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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/2/2026.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive. The Examiner notes the typo regarding the characterization of Group I as a device instead of a method as claimed; however, the plasma processing methods and computer-readable media require separate, independent fields of search, and the restriction requirement is maintained.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 2017/0040174 A1) in view of Singh et al. (US 8,926,850 B2) and further in view of Kawasaki et al. (US 2017/0099722 A1).
CLAIM 1: Long teaches a method for plasma processing, comprising:
delivering a first radio frequency (RF) signal from a source RF generator to a processing region of a plasma processing chamber during a first period of time, the first period of time ending at a beginning of a second period of time (Long ¶40 discloses generating a high state S1 of a TCP RF pulsed signal 402 during a time period t1A,which corresponds to the claimed first period of time.);
delivering a second RF signal from a bias RF generator to the processing region of the plasma processing chamber during the second period of time, the second period of time ending at a beginning of a third period of time (Long ¶44 discloses generating a high state S1 of the bias RF pulsed signal 404 during the time period t1B, which corresponds to the claimed second period of time); and
Long does not explicitly disclose delivering a pulsed voltage waveform from a voltage source to a first electrode disposed within the plasma processing chamber during the third period of time.
However, Singh Column 3 lines 9+ disclose "applying to the plasma source a third RF power level during a third period" and "applying to the substrate the second bias voltage during the third period."
Furthermore, Kawasaki paragraph 28 discloses a "DC generator 162" that "may provide pulsed DC power" to a "wafer support electrode 138" where the "pulsed DC signal generated by the DC generator may be synchronized with the RF signals."
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the timing cycle of Long to include a third period (as taught by Singh) and to deliver a pulsed voltage waveform to the electrode during said period (as taught by Kawasaki). This combination provides "plasma processing with enhanced charge neutralization and process control" (Singh – Abstract & Column 2, line 15+). It ensures that "charge accumulated in the substrate" is decreased to "at least partially neutralize charge accumulation during plasma processing" (Singh – Column 15, lines 34+), and prevents "charge build-up" which can lead to "high potential voltage on the substrate that can cause unacceptable doping non-uniformities and arcing," thereby resulting in device damage (Singh – Column 1, lines 30+). Furthermore, it utilizes a "DC generator 162... supply continuous and/or variable DC... or... provide pulsed DC power" synchronized with the RF signals to provide "benefits such as reduced charge-up on a substrate," as taught in paragraph 28 of Kawasaki.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the timing cycle of Long with the teachings of Singh and Kawasaki, since applying a known technique (delivering a pulsed voltage waveform and/or adding a third period) to a known device ready for improvement (the plasma processing apparatus of Long) to yield predictable results (reduced charge-up, enhanced charge neutralization, and process control) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
CLAIM 2. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second RF signal is delivered to a second electrode disposed within a substrate support of the plasma processing chamber (Kawasaki¶20 discloses that the wafer support electrode 138 is an internal electrode used for chucking a substrate 137 on the top surface of the support pedestal 136. Singh similarly discloses applying to the substrate a bias voltage via a platen or parallel plate configuration. ).
CLAIM 3. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 2, wherein the first electrode is disposed within the substrate support of the plasma processing chamber (Long teaches an electrostatic chuck (ESC) 202. Kawasaki¶20 similarly teaches that the "internal electrode may, for example, be used for chucking a substrate 137 on the top surface of the support pedestal 136." ).
CLAIM 4. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 3, wherein the first RF signal is delivered to a coil (Long discloses delivering the TCP RF pulsed signal to a TCP coil. Kawasaki¶20 similarly teaches that "plasma source power is applied to the ceiling 104... formed of a conductive material... [which] serves as a ceiling electrode." ).
CLAIM 5. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first RF signal is delivered to a coil (Long discloses that the first RF signal is a "TCP RF pulsed signal" delivered to a TCP coil assembly. Singh similarly teaches delivering source power to an antenna configuration that can include a "planar coil RF antenna 126" or a "helical coil RF antenna 1).
CLAIM 6. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 1, further comprising halting the delivery of the first RF signal from the source RF generator at the beginning of the second period of time, and halting the delivery of the second RF signal from the bias RF generator at the beginning of the third period of time (Long ¶40 discloses that the TCP signal drops to a "low state S0... during a time period t1B" when the bias signal transitions to a high state. Furthermore, Singh column 18 lines 6+ teache an explicit progression through an "ion implantation period 602, a charge neutralization period 604, and a power off period 606" where signals are systematically dropped or transitioned to zero at the boundary of each period.).
CLAIM 7. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first period of time, the second period of time, and the third period of time are repeated one or more times (Long illustrates a continuous, cyclical pulsed profile across repeating periods. Singh Column 13 lines 4-13 explicitly states that the multi-amplitude pulse waveform "periodically repeats" after the power off period ends.).
CLAIM 8. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first RF signal is provided at a first power level for a first portion of the first period of time and at a second power level for a second portion of the first period of time (Long uses binary pulsing. However, Kawasaki¶40 teaches a multi-level source RF waveform having "a first power pulse at a first power level 510, a second power pulse at a second power level 512, and a third power pulse at a third power level 514 that are applied during three corresponding RF power periods").
CLAIM 9. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second RF signal is provided at a first power level for a first portion of the second period of time and at a second power level for a second portion of the second period of time (Kawasaki¶39 teaches that the bias waveforms 504 and 506 may be "each pulsed at multiple power levels independently" to comprise a first power pulse at a first power level and a second power pulse at a second power level. Singh Fig. 3C and Column 4 lines 17+ also teaches a bias voltage waveform that "applies a negative voltage to the substrate during plasma processing... and that applies a positive voltage to the substrate after plasma processing is terminated").
CLAIM 10. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 1, further comprising delivering the second RF signal before the beginning of the second period of time (Kawasaki¶31 discloses phase variance configurations where the "bias power pulse output lags the source power pulse output by 90°" or other custom angles, resulting in the timing envelopes of the signals overlapping or shifting relative to the primary period boundaries.).
CLAIM 11. Long in view of Singh in view of Kawasaki teach the method of claim 1, further comprising halting the delivery of the first RF signal from the source RF generator after the beginning of the second period of time (Kawasaki¶36 teaches synchronizing source and bias waves with intentional phase shifts, including configurations where "the VHF source pulse is already 'on' at the beginning of the bias pulse" and runs past the initial extraction boundary before turning off.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
7/17/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights