Baldwin - Col. 8 lines 49-55].
It is noted that although cited by the prior art, the limitations “dimensioned and arranged to reduce or eliminate eddy currents induced into the remote plasma apparatus during use” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032) and Ye et al. (US 6158384), with Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), and Jewett et al. (US 20050194099) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 above, and further in view of Donohue et al. (US 6132552), with Yeh et al. (US 20190136373) and Sheen et al. (US 20060094218) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the gas inlet comprises a plurality of inlet conduits.
Donohue teaches wherein the gas inlet (ring 148) comprises a plurality of inlet conduits (jets 150) [Col. 4 lines 1-5, 43-46].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Jeon to include a plurality of inlet conduits, as in Donohue, to aid in uniform gas distribution [Donohue - Col. 4 lines 1-5]. It is noted that using bottom gas inlets for a plasma chamber is a well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Yeh et al. (US 20190136373) and Sheen et al. (US 20060094218) [Yehe - 0044; Sheen - 0007].
It is noted that the limitations “dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into the cavity in an inflow direction oriented from colinear to opposite an outflow direction of the flow of gas out of the cavity through the gas outlet,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the jets 150 of Donohue direct gas upwards, and as such, would be capable of directing gas in a direction opposite the outflow direction [Donohue - Col. 4 lines 1-5, 43-46].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032) and Ye et al. (US 6158384), with Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), and Jewett et al. (US 20050194099) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 above, and further in view of Donohue et al. (US 6132552) and Sapre et al. (US 20110053380), with Yeh et al. (US 20190136373) and Sheen et al. (US 20060094218) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the gas inlet comprises a first plurality of inlet conduits dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into the cavity
Donohue teaches wherein the gas inlet comprises a first plurality of inlet conduits (jets 150) dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into the cavity [Col. 4 lines 1-5, 43-46].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Jeon to include a plurality of inlet conduits, as in Donohue, to aid in uniform gas distribution [Donohue - Col. 4 lines 1-5]. It is noted that using bottom gas inlets for a plasma chamber is a well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Yeh et al. (US 20190136373) and Sheen et al. (US 20060094218) [Yeh - 0044; Sheen - 0007].
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose a second plurality of inlet gas conduits
dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into a process chamber to which the remote plasma apparatus is attached to, bypassing the cavity.
Sapre teaches and a second plurality of inlet gas conduits (apertures 352) dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into a process chamber to which the remote plasma apparatus is attached to, bypassing the cavity (apertures 352 bypass the remote plasma excitation) [Fig. 8 & 0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Jeon to include a second inlet gas conduit for bypassing the RPS, as in Sapre, to provide direct paths for gases wherein remote excitation would not be beneficial [Sapre - 0034].
It is noted that although cited by the prior art, the limitations “dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into a process chamber to which the remote plasma apparatus is attached to, bypassing the cavity,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032) and Ye et al. (US 6158384), with Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), and Jewett et al. (US 20050194099) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 above, and further in view of Higashi et al. (US 9175393), with Goto et al. (US 20090053901) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the gas distribution plate is coupled to ground.
Higashi teaches wherein the gas distribution plate is coupled to ground (walls of the chamber in which the showerhead and the wafer are mounted are generally held at ground potential) [Fig. 1 & Col. 1 lines 45-56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Jeon to ground its gas distribution plate, as in Higashi, to improve safety [Higashi - Col. 1 lines 45-46]. Goto et al. (US 20090053901) also establishes that grounding a showerhead is a well-known technique in the art [Goto - 0029].
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032), Mohn et al. (US 6401652), Lee (US 20140102641), Ye et al. (US 6158384), Donohue et al. (US 6132552), and Sapre et al. (US 20110053380), with Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), Jewett et al. (US 20050194099), Choi et al. (US 20120000610), and Yeh et al. (US 20190136373) and Sheen et al. (US 20060094218) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 16:
Jeon teaches a remote plasma apparatus, comprising: an enclosure (plasma generating unit 25) comprising a top end, one or more sidewalls forming a cavity within, and an open bottom end engageable with a process chamber, the enclosure having an enclosure circumference and an enclosure height (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the plasma generating unit 25 comprises a top end, sidewalls, and an open bottom), and a gas outlet (bias electrode 30) covering the gas outlet, and configured to flow the gas out of the cavity, wherein the gas outlet includes a gas distribution plate comprising a plurality of holes (through holes 31) disposed therethrough disposed therethrough [Fig. 3 & 0053-0054].
Jeon does not specifically disclose a first conductor disposed over a first portion of the enclosure in contact with an outer surface of the one or more sidewalls; a dielectric layer comprising a sheet of dielectric material disposed over an outer surface of the first conductor and the outer surface of the one or more sidewalls; a second conductor disposed over a second portion of the enclosure in contact with an outer surface of the dielectric layer, wherein the first portion of the enclosure and the second portion of the enclosure are different and overlap by an overlap amount, and wherein the first conductor, the second conductor, and the dielectric layer are dimensioned and arranged about the enclosure.
Keller teaches a first conductor (first RF coil 37) disposed over a first portion of the enclosure in contact with an outer surface of the one or more sidewalls; a dielectric layer (insulating layer 39) comprising a sheet of dielectric material disposed over an outer surface of the first conductor and the outer surface of the one or more sidewalls (as evidenced by Fig. 6, the first RF coil 37 is disposed on an outer surface of dielectric window 32, and the second RF coil 38 is disposed over an outer surface of the insulating layer 39); a second conductor (second RF coil 38) disposed over a second portion of the enclosure in contact with an outer surface of the dielectric layer, wherein the first portion of the enclosure and the second portion of the enclosure overlap by an overlap amount (the RF coils 37 and 38 surround the dielectric window 32, and as such, surround portions that overlap with each other), wherein the first conductor, the second conductor, and the dielectric layer are dimensioned and arranged about the enclosure (the RF coils 37 and 38 are arranged around the dielectric window 32) [Fig. 6 & Col. 4 lines 65-67, Col. 5 lines 1-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jeon to include first and second conductors with a dielectric layer therebetween, as in Keller, to provide capacitive coupling, thereby helping clean in the inside of a plasma chamber [Keller - Col. 2 lines 38-59].
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the first conductor comprises a metal sheet, wherein the second conductor comprises a metal sheet, and a conductor height of greater than or equal to about 50% of the enclosure height.
Mohn discloses that coil surface area is a result effective variable. Specifically, Mohn discloses that coil turn surface area determines capacitive coupling to an inner cavity [Mohn - Col. 5 lines 14-17, 49-51]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum surface area taken up by a plasma coil turn to obtain a desired plasma profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Lee discloses that the number of turns a coil has is a result effective variable. Specifically, the number of turns a coil has can be changed to adjust plasma density [Lee - 0024]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum number of turns for a coil to obtain a desired plasma density. Lee also discloses that adjusting capacitive coupling from an antenna can control plasma density [Lee - 0032]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the number of coil turns to 1 and adjust the surface area of the coil such that a flat plate antenna forms with a height of greater than or equal to about 50% of the enclosure height. Choi et al. (US 20120000610) also discloses that flat plate antennas may be beneficial so as to provide uniform plasma over a large area [Choi - 0052].
Modified Jeon (Jeon modified by Keller, Mohn, and Lee) does not specifically disclose wherein each of the first conductor and the second conductor independently have a conductor length of less than or equal to about 99% of the enclosure circumference.
Ye teaches wherein each of the first conductor and the second conductor independently have a conductor length of less than or equal to about 99% of the enclosure circumference (as evidenced by Fig. 10F, each antenna 5000 segment has a circumference less than 99 % of the port 5270) [Fig. 10F & Col. 17 lines 5-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conductors of Modified Jeon to be circumferentially discontinuous, as in Ye, to suppress eddy currents [Ye - Col. 17 lines 5-13]. It is also noted that circumferentially discontinuous coils are a well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Forster et al. (US 6190513), Ishii et al. (US 5795429), and Jewett et al. (US 20050194099) [Forster - Col. 6 lines 14-20; Ishii - Col. 9 lines 45-59; Jewett - 0034].
Modified Jeon (Jeon modified by Keller, Mohn, Lee, and Ye) does not specifically disclose a gas inlet comprising a first plurality of inlet conduits dimensioned and arranged to direct a flow of gas into the cavity.
Donohue teaches wherein the gas inlet comprises a first plurality of inlet conduits (jets 150) dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into the cavity [Col. 4 lines 1-5, 43-46].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Jeon to include a plurality of inlet conduits, as in Donohue, to aid in uniform gas distribution [Donohue - Col. 4 lines 1-5]. It is noted that using bottom gas inlets for a plasma chamber is a well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Yeh et al. (US 20190136373) and Sheen et al. (US 20060094218) [Yeh - 0044; Sheen - 0007].
Modified Jeon (Jeon modified by Keller, Mohn, Lee, Ye, and Donohue) does not specifically disclose and a second plurality of inlet gas conduits dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into a process chamber to which the remote plasma apparatus is attached to, bypassing the cavity.
Sapre teaches and a second plurality of inlet gas conduits (apertures 352) dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into a process chamber to which the remote plasma apparatus is attached to, bypassing the cavity (apertures 352 bypass the remote plasma excitation) [Fig. 8 & 0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Jeon to include a second inlet gas conduit for bypassing the RPS, as in Sapre, to provide direct paths for gases wherein remote excitation would not be beneficial [Sapre - 0034].
It is noted that although cited by the prior art, the limitations “dimensioned and arranged to direct the flow of gas into a process chamber to which the remote plasma apparatus is attached to, bypassing the cavity,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 17:
Jeon does not specifically disclose one or more capacitors in electrical communication between the first conductor and the second conductor.
Keller teaches one or more capacitors in electrical communication between the first conductor and the second conductor (the RF coils 37 and 38 are connected by capacitor 50) [Fig. 6 & Col. 4 lines 65-67, Col. 5 lines 1-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jeon to include first and second conductors with a dielectric layer therebetween, as in Keller, to provide capacitive coupling, thereby helping clean in the inside of a plasma chamber [Keller - Col. 2 lines 38-59].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032).
Regarding Claim 18:
Jeon teaches A plasma processing chamber, comprising :a chamber (chamber 40) enclosing a processing volume (interior of chamber 40); a substrate support (substrate loading unit 60) configured to support a substrate in the processing volume during use [Fig. 3 & 0053-0054]; a first RF source configured to provide RF energy at a frequency (an RF power is supplied to the plasma generating unit 25 by the ICP coil. As such, an RF power source can be reasonably inferred); and a remote plasma apparatus (plasma generating unit 25) coupled to the chamber and to the first RF source, the remote plasma apparatus comprising: an enclosure surrounding a cavity (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the plasma generating unit 25 comprises an enclosure surrounding a cavity); a first gas inlet (plasma gas supply passage 12) configured to flow a gas into the cavity; a gas outlet (bias electrode 30) disposed in a bottom of the enclosure and configured to flow the gas out of the cavity and into the processing volume [Fig. 3 & 0053-0054, 0057].
Jeon does not specifically disclose a first conductor surrounding a first portion of the enclosure; a dielectric layer disposed over the first conductor; and a second conductor surrounding a second portion of the enclosure, wherein the first portion of the enclosure and the second portion of the enclosure overlap by an overlap amount.
Keller teaches a first conductor (first RF coil 37) surrounding a first portion of the enclosure; a dielectric layer (insulating layer 39) disposed over the first conductor; a second conductor (second RF coil 38) surrounding a second portion of the enclosure wherein the first portion of the enclosure and the second portion of the enclosure overlap by an overlap amount (the RF coils 37 and 38 surround the dielectric window 32, and as such, surround portions that overlap with each other) [Fig. 6 & Col. 4 lines 65-67, Col. 5 lines 1-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jeon to include first and second conductors with a dielectric layer therebetween, as in Keller, to provide capacitive coupling, thereby helping clean in the inside of a plasma chamber [Keller - Col. 2 lines 38-59].
Furthermore, the limitations “and wherein the first conductor, dielectric layer, and the second conductor at least partially form a capacitor having a resonance proximate the frequency to form an electromagnetic field within the enclosure suitable to form radicals from the gas, when disposed within the enclosure,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that Keller discloses that its layered RF coil embodiments provide some capacitive coupling [Keller - Col. 5 lines 53-67].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Angelov et al. (US 20120108072).
The limitations of claim 18 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 19:
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose wherein the gas outlet of the remote plasma apparatus is directly mounted to a lid, a side, or a bottom of the chamber, such that the gas outlet is located less than or equal to about 30.5 cm from the chamber.
Angelov teaches wherein the gas outlet of the remote plasma apparatus is directly mounted to a lid, a side, or a bottom of the chamber, such that the gas outlet is located less than or equal to about 30.5 cm from the chamber (the showerhead 108 may be disposed at a distance of about 0.1 inches to 0.9 inches from the wafer) [Fig. 1A & 0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Jeon to have the RPS gas outlet to be less than or equal to about 30.5 cm from the chamber, as in Angelov, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20100096367) in view of Keller et al. (US 5650032), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (US 6352049).
The limitations of claim 18 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Jeon does not specifically disclose one or more electrodes; and a second RF source coupled to the one or more electrodes, wherein the one or more electrodes and second RF source are configured to generate a plasma within the processing volume of the chamber, and wherein the second RF source has a frequency that is different than that of the first RF source.
Yin teaches one or more electrodes (source power applicator 608); and a second RF source (there is a power supply connected to the source power applicator 608) coupled to the one or more electrodes, wherein the one or more electrodes and second RF source are configured to generate a plasma within the processing volume of the chamber, and wherein the second RF source has a frequency that is different than that of the first RF source (source power applicator 608 may be utilized to generate or sustain a primary chamber plasma; the collateral source chamber 300) [Fig. 4, 8 & Col. 13 lines 15-25, Col. 19 lines 24-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jeon to include in situ plasma generation, as in Yin, to provide species density control [Yin - Col. 19 lines 24-44].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Uhm et al. (US 20210319979) and Ma et al. (US 20190198301) teach remote plasma apparatuses [Uhm – Fig. 20; Ma – Fig. 5].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights