CTNF 18/414,681 CTNF 85007 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 1- 6, 8-12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Bailey (US 6,341,574) . Regarding claim 1, Bailey teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber 106 providing a processing space; a support member 124 disposed in the processing space and configured to support a substrate 122 during a process treatment of the substrate; an antenna 102 providing energy for plasma excitation into the processing space; and an inner electromagnet 104 disposed outside the processing space (fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, Bailey teaches the inner electromagnet 104 has a surface facing the processing space (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 3, Bailey teaches the inner electromagnet 104 is disposed on a circumference about a vertical axis 108 that passes through a center area of the processing space (fig. 1). Regarding claim 4, Bailey teaches the inner electromagnet 104 has a shape of a circular ring (col. 6, ln. 60-67, fig. 1). Regarding claim 5, Bailey teaches the inner electromagnet 104a, 104b comprises a plurality of inner sub-electromagnets (col. 6, ln. Regarding claim 6, Bailey teaches the plurality of inner sub-electromagnets are concentric about a vertical axis (108) that passes through a center area of the processing space (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8, Bailey teaches an outer electromagnet disposed outside the processing space (104, fig. 1, col. 6, ln. 60-65). Regarding claim 9, Bailey teaches the outer electromagnet is disposed outside a perimeter of the inner electromagnet (104, fig. 1, col. 6, ln. 60-65). Regarding claim 10, Bailey teaches the outer electromagnet is disposed on a circumference about a vertical axis 108 that passes through a center area of the processing space (104, fig. 1, col. 6, ln. 60-65). Regarding claim 11, Bailey teaches the outer electromagnet has a shape of a circular ring (104, col. 6, ln. 60-65). Regarding claim 12, Bailey teaches the inner electromagnet and the outer electromagnet are concentric (104, fig. 1, col. 6, ln. 60-65). Regarding claim 16, Bailey teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber 106 providing a processing space; a cover member (130) disposed on an upper portion of the chamber and configured to shield the processing space (col. 10, ln. 40-50); a support member 124 disposed in the processing space and configured to support a substrate 122 during a process treatment of the substrate; an antenna 102 providing energy for plasma excitation into the processing space; an inner electromagnet (104) disposed outside the processing space and having an annular surface facing the processing space with the cover member (130) therebetween; and an outer electromagnet 104, col. 6, ln. 60-65) disposed outside the processing space and disposed outside a perimeter of the inner electromagnet (104, fig. 1). Regarding claim 17, Bailey teaches an inner electromagnet power source (114, fig. 1) electrically connected to the inner electromagnet (104); an outer electromagnet power source (114) electrically connected to the outer electromagnet (104, fig. 1); and a controller (col. 2, ln. 61) configured to control the inner electromagnet power source (dc current) and the outer electromagnet power source (dc current) such that a magnetic line of force is formed in a direction from one of a lower portion of the inner electromagnet and a lower portion of the outer electromagnet to the other thereof (col. 6, ln. 60-col. 7, ln. 3, col. 8; 140, fig. 2b) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as applied to claim 1 above in view of Hong (US 2005/0133365) . Regarding claim 7, Bailey teaches moving the inner electromagnet vertically along the chamber axis 108 and in other directions (col. 11, ln. 5-15) but it does not teach an inner elevation drive member configured to move the inner electromagnet vertically. Accordingly, Hong teach an elevation drive member (176, [0068]) configured to move a magnet (70) vertically. Because Hong teaches elevation drives are operable for moving magnets it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the elevation drive member as the device for moving the electromagnets of Bailey with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inner electromagnetic of Bailey by providing an elevation drive member configured to move the inner electromagnet vertically, as taught by Hong, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Green (US 2004/0050690) . Regarding claim 13, Bailey does not teach the outer electromagnet comprises a plurality of outer sub-electromagnets. Green teaches an array of electromagnets above a sputtering target would allow lateral and vertical adjustment to provide a tailoring electromagnetic field to every process situation ([0038]). Therefore Green teach the outer electromagnet comprises a plurality of outer sub-electromagnets. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the outer electromagnet of Green by providing it comprises a plurality of outer sub-electromagnets, as taught by Green, because it would provide a tailored electromagnetic field to the process situation ([0038]). Regarding claim 14, Green teaches the plurality of outer electromagnets are concentric about a vertical axis that passes through a center area of the processing space ([0038], fig. 8) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as applied to claim 8 above in view of Hong (US 2005/0133365) . Regarding claim 15, Bailey does not explicitly teach an outer elevation drive member configured to move the outer electromagnet vertically. Bailey teaches moving the outer electromagnet vertically along the chamber axis 108 and in other directions (col. 11, ln. 5-15). Accordingly, Hong teach an elevation drive member (176, [0068]) configured to move a magnet (70) vertically. Because Hong teaches elevation drives are operable for moving magnets it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the elevation drive member as the device for moving the electromagnets of Bailey with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inner electromagnetic of Bailey by providing an elevation drive member configured to move the outer electromagnet vertically, as taught by Hong, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as applied to claim 16 above in view of Hong (US 2005/0133365) . Regarding claim 18, Bailey teaches moving the inner electromagnet vertically along the chamber axis 108 and in other directions (col. 11, ln. 5-15) but it does not teach an inner elevation drive member configured to move the inner electromagnet vertically. Accordingly, Hong teach an elevation drive member (176, [0068]) configured to move a magnet (70) vertically. Because Hong teaches elevation drives are operable for moving magnets it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the elevation drive member as the device for moving the electromagnets of Bailey with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inner electromagnetic of Bailey by providing an elevation drive member configured to move the inner electromagnet vertically, as taught by Hong, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A. Regarding claim 19, Bailey does not explicitly teach an outer elevation drive member configured to move the outer electromagnet vertically. Bailey teaches moving the outer electromagnet vertically along the chamber axis 108 and in other directions (col. 11, ln. 5-15). Accordingly, Hong teach an elevation drive member (176, [0068]) configured to move a magnet (70) vertically. Because Hong teaches elevation drives are operable for moving magnets it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the elevation drive member as the device for moving the electromagnets of Bailey with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inner electromagnetic of Bailey by providing an elevation drive member configured to move the outer electromagnet vertically, as taught by Hong, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey 6,341,574) . as applied to claim above, and further in view of Barnes (US 5,589,737). Regarding claim 20, Bailey teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber 106 providing a processing space; a cover member 130 disposed on an upper portion of the chamber and configured to shield the processing space; a support member 124 disposed in the processing space and configured to support a substrate 122during a process treatment of the substrate; an antenna 102 providing energy for plasma excitation into the processing space; an inner electromagnet 104 disposed outside the processing space and having an annular surface facing the processing space with the cover member therebetween; and an outer electromagnet 104 disposed outside the processing space and outside a perimeter of the inner electromagnet (Fig. 1), Bailey does not teach the cover member comprises a cover frame having a plate structure and coupling slots between portions of the plate structure, each of the coupling slots including a dielectric window. Barnes teaches a cover frame (316, fig. 13a-13d) having a plate structure (18) and coupling slots (notches 37, col. 5, ln. 35-55) between portions of the plate structure, each of the coupling slots including a dielectric window (314, fig. 13b, col. 12, ln. 60-col. 13, ln. 10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cover member of Bailey by providing a cover frame having a plate structure and coupling slots between portions of the plate structure, each of the coupling slots including a dielectric window, as taught by Barnes, because it would allow processing large substrate areas (col. 3, ln. 29-30). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F. 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. JOHN J. BRAYTON Primary Examiner Art Unit 1794 /JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/414,681 Page 2 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/414,681 Page 3 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/414,681 Page 4 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/414,681 Page 5 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/414,681 Page 6 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/414,681 Page 7 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/414,681 Page 8 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/414,681 Page 9 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/414,681 Page 10 Art Unit: 1794
Prosecution Insights