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.
Status of Claims
Responsive to communication filed 06/09/2026
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-16 are pending
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 15 have been amended
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is
eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)
has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to
37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/17/2026 has been entered.
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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 20190180984) in view of Srivastava et al. (US 6057645) and Obama et al. (US 20120186747).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ikeda teaches a plasma processing apparatus (plasma deposition apparatus 100) comprising: a chamber (process container 1); and a waveguide structure (antenna 4; the antenna 4 includes a first feed part 6 and a second feed part 7) configured to propagate an electromagnetic wave that is a VHF wave or a UHF wave to generate plasma within the chamber (the first feed part 6 includes a feed rod 47; the feed rod 47 is coupled to a VHF supply unit 30) [Fig. 3 & 0024, 0052], and including a resonator (hollow inner conductor 43c, dielectric material 44, metal protective members 45 and 46) configured to resonate the electromagnetic wave inside the waveguide structure, wherein the resonator includes: a first waveguide (dielectric member 44) having a first characteristic impedance [Fig. 3 & 0027, 0040, 0055], and a gas supply pipe (inner conductor 43c and tip 47c) including an annular flange (tip 47c), wherein the resonator includes: a first waveguide (dielectric member 44) having a first characteristic impedance [Fig. 3 & 0027, 0040, 0055].
Ikeda does not specifically disclose a second waveguide having a second characteristic impedance and terminated at a short-circuit end having a ground potential; and a load impedance portion connected between the first waveguide and the second waveguide.
Srivastava teaches a second waveguide (microwave trap 20) having a second characteristic impedance and terminated at a short-circuit end having a ground potential (as evidenced by Fig. 1, microwave trap 20 is connected to the outer wall of the cavity 2) [Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9].
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 Ikeda to include microwave traps (and thereby creating a second waveguide), as in Srivastava, to prevent microwave leakage [Srivastava - Col. 3 lines 3-9]. It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "a load impedance portion connected between the first waveguide and the second waveguide," since the microwave trap of Srivastava would be disposed between the metal protective member 45 and dielectric material 44 of Ikeda [Srivastava - Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9; Ikeda - Fig. 3 & 0027, 0040, 0055].
Modified Ikeda does not specifically disclose wherein the second characteristic impedance is greater than the first characteristic impedance.
Although Obama does not specifically disclose "wherein the second characteristic impedance is greater than the first characteristic impedance," Obama does disclose that distances between objects in a waveguide is a result effective variable. Specifically, Obama discloses that distances can be adjusted to affect field density and plasma distribution [Obama - 0095]. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum spacing (relative to other components in the resonator) for the first or second waveguide of modified Ikeda to obtain a desired plasma distribution. 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.
Regarding Claim 12:
Ikeda does not specifically disclose wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor and an outer conductor, wherein the load impedance portion extends continuously from the first waveguide along a direction in which the first coaxial tube extends, wherein the second waveguide is provided by a second coaxial tube including an inner conductor as the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube and an outer conductor, the second waveguide extending so as to surround the first waveguide and the load impedance portion, and wherein, in the resonator, the second waveguide is folded with respect to a portion composed of the first waveguide and the load impedance portion.
Srivastava teaches wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor (plasma tube 4) and an outer conductor (the inner wall of microwave trap 20), wherein the load impedance portion extends continuously from the first waveguide along a direction in which the first coaxial tube extends (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 has at least a portion of its inner wall that extends continuously in the down direction), wherein the second waveguide is provided by a second coaxial tube including an inner conductor as the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube and an outer conductor (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 comprises inner and outer walls), the second waveguide extending so as to surround the first waveguide and the load impedance portion (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 surrounds a gap between its inner wall and the plasma tube 4), and wherein, in the resonator, the second waveguide is folded with respect to a portion composed of the first waveguide and the load impedance portion (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20's inner wall is folded up with respect to other components) [Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9].
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 Ikeda to include microwave traps (and thereby creating a second waveguide), as in Srivastava, to prevent microwave leakage [Srivastava - Col. 3 lines 3-9].
Claim(s) 2-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 20190180984) in view of Srivastava et al. (US 6057645) and Obama et al. (US 20120186747), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ohkawa (US 5225740).
The limitations of claims 1 and 12 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Ikeda does not specifically disclose wherein a length of the first waveguide and a length of the second waveguide are substantially the same.
Although Ohkawa does not specifically disclose "wherein the second characteristic impedance is greater than the first characteristic impedance," Ohkawa does disclose that waveguide length is a result effective variable. Specifically, the length of a waveguide can be adjusted to achieve desired microwave resonance [Ohkawa - Col. 24 lines 43-62]. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum lengths for the waveguides of modified Ikeda to obtain desired microwave resonance. 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.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Ikeda (Ikeda modified by Srivastava) does not specifically disclose wherein the length of the second waveguide corresponds to a length of the resonator.
Although Obama does not specifically disclose "wherein the length of the second waveguide corresponds to a length of the resonator," Obama does disclose that distances between objects in a waveguide is a result effective variable. Specifically, Obama discloses that distances can be adjusted to affect field density and plasma distribution [Obama - 0095]. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum spacing (relative to other components in the resonator) for the first or second waveguide of modified Ikeda to obtain a desired plasma distribution. 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.
Regarding Claim 4:
Ikeda does not specifically disclose wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor and an outer conductor, wherein the load impedance portion extends continuously from the first waveguide along a direction in which the first coaxial tube extends, wherein the second waveguide is provided by a second coaxial tube including an inner conductor as the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube and an outer conductor, the second waveguide extending so as to surround the first waveguide and the load impedance portion, and wherein, in the resonator, the second waveguide is folded with respect to a portion composed of the first waveguide and the load impedance portion.
Srivastava teaches wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor (plasma tube 4) and an outer conductor (the inner wall of microwave trap 20), wherein the load impedance portion extends continuously from the first waveguide along a direction in which the first coaxial tube extends (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 has at least a portion of its inner wall that extends continuously in the down direction), wherein the second waveguide is provided by a second coaxial tube including an inner conductor as the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube and an outer conductor (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 comprises inner and outer walls), the second waveguide extending so as to surround the first waveguide and the load impedance portion (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 surrounds a gap between its inner wall and the plasma tube 4), and wherein, in the resonator, the second waveguide is folded with respect to a portion composed of the first waveguide and the load impedance portion (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20's inner wall is folded up with respect to other components) [Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9].
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 Ikeda to include microwave traps (and thereby creating a second waveguide), as in Srivastava, to prevent microwave leakage [Srivastava - Col. 3 lines 3-9].
Regarding Claim 5:
Ikeda teaches a dielectric (dielectric material 44) part formed of a dielectric material [Fig. 3 & 0027, 0040, 0055].
Ikeda does not specifically disclose a dielectric material and arranged between the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube and the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube.
Srivastava teaches wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor (plasma tube 4) and an outer conductor (the inner wall of microwave trap 20) [Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9].
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 Ikeda to include microwave traps (and thereby creating a second waveguide), as in Srivastava, to prevent microwave leakage [Srivastava - Col. 3 lines 3-9]. It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "a dielectric material and arranged between the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube and the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube," since the microwave trap of Srivastava would be disposed between the metal protective member 45 and dielectric material 44 of Ikeda [Srivastava - Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9; Ikeda - Fig. 3 & 0027, 0040, 0055].
Modified Ikeda (Ikeda modified by Srivastava and Obama) does not specifically disclose wherein the dielectric part extends along the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube to a portion within the load impedance portion so as to protrude from an end portion of the first waveguide.
Although Ohkawa does not specifically disclose "wherein the dielectric part extends along the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube to a portion within the load impedance portion so as to protrude from an end portion of the first waveguide," Ohkawa does disclose that waveguide length is a result effective variable. Specifically, the length of a waveguide can be adjusted to achieve desired microwave resonance [Ohkawa - Col. 24 lines 43-62]. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum lengths for the waveguides of modified Ikeda to obtain desired microwave resonance. 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.
Regarding Claim 6:
Ikeda teaches wherein the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube configures a gas supply pipe (the gas supply pathway 37 is formed inside inner conductor 43c) [Fig. 3 & 0056].
Regarding Claim 7:
Ikeda teaches a substrate supporter (stage 2) provided inside the chamber; a shower head (showerhead 3) formed of a metal (showerhead 3 may be formed of aluminum), provided above the substrate supporter and including a plurality of gas holes (gas supply holes 11a) formed to be open toward a space within the chamber; and an introducer (annular member 15) formed of a dielectric (annular member 15 is made of a dielectric) and provided along an outer periphery of the shower head or a sidewall of the chamber so as to introduce the electromagnetic wave into the chamber from the introducer (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the annular member 15 is disposed on an outer periphery of showerhead 3), wherein the gas supply pipe extends vertically above the chamber, is connected to a top center of the shower head (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the showerhead 3 extends vertically above the process container 1 and is connected to a top center of showerhead 3), and provides a waveguide (dielectric member 13 and the gap between reflective members 42 and 29) connected to the resonator between the resonator and the introducer [Fig. 3 & 0016, 0019, 0039, 0056].
Regarding Claim 13:
Ikeda teaches wherein the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube configures a gas supply pipe (the gas supply pathway 37 is formed inside inner conductor 43c) [Fig. 3 & 0056].
Claim(s) 9-11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 20190180984) in view of Srivastava et al. (US 6057645), Obama et al. (US 20120186747), and Ohkawa (US 5225740), as applied to claims 2-7 and 13 above, and further in view of Panagopoulos et al. (US 20090236447) and Balish et al. (US 6329297).
The limitations of claims 2-7 and 13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Ikeda teaches a first gas source (gas supply unit 35) connected to the gas supply pipe [Ikeda - Fig. 3 & 0056].
Modified Ikeda does not specifically disclose a second gas source.
Panagopoulos teaches a second gas source (there may be one or more gas sources 106 that may each be coupled to one or more gas inlets 102) for a cleaning gas [Fig. 1A & 0021, 0024].
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 Ikeda to include a plurality of gas sources and inlets, as in Panagopoulos, to improve flow control and uniformity [Panagopoulos - 0019, 0029, 0052].
Modified Ikeda does not specifically disclose a remote plasma source connected between the second gas source and the gas supply pipe.
Balish teaches a remote plasma source (remote plasma generator 27) connected between the second gas source (gas source 7a) and the gas supply pipe (mixing block 9) [Fig. 1A & Col. 4 lines 56-67].
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 Ikeda to include a remote plasma source connected to any of the gas sources since Balish discloses that a remote plasma system might be more efficient at converting cleaning plasma precursor gases or vapors into a plasma, and forming the plasma outside the chamber protects the interior of the chamber from potentially undesirable by-products of the plasma formation process, such as plasma heating and sputtering effects [Balish - Col. 1 lines 47-60].
The limitations “for a film formation gas, for a cleaning gas” 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 a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Regarding Claim 10:
The limitations of claim 10 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 a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Regarding Claim 11:
The limitations of claim 11 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 a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Ikeda teaches a first gas source (gas supply unit 35) connected to the gas supply pipe [Ikeda - Fig. 3 & 0056].
Modified Ikeda does not specifically disclose a second gas source.
Panagopoulos teaches a second gas source (there may be one or more gas sources 106 that may each be coupled to one or more gas inlets 102) for a cleaning gas [Fig. 1A & 0021, 0024].
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 Ikeda to include a plurality of gas sources and inlets, as in Panagopoulos, to improve flow control and uniformity [Panagopoulos - 0019, 0029, 0052].
Modified Ikeda does not specifically disclose a remote plasma source connected between the second gas source and the gas supply pipe.
Balish teaches a remote plasma source (remote plasma generator 27) connected between the second gas source (gas source 7a) and the gas supply pipe (mixing block 9) [Fig. 1A & Col. 4 lines 56-67].
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 Ikeda to include a remote plasma source connected to any of the gas sources since Balish discloses that a remote plasma system might be more efficient at converting cleaning plasma precursor gases or vapors into a plasma, and forming the plasma outside the chamber protects the interior of the chamber from potentially undesirable by-products of the plasma formation process, such as plasma heating and sputtering effects [Balish - Col. 1 lines 47-60].
The limitations “for a film formation gas, for a cleaning gas” 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 a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Regarding Claim 16:
The limitations of claim 16 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 a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “and a gas supply pipe including an annular flange, wherein the resonator includes: a first waveguide having a first characteristic impedance,” and “wherein the supply path includes a conductor connected to the annular flange, and wherein the resonator is provided above the annular flange with respect to the chamber.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the inner conductor 43c and tip 47c of Ikeda et al. (US 20190180984) can be considered the “gas supply pipe.” Firstly, both the tip 47c and the inner conductor 43c are comprised of aluminum and the tip 47c contacts the inner conductor 43c, and as such, the tip 47c can be considered part of the gas supply pipe (as is claimed); the tip 47c can be interpreted as the “annular flange” included by the “gas supply pipe” [Ikeda – Fig. 2, 3 & 0026-0027].
Secondly, the applicant has not provided further physical specification as to what the “annular flange” is. For example, no description has been provided as to whether the annular flange is separate or integral to other structures. As such, absent further physical description, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably consider the tip 47c as the annular flange of the gas supply pipe.
To summarize, the structure of the prior art has been interpreted consistent with the instant specification. The flange has been defined to be part of the gas supply pipe (defining the flange to be a part of the gas supply pipe vs. part of the feed rod is a difference in name only). As such, the limitations of the claims are met.
Conclusion
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
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights