DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Claim Status
The amendment filed 06/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 6-16 are pending. Claims 9-16 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are under examination. In the amendment filed 2/10/2026, claim 1 was amended, claim 3 was canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 9-16 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 of the claim, the word “face” should be “faced” or “facing” so that the text reads “is configured to be faced to a bottom” or “is configured to be facing to a bottom”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivaramakrishnan (prev. presented US 6,132,517), as evidenced by Kim (prev. presented US 2007/0068623), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0325414 of Dhindsa et al., hereinafter Dhindsa.
Regarding claim 1, Sivaramakrishnan teaches a processing apparatus (Fig 3), comprising: a chamber (chamber housing 14 including sidewall 16 and upper dome 18 and lower dome 20 Fig 3; col 3, ln 50-60 ); a wafer carrier (34 Fig 3), extended into the chamber (Fig 3), wherein the wafer carrier further comprises a reversible plane (col 4, ln 5-15; may be surface 40) which is configured to be faced to a bottom surface of the chamber (may be surface 40 as shown in Fig 3); at least one gas inlet (26, 28 Fig 3), disposed around the chamber (Fig 3); and at least one electrode (RF induction coils 48, 50, 52, 54 Fig 3; col 4, ln 10-15) disposed on the chamber (Fig 3). Kim provides evidence that the RF induction coils are electrodes (see [0026] and [0039] which indicate that induction coils are considered plasma chamber electrodes). Sivaramakrishnan fails to teach a containment ring, disposed between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber. In the same field of endeavor of plasma apparatuses (abstract), Dhindsa teaches a containment ring (confinement ring 202 Fig 2 used to contain or confine plasma [0041] or 110a-d Fig 1) disposed between he substrate supporting surface (see substrate 102 on surface of 104 Fig 1 or see unnumbered substrate support within ring 210 Fig 2 with surface facing 204 to support substrate) and the upper surface of the chamber (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sivaramakrishnan to include the containment ring (confinement ring) taught by Dhindsa because Dhindsa teaches this arrangement allow for confining and pressure control of the plasma region [0005] and to control plasma formation and protect processing chamber parts [0032]. Regarding being disposed between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber, the position as taught by Dhindsa is between the substrate supporting surface and the surface of the chamber facing the substrate supporting surface. Therefore, in Sivaramakrishnan in which the substrate supporting surface faces the bottom surface of the chamber, the positioning of the containment (confinement) ring is between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber. Sivaramakrishnan teaches the chamber is configured to generate etching plasma between the wafer carrier and a bottom surface of the chamber (apparatus of Fig 3 is capable of forming plasma below the wafer carrier 34 (col 4, ln 15-20); note that while the specific plasma being etching is directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation, Sivaramakrishnan teaches the apparatus may be used with etching and therefore is configured to generate etching plasma (col 6, ln 67)). Regarding, wherein a space within the chamber, under the reversible plane, and between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber is configured to confine etching plasma generation therein, Dhindsa as applied in the combination teaches the confinement ring is to confine plasma to the space within the confinement ring [0005]. Therefore, in the combination as applied herein the space under the reversible plane and between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber is the space surrounded by the confinement ring and thus is configured to confine the plasma. Regarding specifically etching, this is directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation. The plasma confinement ring is able to confine plasma of different chemical components and therefore is configured to confine an etching plasma or a deposition plasma.
Regarding claim 2, Sivaramakrishnan teaches the gas inlet (28 Fig 3) is disposed on a sidewall below the wafer carrier (gas inlets 28 Fig 3 are below wafer carrier 34 and on the sidewall 16).
Regarding claim 6, Sivaramakrishnan teaches the reversible plane comprises an electrostatic chuck (abstract and col 4, ln 37-57 chucking surface 40 is an electrostatic chuck).
Regarding claim 7, Sivaramakrishnan, as evidenced by Kim, remains as applied to claim 1 above. Sivaramakrishnan further teaches an air valve (valve 62 Fig 4) connected to the chamber (Fig 4). Sivaramakrishnan fails to teach the valve is disposed below the chamber. This represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the valve in the exhaust line 58 to be positioned below the chamber (note this is inclusive of either changing the position of where the exhaust line is attached to the chamber or changing the positioning of the exhaust line outside of the chamber to be bent under the chamber). Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 8, Sivaramakrishnan teaches a pump (60 Fig 4) disposed under the air valve (62 Fig 4).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-8 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivaramakrishnan in view of Forster (prev. presented US 5,685,941) and Dhindsa.
This rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively in the event applicant can demonstrate that inductive coils are not a type of electrode.
Regarding claim 1, Sivaramakrishnan teaches a processing apparatus (Fig 3), comprising: a chamber (chamber housing 14 including sidewall 16 and upper dome 18 and lower dome 20 Fig 3; col 3, ln 50-60 ); a wafer carrier (34 Fig 3), extended into the chamber (Fig 3), wherein the wafer carrier further comprises a reversible plane (col 4, ln 5-15; may be surface 40) which is configured to be faced to a bottom surface of the chamber (may be surface 40 as shown in Fig 3); at least one gas inlet (26, 28 Fig 3), disposed around the chamber (Fig 3); and at least one electrode (RF induction coils 48, 50, 52, 54 Fig 3; col 4, ln 10-15) disposed on the chamber (Fig 3). In the same field of endeavor of plasma processing (abstract), Forster teaches that an auxiliary electrode (180 Fig 3) is provided with induction coils (140 Fig 3) to enhance the reliability of plasma ignition (col 4, ln 10-25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an auxiliary electrode with the RF induction coils of Sivaramakrishnan because Forster teaches this improves reliability of plasma ignition. Sivaramakrishnan fails to teach a containment ring, disposed between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber. In the same field of endeavor of plasma apparatuses (abstract), Dhindsa teaches a containment ring (confinement ring 202 Fig 2 used to contain or confine plasma [0041] or 110a-d Fig 1) disposed between he substrate supporting surface (see substrate 102 on surface of 104 Fig 1 or see unnumbered substrate support within ring 210 Fig 2 with surface facing 204 to support substrate) and the upper surface of the chamber (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sivaramakrishnan to include the containment ring (confinement ring) taught by Dhindsa because Dhindsa teaches this arrangement allow for confining and pressure control of the plasma region [0005] and to control plasma formation and protect processing chamber parts [0032]. Regarding being disposed between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber, the position as taught by Dhindsa is between the substrate supporting surface and the surface of the chamber facing the substrate supporting surface. Therefore in Sivaramakrishnan in which the substrate supporting surface faces the bottom surface of the chamber, the positioning of the containment (confinement) ring is between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber. Sivaramakrishnan teaches the chamber is configured to generate etching plasma between the wafer carrier and a bottom surface of the chamber (apparatus of Fig 3 is capable of forming plasma below the wafer carrier 34 (col 4, ln 15-20); note that while the specific plasma being etching is directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation, Sivaramakrishnan teaches the apparatus may be used with etching and therefore is configured to generate etching plasma (col 6, ln 67)). Regarding, wherein a space within the chamber, under the reversible plane, and between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber is configured to confine etching plasma generation therein, Dhindsa as applied in the combination teaches the confinement ring is to confine plasma to the space within the confinement ring [0005]. Therefore, in the combination as applied herein the space under the reversible plane and between the reversible plane and the bottom surface of the chamber is the space surrounded by the confinement ring and thus is configured to confine the plasma. Regarding specifically etching, this is directed to the contents of the apparatus during operation. The plasma confinement ring is able to confine plasma of different chemical components and therefore is configured to confine an etching plasma or a deposition plasma.
Regarding claim 2, Sivaramakrishnan teaches the gas inlet (28 Fig 3) is disposed on a sidewall below the wafer carrier (gas inlets 28 Fig 3 are below wafer carrier 34 and on the sidewall 16).
Regarding claim 6, Sivaramakrishnan teaches the reversible plane comprises an electrostatic chuck (abstract and col 4, ln 37-57 chucking surface 40 is an electrostatic chuck).
Regarding claim 7, Sivaramakrishnan in view of Forster, remains as applied to claim 1 above. Sivaramakrishnan further teaches an air valve (valve 62 Fig 4) connected to the chamber (Fig 4). Sivaramakrishnan fails to teach the valve is disposed below the chamber. This represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the valve in the exhaust line 58 to be positioned below the chamber (note this is inclusive of either changing the position of where the exhaust line is attached to the chamber or changing the positioning of the exhaust line outside of the chamber to be bent under the chamber). Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, Forster teaches a valve (shown not numbered in exhaust line connected to the pump in Fig 3) below the chamber (chamber is 110 in Fig 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sivaramakrishnan to include the air valve below the chamber because Forster demonstrates this as a functional alternative position for exhausting the chamber (pumping down see col 2, ln 15-22).
Regarding claim 8, Sivaramakrishnan teaches a pump (60 Fig 4) disposed under the air valve (62 Fig 4). Further Forster teaches a pump disposed below the air valve (see “pump” in Fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments regarding the prior art rejection (reply p7-8) rely on the argument that because Sivaramakrishnan teaches processing above and below the wafer the reference does not include the space to confine plasma generation therein. This argument is not persuasive because in combination with Dhindsa, the art teaches a confinement ring which causes confinement of the plasma. The claims do not limit plasma to only the location in which plasma is confined if the apparatus includes additional plasma generating structures. Further, the apparatus is capable of being operated without the upper plasma generation being used. Therefore, the apparatus is configured to confine plasma as claimed. It is noted that Kim is not relied on to teach the confinement ring and therefore the argument that Kim does not teach the amended limitations is moot. The argument that Dhindsa teaches the confinement ring above the substrate (p8-9) is not persuasive because the combination as applied includes positioning the confinement ring below the substrate support where substrate processing using a plasma occurs. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is noted that Forster is not relied on to teach the confinement ring and therefore the argument that Forster does not teach the amended limitations is moot.
The arguments regarding the remaining claims rely on the alleged failing of the art to teach the amended limitations of claim 1 which has been addressed above. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0101964 teaches a substrate support that is reversible (Fig 2A-2B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights