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 without traverse of Group I (apparatus), drawn to claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 08/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/12/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that Applicant filed a PCT claiming priority to this application. Applicant has made no attempt to make the examiner aware of the PCT international search report. Furthermore, the listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanaka et al (US 2011/0284497).
Regarding claim 1:
Yamanaka teaches an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) station (100) [fig 1 & 0054], comprising: a plasma reactor having a chamber (discharge chamber, 25) with at least a first plasma cavity with a first plasma distribution zone (portion of 25 on the left of 1) aligned to a first axis and a second plasma cavity with a second plasma distribution zone (portion of 25 on the right of 1) aligned to a second axis [fig 1 & 0054, 0056]; a first plasma source (8 on the left) maintaining a first plasma in the first plasma distribution zone of the first plasma cavity (portion of 25 on the left of 1) [fig 1 & 0055]; and a second plasma source (8 on the right) maintaining a second plasma in the second plasma distribution zone of the second plasma cavity (portion of 25 on the right of 1) [fig 1 & 0055]; a transport arrangement (2/5) positioning a substrate (1) to be processed within the chamber (25) with the first axis normal to a first facet of the substrate and the second axis normal to a second facet of the substrate (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0056].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “with simultaneous processing applied to the first facet and the second facet of the substrate using the first plasma and the second plasma” 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 2:
Yamanaka teaches a magnetic field generator (magnet, 10) positioned around the chamber (25) generating magnetic flux in an annular region of the chamber that acts as bucking magnetic fields thereby inhibiting electron travel to a grounded surface of the chamber, for each such plasma cavity (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0056].
Regarding claims 3-4:
Yamanaka teaches the first and second plasma sources (8 on the left and right, respectively) each having a coil (coil) couped to an RF source (50) and arranged to inductively couple radio frequencies to gas in the chamber (25), such that each of the first plasma and the second plasma is an inductively coupled plasma [fig 1 & 0054-0055]; and wherein the coils (coils of 8) are formed in concentric, coplanar arrangement (three-turn coil) to generate electromagnetic field directed into a gas body, for each such plasma cavity (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0055].
Regarding claim 13:
Yamanaka teaches the transport arrangement (2/5) comprises a substrate holder (substrate holder, 2) having electrical bias contact (bias application mechanism, 4) to the substrate (1), arranged to charge the substrate and sustain current flow [fig 1 & 0056].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al (US 2011/0284497) as applied to claims 1-4 and 13 above, and further in view of Colpo et al (US 6,682,630).
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 13 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 5:
Yamanaka teaches the plasma reactor having a back wall (window, 9) comprising dielectric (made of dielectric material) [fig 1 & 0055].
Yamanaka does not specifically teach the dielectric being quartz or alumina compound.
Colpo teaches a dielectric (dielectric material sheet, 80) being quartz or alumina compound (quartz glass) [fig 6 & col 9, lines 37-43].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the dielectric window of Yamanaka to be quartz, as in Colpo, because such is a suitable material for a window [Colpo - col 9, lines 37-43]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Claim(s) 6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al (US 2011/0284497) as applied to claims 1-4 and 13 above, and further in view of Bluck et al (US 6,368,678).
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 13 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 6 and 9-10:
Yamanaka does not specifically disclose the plasma reactor comprises an annular magnetic array to provide magnetic flux in an annular region of the chamber, for each such plasma cavity; wherein the plasma reactor comprises a plurality of magnets that are arranged in alternating opposite polarity about an annular array, forming magnetic flux in an annular region of the chamber, for each such plasma cavity; and wherein the plasma reactor comprises a plurality of magnets arranged in an annulus and having magnetization vectors pointing to a center of the annulus alternating with magnetization vectors pointing from the center of the annulus, for each such plasma cavity
Bluck teaches an annular magnetic array (discrete permanent magnets, 102) to provide magnetic flux in an annular region of the chamber, for each such plasma cavity (see fig 1 and 5) [fig 1, 5 & col 9, lines 29-44]; a plurality of magnets (discrete permanent magnets, 102) that are arranged in alternating opposite polarity about an annular array, forming magnetic flux in an annular region of the chamber, for each such plasma cavity (see fig 1 and 5) [fig 1, 5 & col 9, lines 29-44]; and a plurality of magnets (discrete permanent magnets, 102) arranged in an annulus and having magnetization vectors pointing to a center of the annulus alternating with magnetization vectors pointing from the center of the annulus, for each such plasma cavity (see fig 1 and 5) [fig 1, 5 & col 9, lines 29-44].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the annular magnets of Yamanaka to be an annular magnetic array, as in Bluck, to provide ion confinement at the walls results in a more homogeneous plasma density in the core of the plasma [Bluck - col 9, lines 29-44].
Regarding claims 11-12:
Yamanaka does not specifically teach the plasma reactor comprises a plurality of magnets each greater than 5 mm wide; and wherein the plasma reactor comprises a plurality of magnets each greater than 20 mm wide.
Bluck teaches a plurality of magnets (discrete permanent magnets, 102) [fig 5 & col 9, lines 29-44].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify each magnet of Yamanaka to be a plurality of magnets, as in Bluck, to provide ion confinement at the walls results in a more homogeneous plasma density in the core of the plasma [Bluck - col 9, lines 29-44].
Furthermore, although Bluck does not specifically disclose the claimed widths of the magnets, it would have been an obvious select any desired width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al (US 2011/0284497) as applied to claims 1-4 and 13 above.
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 13 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:
Yamanaka teaches a length of the plasma cavity (distance from the discharge window to the substrate is, for example, 200 mm) is at least two thirds a diameter of the plasma cavity (120 mm), for each such plasma cavity [fig 1 & 0055, 0063].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al (US 2011/0284497) as applied to claims 1-4 and 13 above, and further in view of Moslehi et al (US 4,996,077).
The limitations of claims 1-4 and 13 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 8:
Yamanaka does not specifically teach a portion of a wall of the chamber comprises material capable of keepering the magnetic flux.
Moslehi teaches a portion of a wall of the chamber (iron plates) comprises material capable of keepering the magnetic flux (iron) [fig 5 & col 7-8, lines 52-8].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify a portion of a wall of the chamber of Yamanaka to comprise a material capable of keepering the magnetic flux, as in Moslehi, to adjust the penetration of the magnetic cusps into the chamber [Moslehi - col 7-8, lines 52-8].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanaka et al (US 2016/0097118) teaches an inductively coupled plasma station comprising a first and second plasma cavity [fig 1].
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