DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (7/17/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-11) were examined in a Non-Final on 4/22/2026. This office action is in response to a submission on 7/7/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are pending and being examined.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicants’ recent amendments are addressed in this rejection. Therefore, rejection stays.
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 1-3, 6-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary S. Ash (US 20130220794) in view of Obinata et al (US 6290826).
Gary S. Ash discloses a plasma processing apparatus (since source could be CVD, magnetron sputtering, ion beam or e-beam) comprising:
a stage (136) disposed in a processing container and configured to mount thereon a substrate (106).
a rotary driving mechanism configured to rotatably drive the stage (abstract, para 9, 12-13, 15, 32); and
a plurality of plasma sources provided on an upper wall of the processing container facing the stage, the plurality of plasma sources (110, 112, 114) being not arranged axially symmetrically with respect to a rotation axis of the stage (Fig 2, 4A and 4B and Para 64).
Regarding the amendment of plasma sources disposed alternately on inner and outer radial position it is noted that Gary S. Ash discloses that plasma sources could be placed at any radial position (Para 67) with corresponding applied power. Therefore, claimed disposition would be included as one example of the many suggested examples.
Obinata et al however disclose this more explicitly where in a plasma deposition system plurality of sources are disposed at different radial position of the substrate stage (See Fig 6). It is noted that sources with centers 581, 582, 583 and 584 are disposed of in that configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have claimed configuration of sources, at a time before the effective filing date of this application to have a desired treatment profile on the substrate.
Regarding claim 2 density distribution would determine the deposition profile. Gary discloses this as emission pattern (Abstract, Para 10, 15, 52, 76-77, 79).
Regarding claims, 3 and 6 sources are provided at different positions as disclosed above (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7 sources are not arranged at rotation axis.
Regarding claim 9, number of sources could be more or less than three shown (Para 64).
Claim 11 is rejected with claim 1.
Claims 2, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary S. Ash (US 20130220794) in view of Obinata et al (US 6290826) and Fujino et al (US 20120247676).
Regarding claim 5 arrangement density is understood to be the number of sources with respect to the distance to rotation axis. Gary is not specific in this regard.
Fujino et al appear to disclose more sources farther away from rotation axis which would be normal for uniformity of process (Fig 7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have such source distribution for the sake of uniformity.
Regarding claim 10 as best understood showerhead is disclosed in Fujino (Fig 7 16a).
Regarding claim 2 additionally, plasma density distribution is disclosed in Fig 10.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that having more than one source would modify the plasma density distribution for unform processing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary S. Ash (US 20130220794) in view of Obinata et al (US 6290826) and Hua et al (US 20140187045).
Regarding claim 8 Gary S. Ash does not disclose remote plasma source at the axis of rotation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would know that remote plasma source would generally provide cleaning plasma which would be useful before deposition.
For example, Hua et al disclose a remote plasma disposed in the center of the upper wall to enable uniform cleaning of the substrate (Fig 2A, 1050).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have a remote plasma source for substrate cleaning before the process of deposition using plurality of sources.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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