393DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (4/28/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) are pending and being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sadjadi et al (20160027667).
Sadjadi et al disclose a ring-shaped magnets core (130, 132) which would be like donut shape disposed on a plasma chamber. Also discloses is upper outer coil (Fig 3a or 4A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moromoto et al (US 20110062019) in view of Tachikawa et al (20190228953) and Gibson Jr (US 6110395).
Moromoto et al disclose a ring-shaped magnets 4b and 4c which would be like donut shape disposed on a plasma chamber (Fig 1 and Para 13). Moromoto does not explicitly disclose core with upper coils.
It is noted however that ring shaped permanent magnets could be replaced by electromagnets with magnetic core and coil carrying current.
Tachikawa et al disclose a plasma chamber (Fig 1) and disclose ring shaped magnets (116) which could be permanent magnet or electromagnet (Para 40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have replaced permanent magnets of Moromoto with electromagnets since electromagnets allow flexibility of control which permanent magnets could not allow.
Moromoto et al in view of Tachikawa et al do not explicitly disclose outer coils which would be required to create an electromagnet from the core material.
Gibson Jr discloses coils in several configurations for electromagnetic assembly disposed over a plasma chamber. For example, upper and lower coils are disclosed by (Fig 2B 240 and 270).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have coils disposed as claimed for the cores corresponding to Moromoto et al in view of Tachikawa et al according to the teaching of Gibson Jr.
Regarding first, second outer or inner upper or lower coils appear to be different turns of the coil segments connected serially or parallel. The pan cake and helical coils of cited prior art discloses that as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2 helical coils are disclosed in Tachikawa et al (118, 120), Moromoto et al (6b) and Gibson Jr (220, 230). It is noted that the upper, lower or helical coils could be oriented according to fabrication convenience, since they would provide the same orientation of magnetic field if strung similarly.
Regarding claim 3 it is noted that the so called second helical coil would correspond to 6b and the number of turns would be determined according to the magnetic field required.
Claims 4-6 are disclosed by the orientation coils 240 and 270.
Regarding claim 7 inner and upper coil radius would be as claimed in pan cake type coil of several turns.
Regarding claim 8 coil turns are spaced apart and known to be insulated for proper functioning.
Regarding claim 9 upper and lower coils are as disclosed in Gibson Jr.
Regarding claim 10-12 the second core is 6a in Moromoto and disposed according to the discussion above.
Claims 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moromoto et al (US 20110062019), Tachikawa et al (20190228953), Gibson Jr (US 6110395), Kondo et al (JP H0637048) and Kiyama Hiroko (JP 3076843).
Regarding claim 13-14, Moromoto et al in view of Tachikawa et al and Gibson Jr disclose the claimed structure of magnetic assembly but do not disclose a controller measuring and controlling plasma density through plasma sheath voltage and controlling current through coils to get desired density in order to get desired process.
Kondo et al disclose that to get high density plasma to uniformly and stably treat the surface of a sample plasma density is measured and controlled using magnetic current as below
“the measuring means measures the density of plasma generated in the plasma processing chamber, and then the control means, based on the plasma density measured by the measuring means, at least one of the angular velocity, the phase difference, and the DC magnetic field is controlled so that the density of the generated plasma has a predetermined value. Therefore, the density of the plasma can be controlled to a predetermined value by controlling so that the coupling with the wave of the helicon wave in the generated plasma is optimized.”
Further plasma density and sheath voltage is known to be correlated as taught in Kiyama Hiroko (Para 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to control plasma density by controlling magnet coil current in order to control process and to determine plasma density through sheath voltage according to the teaching of Kondo et al and Kiyama Hiroko.
Regarding claim 16 since magnetic field strength is directly correlated to plasma density it would have been obvious to increase or decrease magnet current appropriately.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 2 discussed earlier.
Claim 18 is rejected with claim 13 as including all the limitations discussed before.
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moromoto et al (US 20110062019), Tachikawa et al (20190228953), Gibson Jr (US 6110395), Kondo et al (JP H0637048) and Kiyama Hiroko (JP 3076843) and Han et al (US 20170051393).
Regarding claim 15 directed to pulse excitation of magnet coils, it is noted that pulse modulation by controlling pulse duration and/or frequency would allow control of the magnetic field.
Han et al dis pulse power to electromagnet for finer control (abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have pulse current to electromagnets for finer control of magnetic fields.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moromoto et al (US 20110062019), Tachikawa et al (20190228953), Gibson Jr (US 6110395), Kondo et al (JP H0637048) and Kiyama Hiroko (JP 3076843) and Masakazu Taki et al (JP 08288096).
Regarding claims 19 and 20 the size of magnetic core assembly would be related to sample size and plasma chamber size.
However, Masakazu Taki et al in a configuration discloses a diameter of 200mm and regarding claim 20 magnetic strength of 3000 gauss.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have size and strength of magnetic assembly according to process and sample size required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ikeda et al (20120298303) disclose inner and outer cores (Fig 1) and coils.
White et al (US 20070051617) disclose inner and outer cores (Fig 3A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights