DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18232123 application filed August 09, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on February 3, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of the invention of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “cutting off the RF power after the first is reached” appears to contain a typographical error. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term is “cutting off the RF power after the first time is reached”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 recites:“A plasma control method comprising: (i) applying gas to a chamber, wherein a wafer has been loaded into the chamber; (ii) generating a plasma by applying both radio frequency (RF) power of a first voltage at a first frequency and a second voltage at a second frequency that is lower than the first frequency to the chamber until a first time is reached; (iii) cutting off the RF power after the first is reached; (iv) continuously applying the second voltage of the second frequency to the chamber until a second time is reached; (v) cutting off the second voltage after the second time is reached; (vi) maintaining an off state of the RF power and of the second voltage after the second time is reached; and (vii) commencing, when a third time is reached, an etching process on the wafer by using the plasma formed by the RF power and the second voltage, wherein the RF power is a sine wave, and the second voltage is a square wave of a periodic pulse form.” (step numbers added). Fig. 1 in the specification shows that a RF power source 100 is separate from a voltage source 400, that further discloses that “although it is illustrated that the RF power source 100 includes one source, i.e., the first source 110, the RF power source 100 may include two or more sources” ([0024]). Thus, for the purpose of examining, based on broadest reasonable interpretation:
--the limitation (ii) is interpreted as applying to the chamber (i) RF power of a first voltage at a first frequency and (ii) a second voltage at a second frequency that is lower than the first frequency during a period ending at the first time to generate a plasma.--the limitation (iii) is interpreted as cutting off the RF power at a certain time ta after the first time.--the limitation (iv) is interpreted as continuously applying the second voltage until a second time, wherein the second time may be less than, equal to, or greater than the first time or ta.--the limitation (v) is interpreted as cutting off second voltage at a certain time tb after the second time, wherein tb may be equal to or greater than ta.--the limitation (vi) is interpreted as maintaining an off state of the RF power and of the second voltage for an indefinite duration after the second time.--the limitation (vii) is interpreted as, start an etching process by using the plasma at time tc, wherein tc may be less than, equal to, or greater than the first time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “9t)he plasma control method of claim 1, wherein the second frequency of the second voltage applied for the second time is different from the second frequency of the second voltage applied for the first time”. However, claim 1 recites “generating a plasma by applying both radio frequency (RF) power of a first voltage at a first frequency and a second voltage at a second frequency that is lower than the first frequency to the chamber until a first time is reached” and “continuously applying the second voltage of the second frequency to the chamber until a second time is reached” (emphases added). Thus while the first time and the second time refer to a point in time in claim 1, they refer to an event or a duration in claim 3. Therefore, it appears that the phrase “for the first time” and “for the second time” recited in claim 3 lack antecedent basis. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be clear how to apply the second voltage as recited in claim 3.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites “(t)he plasma control method of claim 1, wherein the second frequency of the second voltage applied for the second time is the same as the second frequency of the second voltage applied for the first time” However, claim 1 recites “generating a plasma by applying both radio frequency (RF) power of a first voltage at a first frequency and a second voltage at a second frequency that is lower than the first frequency to the chamber until a first time is reached” and “continuously applying the second voltage of the second frequency to the chamber until a second time is reached” (emphases added). Thus while the first time and the second time refer to a point in time in claim 1, they refer to an event or a duration in claim 5. Therefore, it appears that the phrase “for the first time” and “for the second time” recited in claim 5 lack antecedent basis. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be clear how to apply the second voltage as recited in claim 5. It is noted that the phrases “for the first time” and “for the second time” in the second limitation “the second voltage is continuously supplied for the first time and the second time” appear to refer to a duration, and conflict with the first limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “the continuously maintaining the off state” lacks antecedent basis. While claim 1 recites “continuously applying the second voltage of the second frequency” it does not recited the continuously maintaining the off state.
Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is dependent on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention..
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yokoi et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20230035021), hereinafter “Yokoi”:--Claim 1, 8, 9, 10, 1213, 14, 15: Yokoi teaches a method of etching, comprising- loading a substrate W onto a support 14 in a process chamber 10 (Fig. 1, [0042-0046]), wherein a first power comprising RF power source 62 having a frequency 27-100 MHz, and a second power comprising a bias voltage 64 having a frequency 400 kHz-13.56 MHz are applied to the support 14 to generate a plasma ([0020, 0036, 0057-0058]), wherein the bias voltage may be pulsed ([0061]), wherein the first power pulse and second power pulse may or may not be synchronized ([0068-0069]); then applying both the first power and the second power to the support during a first period from t0-t1, reduce both the first power and the second power to a low state when a time t1 is reached, and continuously keep both the first power and the second power in the low state until a time t2 is reached, wherein the low state of each of the power may be greater or equal to zero (Fig. 2, [0062-0070]). It is noted that this reads on all limitations recited in claim 1 according to claim interpretation (see Claim Interpretations above). It is noted that the frequency ranges above overlapped the claimed frequency range in claim 1 and 8, and that the RF power is in a sine wave form, whereas Yokoi teaches that the pulse is in a square wave form ([0061]). Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use supply the power as described above according to the instructions by Yokoi above, in the absence of an unexpected result.
--Claim 2: Yokoi further teaches that the power supply are connected to the support via a match unit 66 and 68 ([0057-0059], Fig. 1).--Claim 6: Yokoi further teaches that the power supply 64 generates an electrical bias for attracting ions to the support ([0059]), wherein the chamber and the wafer are kept at ground (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, to use a bipolar voltage for the power supply 64.--Claim 11: Although Yokoi is silent about while the RF power and the second voltage are cut off, a plasma potential formed inside the chamber is higher at a lower part of the chamber than at a central part of the chamber, such effect would have been inherent since the operation taught by Yokoi is the same as Applicant’s
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights