DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 of Group I (apparatus), drawn to claims 1-16 and 21, in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/09/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a portion of the magnet is disposed in the chamber” (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2008/0124254) in view of [Becker et al (US 7,811,941) OR Yoshikawa et al (US 2014/0124478)].
Regarding claim 1:
Choi teaches an apparatus (plasma reactor) for plasma processing a substrate (112) [fig 8 & 0076], the apparatus (plasma reactor) comprising: a plasma processing chamber (vacuum chamber, 100a) having a ceiling (130/140) comprising a central conductive cover (140 is formed of a conductive material) surrounded by a dielectric window (dielectric window, 130) [fig 8 & 0050, 0077]; a substrate holder (substrate support, 111) configured to hold the substrate (112) in the chamber (100a) [fig 8 & 0048, 0077]; disposed over the dielectric window (130), an antenna (radio frequency antenna, 151) configured to couple alternating current (AC) electromagnetic (EM) power from an AC EM signal (via 160) to plasma in the chamber (100a) [fig 8 & 0055, 0077].
Choi does not specifically disclose a magnet configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the chamber.
Becker teaches a magnet (magnetic field coil, 21) configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the chamber (direct current generates a magnetic field in the interior of 15) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 54-63].
Yoshikawa, similar to Becker, teaches a magnet (coil, 52) configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the chamber (current from 53 forms a magnetic field in the chamber 1) [fig 1 & 0071, 0195].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Choi to comprise a magnet, as in Becker OR Yoshikawa, to improve the efficiency of plasma generation to allow for higher etching rates with the same plasma power [Becker – col 2, lines 44-51] and/or to control the electron density distribution of the plasma [Yoshikawa – 0082].
Regarding claims 2-3:
The claim limitations “wherein the AC EM power is absorbed in a heating zone located within a depth directly below the dielectric window, wherein, between the ceiling and the depth directly below the dielectric window within which the heating zone is located, central flux tube is as wide as or narrower than the conductive cover, a backside of the substrate being aligned to be inside a hold area of a horizontal top surface of the holder, the hold area being under the conductive cover, the central flux tube being a magnetic flux tube intercepting the hold area” and “wherein, between the substrate holder and the ceiling, a central flux tube is as wide as or narrower than the conductive cover, a backside of the substrate being aligned to be inside a hold area of a horizontal top surface of the holder, the hold area being under the conductive cover, the central flux tube being a magnetic flux tube intercepting the hold area” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claims 4-6:
Choi teaches the antenna (151) comprises a conductor shaped like a planar coil (flat surface spiral structure), the planar coil shaped conductor (flat surface spiral structure) and the dielectric window (130) sharing a common central axis (see fig 8) [fig 8 & 0054, 0077].
The claim limitations “wherein the antenna is configured to inductively couple the AC EM power to the plasma in the chamber” and “wherein the antenna is a resonator configured to have a resonant frequency tuned to match a center frequency of the AC EM signal” 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).
Regarding claims 10-11:
Choi does not specifically teach the magnet comprises an electromagnet comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix, the helix-shaped wire and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis; and wherein the magnet comprises a permanent magnet.
Becker teaches the magnet (21) comprises an electromagnet (supplied a direct current) comprising a conductive wire (copper wire) shaped like a helix (has turns and is wound), the helix-shaped wire (has turns and is wound) and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis (see fig 1) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 41-63]; and wherein the magnet (21) comprises a permanent magnet (permanent magnet may be used) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 4-11].
Yoshikawa, similar to Becker, teaches the magnet (52) comprises an electromagnet (power supply 53 is connected to 52) comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix (wound in a radius direction around the chamber 1), the helix-shaped wire and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0071, 0195]; and wherein the magnet (52) comprises a permanent magnet (permanent magnet may be used) [fig 1 & 0072, 0195].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Choi to comprise a magnet, as in Becker OR Yoshikawa, to improve the efficiency of plasma generation to allow for higher etching rates with the same plasma power [Becker – col 2, lines 44-51] and/or to control the electron density distribution of the plasma [Yoshikawa – 0082].
Regarding claim 12:
Choi teaches the chamber further comprises a gas inlet (gas inlet, 144) and a gas outlet (gas outlet, 113) coupled to a gas flow system configured to flow a discharge gas through the chamber (100a) [fig 8 & 0048, 0050].
Regarding claim 13:
Choi teaches an apparatus (plasma reactor) for plasma processing a substrate (112) [fig 8 & 0076], the apparatus (plasma reactor) comprising: a plasma processing chamber (vacuum chamber, 100a) having a ceiling (130/140) comprising a central conductive cover (140 is formed of a conductive material) surrounded by a dielectric window (dielectric window, 130), the conductive cover (140) being wider than the substrate (112) [fig 8 & 0050, 0077]; a substrate holder (substrate support, 111) configured to hold the substrate (112) in the chamber (100a), a backside of the substrate (112) being aligned to be inside a hold area of a horizontal top surface of the holder (top surface of 111), the hold area being an area under the conductive cover (see fig 8) [fig 8 & 0048, 0077]; disposed over the dielectric window (130), an antenna (radio frequency antenna, 151) [fig 8 & 0055, 0077].
Choi does not specifically disclose a magnet.
Becker teaches a magnet (magnetic field coil, 21) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 54-63].
Yoshikawa, similar to Becker, teaches a magnet (coil, 52) [fig 1 & 0071, 0195].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Choi to comprise a magnet, as in Becker OR Yoshikawa, to improve the efficiency of plasma generation to allow for higher etching rates with the same plasma power [Becker – col 2, lines 44-51] and/or to control the electron density distribution of the plasma [Yoshikawa – 0082].
The claim limitations “configured to produce AC electric and magnetic fields in a plasma generated in the chamber, the AC electric field being in a second region laterally separated from a first region of the chamber, the first region being a central tube bounded by and including the hold area at a bottom and bounded by the conductive cover at a top” and “configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the chamber, wherein, between the substrate holder and the ceiling, a maximum width of a central flux tube is less than or equal to a width of the conductive cover, the central flux tube being a magnetic flux tube intercepting the hold area” 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).
Regarding claim 14:
Choi teaches the conductive cover (140), the dielectric window (130), the hold area (area of 111 contacting 112), and the first region share a common central axis (see fig 8) [fig 8 & 0048, 0050, 0077].
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Choi teaches the magnet (21/52) is outside the chamber [Becker – fig 1 OR Yoshikawa – fig 1].
Regarding claim 16:
Choi teaches the conductive cover (140) is wider than the hold area (area of 111 contacting 112) [fig 8 & 0048, 0050, 0077].
Regarding claim 21:
Choi teaches the conductive cover (140) is wider than the substrate (112), wherein a backside of the substrate being aligned to be inside a hold area of a horizontal top surface of the holder (area of 111 contacting 112), the hold area (area of 111 contacting 112) being an area under the conductive cover (140) [fig 8 & 0048, 0050, 0077].
The claim limitations “wherein the AC EM power being absorbed in a heating zone located within a depth directly below the dielectric window, and wherein a width of a central flux tube at the ceiling is less than or equal to a width of the conductive cover, the central flux tube being a magnetic flux tube intercepting the hold area” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2008/0124254) in view of [Becker et al (US 7,811,941) OR Yoshikawa et al (US 2014/0124478)] as applied to claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21 above, and further in view of Comendant et al (US 2007/0181257).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Choi teaches a Faraday shield (faraday shield, 142) comprising a conductive layer with a pattern of slits (see fig 9) [Choi - fig 9 & 0054, 0077].
Modified Choi does not specifically disclose the shield being disposed in the chamber adjacent below the dielectric window.
Comendant teaches a Faraday shield (Faraday shield, 271) being disposed in the chamber adjacent below the dielectric window (111) [fig 6, 9 & 0064-0065].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Faraday shield of modified Choi to be disposed in the chamber adjacent below the dielectric window, as in Comendant, to prevent erosion of the window resulting from plasma sputter and shunts heat generated by an etching process away from the window [Comendant – abstract].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2008/0124254) in view of [Becker et al (US 7,811,941) OR Yoshikawa et al (US 2014/0124478)] as applied to claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21 above, and further in view of Cuomo et al (US 5,622,635).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Choi does not specifically disclose a portion of the magnet is disposed in the chamber.
Cuomo teaches a portion of the magnet (112) is disposed in the chamber (102) [fig 1 & col 3, lines 11-24].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnet of modified Choi to be disposed in the chamber, as in Cuomo, to shape the plasma during processing [Cuomo - col 3, lines 11-24].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2008/0124254) in view of [Becker et al (US 7,811,941) OR Yoshikawa et al (US 2014/0124478)] as applied to claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21 above, and further in view of Breitschwerdt et al (US 2002/0046987).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Choi does not specifically teach the magnet comprises a multiplicity of electromagnets, each electromagnet of the multiplicity of electromagnets comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix, the helix-shaped wire and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis.
Breitschwerdt teaches a multiplicity of electromagnets (21/21’), each electromagnet of the multiplicity of electromagnets (21/21’) comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix (wound from a copper wire), the helix-shaped wire and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0031].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnet of modified Choi to comprise a multiplicity of electromagnets, as in Breitschwerdt, to achieve more efficient plasma excitation due to the fact that a weaker and at the same time more homogeneous magnetic field prevails at the site of plasma generation and/or at the site of the substrate to be etched in comparison with the reactor wall and the edge areas than in the case when just one magnetic field coil is used [Breitschwerdt – 0009].
The claim limitations “wherein a first electromagnet of the multiplicity of electromagnets is configured to conduct a first DC current and a second electromagnet of the multiplicity of electromagnets is configured to conduct a second DC current different from the first DC current” 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishii et al (US 5,685,942), Tanaka et al (US 6,422,172), and Ni et al (US 6,716,303) teach a plasma processing chamber having a ceiling comprising a central conductive cover surrounded by a dielectric window [fig 5, 7, and 6, respectively].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896