DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 and species related to the bias pulses being a periodic series of DC pulses in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims are not a proper species. This is not found persuasive because:
1. initially the examiner notes that applicants didn’t make an actual traversal of the election between method and apparatus, so Group 1 method claims 1-9, 19 and 20 are herein considered.
2. the traversal is that “Claims are never a species”. What it appears that applicants wish to argue is that a proper identification of species should be made without regard to the associated claims. The Office agrees – but the species was written as “bias pulses patterns” – it was in fact then clarified that the distinction of the species could be seen among claims 6-8. Perhaps the Office could have written out each of the bias pulse patterns represented in claims 6-8, but the reference to the claims was secondary for clarification. The bias pulse pattern as represented by claim 6, i.e. “the series of pulses is a periodic series of DC pulses with a constant DC voltage level” was elected. The Office agrees that “claim 6” is not, for example, but rather the particularly elected pulse pattern. The pulse pattern was set forth and elected, therefore claims 7 and 8 are further withdrawn, claims 1-6, 9, 19 and 20 are herein examined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are 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 19 is a method of plasma processing, but never requires a plasma. It is not clear if the scope is to include the plasma or not.
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.
The factual inquiries 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, 6, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marakhtanov (2023/0223242) in view of Hisatomi (2020/0211823).
Marakhtanov teaches a method of plasma processing a substrate comprising:
- generating a plasma in a chamber comprising:
- flowing a discharge gas through the chamber, see [0004],
- coupling an RF source to a first RF electrode, see where RF generators 147/149 are connected to the upper electrode to generate plasma [0068], thereby ionizing the discharge gas,
- in regard to coupling a bias – the teachings include coupling a bias to an edge ring (second electrode) [0076], but do not include the claimed period series of bias pulses,
- generating a pulsed DC magnetic field in the plasma – see [0117] wherein there are a series of current pulses applied to a magnetic coil.
In regard to coupling the bias, Hisatomi teaches that it is effective to control a plasma by applying a pulse waveform bias and it is also useful to synchronize different aspects of the plasma/excitation control in the system in a plasma system [0072; 0033-35]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the teachings of Hisatomi to those of Marakhtanov in order to control the characteristics of the plasma. In combining the teachings, one would generate the bias signal as a waveform (i.e. claimed bias voltage waveform applied during the bias ON time) as directed by Hisatomi (further also [0055-59]). It is also noted that the claim requires that the waveform is applied during the bias ON time (but does not require it not be applied during the off time).
In regard to the prior to coupling the magnetizing signal, the teachings of Hisatomi include, as noted, that the control signals are favorably synchronized [0072]. The control signals include a bias waveform and is not particularly limited on the signals supplied and synchronized. The teachings further include control of a(n electro) magnetic field [0055-59] and that would be understood as inclusive within the signal controls – wherein Marakhtanov teachings using a pulsed magnetic field [0003], it further follows the combined teachings would include synchronizing the control of the bias with that of the current pulses used for controlling the magnetizing signal. In regard to “prior to coupling”, in order for the signals to be synchronized for the process to be performed it would follow that that the signals would be coupled initially as claimed. Further, wherein the priority of the step is not taught, this is a minor change in the order of the process, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. C. a change in sequence of adding ingredients (i.e. carrying out steps) is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case to synchronize before coupling the signal would have been obvious for the sake of starting with synchronized signals.
Regarding claim 6, the pulses include constant DC pulses as per described the values are not changed.
Regarding claim 9, a portion of the chamber (see flange 171) is at ground (reference) potential [0070].
Regarding claim 19, all elements of the claim are taught as per claim 1 above, the claims include all of the same steps except generating a plasma.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marakhtanov and Hisatomi (2020/0211823) in view of Zhao (2021/0082666).
The teachings of Marakhtanov include an RF source signal – the teachings include a pulsed signal [0106] but do not include application of a sinusoidal voltage waveform. Zhao teaches a method of controlling a plasma (see abstract) and teaches that a controller generates a sinusoidal waveform to control the RF source [0023]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the sinusoidal waveform of Zhao to the RF plasma of Marakhtanov as an operable manner of controlling the plasma.
Regarding claim 5, as per the teachings of Hisatomi, it is obvious to synchronize the timings of the phases and this would be understood to include the on/off times.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marakhtanov and Hisatomi in view of Yang (2018/0277340).
The teachings of Marakhtanov are described above, the teachings include use of a magnetic coil and not first and second electromagnets to effect a magnetic field. Yang teaches, however, that a magnetic field is effectively formed using first and second electromagnets in a plasma process system (see claims 1 and 5). It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the electromagnets of Yang in alternative to the coil of Marakhtanov as an alternative method of forming a magnetic field in a plasma chamber. In regard to the requirements of synchronizing the signals, that is taught as presented above in combination with Hisatomi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the prior art teachings do not include a different waveform during the on and off periods nor would modifying the teachings include the same without improper hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ventzek (2021/0210355) teaches a DC pulse bias.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights