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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 22, 2026 has been entered.
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
Shamouilian et al. (U.S. 6,095,084) in view of Long et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2012/0322270 A1), Swaminathan et al. (U.S. PGPUB.2016/0375491 A1), and Yamazawa (U.S. PGPUB. 2009/0126634 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Shamouilian et al. teach 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, the substrate support having an upper surface configured to support a substrate; one or more heat sources operable to heat the processing volume, the one or more heat sources comprising a plurality of upper heat sources disposed between a lid of the processing chamber and the plate; a second electrode coupled to the substrate support; and the second electrode is embedded in the substrate support. (Fig. 2)
The difference between Shamouilian et al. and claim 1 is that 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 is not discussed (Claim 1), wherein the first electrode has a mesh structure that allows electromagnetic radiation from the plurality of upper heat sources to propagate through the first electrode toward the substrate support is not discussed (Claim 1), a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode is not discussed (Claim 1) and wherein the first electrode is disposed at a gap from the plate is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding 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 (Claim 1):
Long et al. teach a first electrode 108 disposed outwardly of the processing volume, wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a radio frequency (RF) power source. (Fig. 1A; Paragraph 0045-0050)
Regarding wherein the first electrode has a mesh structure that allows electromagnetic radiation from the plurality of upper heat sources to propagate through the first electrode toward the substrate support (Claim 1):
Long et al. teach the grid 108 as an electrode that can have any shape. (Paragraph 0049 - Still further, the powered grid 108 can be defined from any number of patterns instead of the spoke pattern shown in FIG. 2. Essentially, the patterns can take on any number of shapes so long as gaps or spaces are defined between the metallic material to enable the TCP power provided by the coils to be transferred to the plasma within the chamber.) Furthermore Long et al. teach that the powered grid 108 acts as a Faraday shield. (Paragraph 0050 - It should be understood that the powered grid 108, in some circumstances, may be referred to as a type of Faraday shield or powered Faraday shield.)
Swaminathan et al. teach that a Faraday cage can comprise a conductive mesh that allows light to pass through. (Paragraph 0014)
It would be obvious to modify Long et al.’s grid shape with the mesh shape of Swaminathan et al. because it allows for the electrode to perform as a Faraday shield while allowing light to pass through.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to place the combination of Swaminathan et al. and Long et al. into the apparatus of Shamouilian et al. between the coils and lamps because it allows for preventing deposits on the window (Long et al. Paragraph 0013) and for allowing light to pass through and operate as a Faraday cage for shielding (Swaminathan et al. Paragraph 0014).
Regarding a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode (Claim 1):
Yamazawa teaches using a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode. (See Fig. 3)
Regarding wherein the first electrode is disposed at a gap from the plate (Claim 1):
Long et al. teach a gap between the window and the electrode 108. (Paragraph 0053 - [0053] FIG. 4 illustrates a three-dimensional view of the powered grid 108 disposed over the dielectric window 106. As shown, the powered grid 108, and it's substrate 107 are disposed in a substantial flat orientation over the dielectric window 106. The substrate 107 is in direct contact with the dielectric window 106. In another embodiment, a space may be provided between the substrate 107 and the powered grid 108. In still another embodiment, the powered grid 108 can be defined from a metallic material that does not require a substrate 107. The metallic material would have sufficient rigidity to be placed over the dielectric window 106 in a spaced apart orientation. Alternatively, if the powered grid 108 is formed from a metallic material without a substrate, the powered grid 108 can be directly placed over the dielectric window 106. Accordingly, it should be understood that the powered grid 108 can take on any number of physical configurations, so long as the powered grid 108 can be independently powered, and can be placed, connected, attached, or positioned over the dielectric window 106.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Long et al. is that it allows for preventing deposits on the window (Long et al. Paragraph 0013).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Swaminathan et al. is that it allows for allowing light to pass through and operate as a Faraday cage for shielding (Swaminathan et al. Paragraph 0014).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yamazawa is that it allows for providing RF power to the substrate. (See Fig. 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shamouilian et al. by utilizing the features of Long et al., Swaminathan et al. and Yamazawa because it allows for preventing deposits on the window, allowing light to pass through while operating as a faraday cage for shielding and for providing RF power to the substrate.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamouilian et al. in view of Long et al., Swaminathan et al., Yamazawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,352,049).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: 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) 5, 7, 10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamouilian et al. (U.S. 6,095,084) in view of Trow et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,824,607), Long et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2012/0322270 A1), Swaminathan et al. (U.S. PGPUB.2016/0375491 A1), Yamazawa (U.S. PGPUB. 2009/0126634 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Shamouilian et al. teach 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, the substrate support having an upper surface configured to support a substrate; one or more heat sources operable to heat the processing volume, the one or more heat sources comprising a plurality of upper heat sources disposed between a lid of the processing chamber and the plate; a second electrode coupled to the substrate support; and the second electrode is embedded in the substrate support. (Fig. 2)
The difference between Shamouilian et al. and claim 1 is that a plurality of magnets configured to generate a magnetic field across at least a section of the processing volume is not discussed (Claim 5), 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 is not discussed (Claim 5), wherein the first electrode has a mesh structure that allows electromagnetic radiation from the plurality of upper heat sources to propagate through the first electrode toward the substrate support is not discussed (Claim 5), a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode is not discussed (Claim 5) and wherein the first electrode is disposed at a gap from the plate is not discussed (Claim 5).
Regarding a plurality of magnets configured to generate a magnetic field across at least a section of the processing volume (Claim 5):
Trow et al. teach utilizing 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)
Regarding 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 (Claim 5):
Long et al. teach a first electrode 108 disposed outwardly of the processing volume, wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a radio frequency (RF) power source. (Fig. 1A; Paragraph 0045-0050)
Regarding wherein the first electrode has a mesh structure that allows electromagnetic radiation from the plurality of upper heat sources to propagate through the first electrode toward the substrate support (Claim 5):
Long et al. teach the grid 108 as an electrode that can have any shape. (Paragraph 0049 - Still further, the powered grid 108 can be defined from any number of patterns instead of the spoke pattern shown in FIG. 2. Essentially, the patterns can take on any number of shapes so long as gaps or spaces are defined between the metallic material to enable the TCP power provided by the coils to be transferred to the plasma within the chamber.) Furthermore Long et al. teach that the powered grid 108 acts as a Faraday shield. (Paragraph 0050 - It should be understood that the powered grid 108, in some circumstances, may be referred to as a type of Faraday shield or powered Faraday shield.)
Swaminathan et al. teach that a Faraday cage can comprise a conductive mesh that allows light to pass through. (Paragraph 0014)
It would be obvious to modify Long et al.’s grid shape with the mesh shape of Swaminathan et al. because it allows for the electrode to perform as a Faraday shield while allowing light to pass through.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to place the combination of Swaminathan et al. and Long et al. into the apparatus of Shamouilian et al. between the coils and lamps because it allows for preventing deposits on the window (Long et al. Paragraph 0013) and for allowing light to pass through and operate as a Faraday cage for shielding (Swaminathan et al. Paragraph 0014).
Regarding a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode (Claim 5):
Yamazawa teaches using a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode. (See Fig. 3)
Regarding wherein the first electrode is disposed at a gap from the plate (Claim 5):
Long et al. teach a gap between the window and the electrode 108. (Paragraph 0053 - [0053] FIG. 4 illustrates a three-dimensional view of the powered grid 108 disposed over the dielectric window 106. As shown, the powered grid 108, and it's substrate 107 are disposed in a substantial flat orientation over the dielectric window 106. The substrate 107 is in direct contact with the dielectric window 106. In another embodiment, a space may be provided between the substrate 107 and the powered grid 108. In still another embodiment, the powered grid 108 can be defined from a metallic material that does not require a substrate 107. The metallic material would have sufficient rigidity to be placed over the dielectric window 106 in a spaced apart orientation. Alternatively, if the powered grid 108 is formed from a metallic material without a substrate, the powered grid 108 can be directly placed over the dielectric window 106. Accordingly, it should be understood that the powered grid 108 can take on any number of physical configurations, so long as the powered grid 108 can be independently powered, and can be placed, connected, attached, or positioned over the dielectric window 106.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets comprises a magnet ring.
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:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a lid assembly, the lid assembly comprising an outer wall; an inner wall; and one or more magnets is disposed at least partially around the lid assembly is not discussed.
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:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the lid assembly further comprises a gas inlet and one or more RF coils is disposed at least partially about the outer wall is not discussed.
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:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetic field is about curved.
Regarding claim 13, Trow et al. teach wherein the magnetic field is about curved. (Fig. 2) DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of magnets are configured to generate a magnetic field that is angled relative to the gas flow path.
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:
The difference not yet discussed is 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.
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:
The difference not yet discussed is 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.
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 Trow et al is that it allows for controlling the plasma flux. (Column 6 lines 7-24)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Long et al. is that it allows for preventing deposits on the window (Long et al. Paragraph 0013).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Swaminathan et al. is that it allows for allowing light to pass through and operate as a Faraday cage for shielding (Swaminathan et al. Paragraph 0014).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yamazawa is that it allows for providing RF power to the substrate. (See Fig. 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shamouilian et al. by utilizing the features of Trow et al., Long et al., Swaminathan et al. and Yamazawa because it allows for controlling the plasma flux, for preventing deposits on the window, allowing light to pass through while operating as a faraday cage for shielding and for providing RF power to the substrate.
Claim(s) 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamouilian et al. in view of Trow et al., Long et al., Swaminathan et al. and Yamazawa 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, Brcka 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)
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 Shamouilian et al. in view of Trow et al., Long et al., Swaminathan et al. and Yamazawa 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 Shamouilian et al. in view of Trow et al., Long et al., Swaminathan et al. and Yamazawa 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.
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (JP 04-255223 A) in view of Long et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2012/0322270 A1), Shamouilian et al. (U.S. 6,095,084), Yamazawa (U.S. PGPUB. 2009/0126634 A1), and Swaminathan et al. (U.S. PGPUB.2016/0375491 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
Regarding claim 17, Fukuda et al. teach a method of substrate processing comprising:
heating a substrate positioned on an upper surface of a substrate support to a target temperature (Paragraph 0021 - [0021] By using a lamp that emits light in a wavelength range that can efficiently heat the substrate 12 as a lamp, the substrate temperature can be raised to a set temperature (for example, 1100 ° C.) in a short time, and the substrate temperature can be increased. Of the substrate 12 from which the natural oxide film and impurities are removed can be substantially uniformly heated.), the substate 12 disposed in the process volume (Fig.1), a plate at least partially defining the processing volume (Fig. 1 – 161a),
flowing one or more process gases (i.e. hydrogen) over the substrate (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0030-032 -
[0030] After the evacuation, the valves 36a and 36d are opened to introduce a reducing gas, for example, hydrogen H2 gas into the reaction furnace 14. At this time, since the removal of the native oxide film from the substrate 12 and the removal of impurities from the substrate 12 are performed in a reduced pressure state in the reaction furnace 14, the inside of the reaction furnace 14 into which the reducing gas is introduced is reduced in pressure. For this reason, while introducing the reducing gas, the pressure adjusting valve 30 is operated to adjust the opening degree of the valve and to adjust the flow rate of the reducing gas. These adjustments are performed so that the inside of the reaction furnace 14 becomes, for example, about 1 × 10 −2 Torr. Adjustment of the gas flow rate is performed using gas flow rate adjusting means (not shown) such as a flow meter, as is usually performed.
[0031] Under this reduced pressure, the RF power supply 24 is turned on, and the reducing gas is plasma-discharged by, for example, setting the RF power to about 150 W and the discharge time to about 10 minutes. The natural oxide film of the substrate 12 is removed mainly by the reducing action of the reducing gas and the etching action by the reducing gas chemically activated by the plasma discharge, and the substrate 12 is mainly etched by the etching action of the reducing gas. Carbon and other impurities attached to the surface are removed. That is, the natural oxide film and the impurities are removed by performing RF discharge on the reducing gas introduced into the reaction furnace 14.
[0032] Preferably, the substrate 12 is heated by using the heating unit 18 during the plasma discharge, and the amount of the natural oxide film and impurities removed per unit time can be increased by this heating.)
Flowing a gas (i.e. oxygen) to the processing volume and applying power to the processing while flowing the gas (i.e. oxygen) to generate a plasma. (Paragraphs 0035-0037 –
[0035] After the evacuation, the valves 36b and 36d are opened to introduce an oxidizing gas, for example, oxygen O2 gas into the reaction furnace 14. At this time, since the formation of the thermal oxide film on the substrate 12 is performed in a reduced pressure state in the reaction furnace 14, the inside of the reaction furnace 14 into which the oxidizing gas is introduced is set in a reduced pressure state. Therefore, the pressure regulating valve 30 is adjusted while introducing the oxidizing gas, and the flow rate of the oxidizing gas is adjusted. These adjustments are performed so that the inside of the reaction furnace 14 becomes, for example, about 1 × 10 −2 Torr.
[0036] Under this reduced pressure, the RF power supply 24 is turned on, and the oxidizing gas is plasma-discharged at an RF power of about 40 W, for example. At the start of the discharge or immediately after the start of the discharge, the heating unit 18 is turned on to irradiate the substrate 12 with infrared light, thereby heating the substrate 12 to an arbitrary suitable predetermined temperature. This heating is performed until the substrate surface temperature (set temperature) reaches 1000 ° C. while monitoring the substrate surface temperature with the measuring device 26, for example, at a heating rate of the substrate surface temperature of 100 ° C./sec. Then, the substrate 12 is heated for about 20 seconds while maintaining the substrate surface temperature at approximately 1000 ° C. When heated in this manner, a thermal oxide film having a thickness of 100 to 300 A (angstrom) can be formed.
[0037] The reaction products generated during the formation of the oxide film are discharged outside the reaction furnace 14 because the pressure inside the reaction furnace 14 is reduced. The RF discharge stops simultaneously with or after the substrate heating is stopped. Also, by appropriately setting the gas flow rate of the oxidizing gas, the holding temperature of the substrate surface, the heating time of the substrate, and other heating conditions, an oxide film having any suitable thickness can be formed.)
The differences between claim 17 and Fukuda is that wherein a first electrode is disposed outwardly of the processing volume is not discussed (Claim 17), wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a radio frequency (RF) power source is not discussed (Claim 17), a second electrode is coupled to the substrate support is not discussed (Claim 17), a conductive rod is electrically coupled to the second electrode is not discussed (Claim 17), wherein the first electrode is disposed at a gap from the plate is not discussed (Claim 17), and the second electrode is embedded in the substrate support is not discussed (Claim 17), and wherein the first electrode has a mesh structure, and the heating comprises propagating electromagnetic radiation from a plurality of upper heat sources disposed between a lid and the plate through the mesh structure of the first electrode and through the plate toward the substrate is not discussed (Claim 17).
Regarding wherein a first electrode is disposed outwardly of the processing volume (Claim 17):
Long et al. teach a first electrode 108 disposed outwardly of the processing volume, wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a radio frequency (RF) power source. (Fig. 1A; Paragraph 0045-0050)
Regarding wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a radio frequency (RF) power source (Claim 17):
Long et al. teach a first electrode 108 disposed outwardly of the processing volume, wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically coupled to a radio frequency (RF) power source. (Fig. 1A; Paragraph 0045-0050)
Regarding a second electrode is coupled to the substrate support (Claim 17),
Shamouilian et al. teach a second electrode coupled to a substrate support. (Fig. 2)
Regarding a conductive rod is electrically coupled to the second electrode (Claim 17):
Yamazawa teaches using a conductive rod electrically coupled to the second electrode. (See Fig. 3)
Regarding wherein the first electrode is disposed at a gap from the plate (Claim 17):
Long et al. teach a gap between the window and the electrode 108. (Paragraph 0053 - [0053] FIG. 4 illustrates a three-dimensional view of the powered grid 108 disposed over the dielectric window 106. As shown, the powered grid 108, and it's substrate 107 are disposed in a substantial flat orientation over the dielectric window 106. The substrate 107 is in direct contact with the dielectric window 106. In another embodiment, a space may be provided between the substrate 107 and the powered grid 108. In still another embodiment, the powered grid 108 can be defined from a metallic material that does not require a substrate 107. The metallic material would have sufficient rigidity to be placed over the dielectric window 106 in a spaced apart orientation. Alternatively, if the powered grid 108 is formed from a metallic material without a substrate, the powered grid 108 can be directly placed over the dielectric window 106. Accordingly, it should be understood that the powered grid 108 can take on any number of physical configurations, so long as the powered grid 108 can be independently powered, and can be placed, connected, attached, or positioned over the dielectric window 106.)
Regarding the second electrode is embedded in the substrate support (Claim 17):
Shamouilian et al. teach a second electrode embedded in the substrate support. (Fig. 2)
Regarding wherein the first electrode has a mesh structure, and the heating comprises propagating electromagnetic radiation from a plurality of upper heat sources disposed between a lid and the plate through the mesh structure of the first electrode and through the plate toward the substrate (Claim 17):
Long et al. teach the grid 108 as an electrode that can have any shape. (Paragraph 0049 - Still further, the powered grid 108 can be defined from any number of patterns instead of the spoke pattern shown in FIG. 2. Essentially, the patterns can take on any number of shapes so long as gaps or spaces are defined between the metallic material to enable the TCP power provided by the coils to be transferred to the plasma within the chamber.) Furthermore Long et al. teach that the powered grid 108 acts as a Faraday shield. (Paragraph 0050 - It should be understood that the powered grid 108, in some circumstances, may be referred to as a type of Faraday shield or powered Faraday shield.)
Swaminathan et al. teach that a Faraday cage can comprise a conductive mesh that allows light to pass through. (Paragraph 0014)
It would be obvious to modify Long et al.’s grid shape with the mesh shape of Swaminathan et al. because it allows for the electrode to perform as a Faraday shield while allowing light to pass through.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to place the combination of Swaminathan et al. and Long et al. into the apparatus of Shamouilian et al. between the coils and lamps because it allows for preventing deposits on the window (Long et al. Paragraph 0013) and for allowing light to pass through and operate as a Faraday cage for shielding (Swaminathan et al. Paragraph 0014).
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, the combination of references suggest this limitation.
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 – 280)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Long et al. is that it allows for preventing deposits on the window (Long et al. Paragraph 0013).
The motivation for utilizing the substrate support of Shamouilian et al. is that it allows for controlling the direction of the plasma. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yamazawa is that it allows for providing RF power to the substrate. (See Fig. 3)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Swaminathan et al. is that it allows for allowing light to pass through and operate as a Faraday cage for shielding (Swaminathan et al. Paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Fukuda by utilizing the features of Long et al., Shamouilian et al., Yamazawa, and Swaminathan et al. because it allows for preventing deposits on the window, for controlling the direction of the plasma, providing RF power to the substrate, and for allowing light to pass through and operate as a faraday cage for shielding.
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 571-272-8902. 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
August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights