DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5, last line, there should be only one period.
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 (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.
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.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa (U.S. PGPUB. 2009/0126634 A1) in view of Shamouilian et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,095,084).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Yamazawa teaches a processing chamber applicable for semiconductor manufacturing comprising one or more sidewalls; a plate at least partially defining a processing volume; a substrate support disposed in the processing volume; a first electrode disposed outwardly of the processing volume, wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a radio frequency power source; a second electrode coupled to the substrate support and a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode, the first electrode is disposed at a gap from the plate. (Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
671
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between claim 1 and Yamazawa is that one or more heat sources operable to heat the processing volume is not discussed (Claim 1) and the second electrode is embedded in the substrate support is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding one or more heat sources operable to heat the processing volume (Claim 1), Yamazawa teaches utilizing a thermally conductive gas to conduct heat. (Paragraph 0037) Shamouilian et al. teach utilizing heaters 115 for providing consistent and stable plasma conditions. (Column 8 lines 30-65)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shamouilian et al. is that it allows providing consistent and stable plasma conditions utilizing heaters for temperature control. (Column 8 lines 30-65)
Regarding the second electrode embedded in the substrate support (Claim 1),Shamouilian et al. teach a second electrode embedded in a substrate support. (See Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
304
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The motivation for utilizing the substrate support of Shamouilian et al. is that it allows for controlling the direction of the plasma. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Yamazawa by utilizing the features of Shamouilian et al. because it allows for producing stable controllable plasma conditions with direction control.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa in view of Shamouilian et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,352,049).
The difference not yet discussed is a flow housing disposed at least partially outwardly of the one or more sidewalls; and one or more (RF) coils disposed at least partially around the flow housing.
Regarding claim 4, Yin et al. teach a flow housing disposed at least partially outwardly of the one or more sidewalls; and one or more (RF) coils disposed at least partially around the flow housing. (Figs. 1, 2B, 2C, 2D; See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yin et al. is that it allows for controlling species density. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Yin et al. because it allows for controlling species density.
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa (U.S. PGPUB. 2009/0126634 A1) in view of Shamouilian et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,095,084).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Yamazawa teaches a method of substrate processing comprising disposing a substrate in a processing volume, a plate at least partially defining the processing volume, wherein a first electrode is disposed outwardly of the processing volume, wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a RF power source, a second electrode coupled to a substrate support and a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode, wherein the first electrode is disposed at a gap from the plate; flowing one or more gases over the substrate; flowing a gas to the processing volume and applying power to the processing volume while flowing the gas to generate a plasma. (See Fig. 3 annotated above; Paragraphs 0057-0060)
The difference between Yamazawa and claim 17 is that heating a substrate to a target temperature is not discussed (Claim 17), the second electrode being embedded in the substrate support is not discussed (Claim 17).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the power is applied across the processing volume between the first electrode and the second electrode coupled to the substrate support.
Regarding claim 18, Yamazawa teaches wherein the power is applied across the processing volume between the first electrode and the second electrode coupled to the substrate support. (Paragraphs 0057-0060)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a magnetic field is generated across at least part of the plasma.
Regarding claim 19, Shamouilian et al. teach wherein a magnetic field is generated across
at least part of the plasma. (Column 17 lines 29-33)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field is angled relative to a gas flow path of the gas.
Regarding claim 20, Shamouilian et al. teach wherein the magnetic field is angled relative to a gas flow path of the gas. (Fig. 2)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shamouilian et al. is that it allows for
providing consistent and stable plasma conditions (Column 8 lines 30-65) with controlled direction of the plasma. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Yamazawa by utilizing the features of Shamouilian et al. because it allows for providing consistent and stable plasma conditions with controlled direction of the plasma.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trow et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,824,607) in view of Yamazawa (U.S. PGPUB. 2009/0126634 A1) and Shamouilian et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,095,084).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Trow et al. teach a processing chamber applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: one or more sidewalls (Fig. 1); a plate at least partially defining an processing volume ; a substrate support disposed in the processing volume; one or more heat sources operable to heat the processing volume (Column 4 lines 40-50 - heating the walls thus heating the processing volume); and a plurality of magnets configured to generate a magnetic field across at least a section of the processing volume (Figs. 1, 2 - 81A-C; Column 6 lines 7-24)
Trow et al. teach a first electrode 17T wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a RF power source. (Figs. 1, 2 - 81A-C; Column 6 lines 7-24)
The difference between Trow et al. and claim 5 is that the first electrode being disposed outwardly of the process volume is not discussed (Claim 5), the first electrode being disposed at a gap from the plate is not discussed (Claim 5), and a second electrode coupled to the substrate support and a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode, and the second electrode embedded in the substrate support is not discussed (Claim 5).
Regarding the first electrode being disposed outwardly of the process volume and the first electrode being disposed at a gap from the plate (Claim 5):
Trow et al. teach a first electrode 17T. (See Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
163
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yamazawa teach a first electrode being disposed outwardly of the process volume and the first electrode being disposed at a gap from the plate. (See Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image4.png
314
541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the first electrode arrangement of Trow et al. with the electrode arrangement of Yamazawa because it allows for controlling capacitance (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding a second electrode coupled to the substrate support and a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode, and the second electrode embedded in the substrate support (Claim 5):
Trow et al. teach a second electrode.
PNG
media_image5.png
271
201
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Shamouilian et al. teach a second electrode coupled to the substrate support and a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode, and the second electrode embedded in the substrate support. (See Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
304
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have replaced the substrate holder of Trow et al. with the substrate holder of Shamouilian et al. because it allows for controlling the direction of plasma. (See Abstract)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
Regarding claim 7, Trow et al. teach wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets comprises a magnetic ring. (Figs. 1,2 - 81A-C; Column 6 lines 7-24)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Trow et al. teach further comprising: a lid assembly, the lid assembly comprising: an outer wall; an inner wall; and one or more magnets disposed at least partially around the lid assembly. (Fig. 1, 2; Column 3 lines 60-68; Column 4 lines 1-3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
Regarding claim 12, Trow et al. teach wherein the lid assembly further comprises: a gas inlet; and one or more RF coils disposed out least partially about the outer wall. (Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
Regarding claim 13, Trow et al. teach wherein the magnetic field is about curved. (Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
Regarding claim 14, Trow et al. teach wherein the plurality of magnets are configured to generate a magnetic field that is angled relative to a gas flow path. (Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Trow et al. teach wherein the plurality of magnets are disposed at least partially about the plate and a window, and the plurality of magnets are operable to generate the magnetic field across at least a section of the processing volume. (Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
Regarding claim 16, Trow et al. teach wherein the plurality of magnets comprise one or more first magnets and one or more second magnets disposed radially outwardly of the one or more first magnets. (Fig. 2 - 81A-81C)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yamazawa is that it allows for controlling capacitance. (Paragraph 0052)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shamouilian et al. is that it allows for
providing consistent and stable plasma conditions (Column 8 lines 30-65) with controlled direction of the plasma. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have modified Trow et al. by utilizing the features of Yamazawa and Shamouilian et al. because it
Claim(s) 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trow et al. in view of Yamazawa and Shamouilian et al. as applied to claims 5, 7, 10, 12-16 above, and further in view of Brcka (U.S. Pat. 7,556,718).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of magnets comprises a first magnet set and a second magnet set, the first and second magnet sets respectively comprising a plurality of curved sections.
Regarding claim 6, Brcka teach wherein the plurality of magnets comprises a first magnet set and a second magnet set, the first and second magnet sets respectively comprising a plurality of curved sections. (See Figs. 3, 3A)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets is coupled to one or more actuators operable to move the respective magnet.
Regarding claim 8, Trow et al. teach wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets is coupled to one or more actuators operable to move the respective magnet. (See Fig. 2)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Brcka is that it allows for moving the plasma. (Column 3 lines 1-7)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Brcka is that it allows for moving the plasma. (Column 3 lines 1-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Brcka because it allows for moving the plasma.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trow et al. in view of Yamazawa and Shamouilian et al. as applied to claims 5, 7, 10, 12-16 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,352,049).
The difference not yet discussed is a flow housing disposed at least partially outwardly of the one or more sidewalls; and one or more (RF) coils disposed at least partially around the flow housing wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets is disposed at least partially about the flow housing.
Regarding claim 9, Yin et al. teach a flow housing disposed at least partially outwardly of the one or more sidewalls; and one or more (RF) coils disposed at least partially around the flow housing. (Figs. 1,2B,2C, 2D; See Abstract) Combined with Trow et al. one of the magnets would be disposed at least partially about the flow housing.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yin et al. is that it allows for controlling species density. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Yin et al. because it allows for controlling species density.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trow et al. in view of Yamazawa and Shamouilian et al. as applied to claims 5, 7, 10, 12-16 above, and further in view of Ghanbari (U.S. Pat. 4,778,561).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnets comprise a plurality of second magnets disposed inwardly of the inner wall.
Regarding claim 11, Ghanbari teach utilizing magnets exterior and interior to a chamber. (See Figs. 1, 2)
The motivation for utilizing Ghanbari arrangements of magnets is that it allows for producing uniform plasma. (Column 4 lines 61-62)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Ghanbari because it allows producing uniform plasma.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2025 have been fully considered.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach “a first electrode disposed outwardly of the processing volume, wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a radio frequency (RF) power source; and a second electrode coupled to the substrate support; and a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode, wherein the first electrode is disposed at a gap from the plate, and the second electrode is embedded in the substrate support.”, it is argued that the combined references discussed above teach the claimed subject matter. More specifically Yamazawa teach the required first electrode as discussed above.
This action will be made non-Final based on the newly applied reference to Yamazawa.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
October 8, 2025
Prosecution Insights