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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 06/10/2026, in which claims 1, 9, 18 and 20 were amended, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (US Pub. 20020050486) in view of Otsubo et al. (US Pat. 4985109) and Yamazawa et al. (US Pub. 20230282446).
Regarding claim 1, Ishii et al. discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 6 an apparatus for plasma processing, the apparatus comprising:
an insulating structure [55] comprising a showerhead [123]; and
an antenna [73 and 59] surrounding the showerhead [123], the antenna [73 and 59] comprising: a plate of conductive material [59], the plate [59] having a ring shape in a top view [paragraph [0062]-[0064]]; and
a first slot [77 and 75] through the plate of conductive material [59], the first slot [77 and 75] having a longitudinal length [paragraph [0062]-[0064]].
Ishii et al. fails to disclose
the first slot having a shape following an Archimedean spiral.
Yamazawa et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0040], [0065]-[0066]
the first slot having a shape following an Archimedean spiral.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamazawa et al. into the method of Ishii et al. to include the first slot having a shape following an Archimedean spiral. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ishii et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable shape of the first slot of the antenna to form a spiral antenna and provide a uniform electromagnetic field within the plasma chamber [paragraph [0065]-[0066] of Yamazawa et al.].
Ishii et al. fails to disclose
the longitudinal length that is a half wavelength of an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in a range of 160 MHz to 240 MHz.
Otsubo et al. discloses in column 6, lines 49-53 “the length of the annular slots in plural structure provided on the slot plate in the direction crossing the surface is set to value in the vicinity of 1/2 of the wavelength λ of the microwaves so as to improve the antenna efficiency.” Ishii et al. discloses in paragraph [0067] that the annular antenna has a frequency from 200 MHz to 35 GHz.
Thus, the combination of Otsubo et al. and Ishii et al. would result to the longitudinal length that is a half wavelength of an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in a range of 200 MHz to 35 GHz which overlapping the claim range. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” MPEP 2144.05 I.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Otsubo et al. into the method of Ishii et al. to include the longitudinal length that is a half wavelength of an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in a range of 160 MHz to 240 MHz. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ishii et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving the antenna efficiency.
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claim range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Otsubo et al. and Ishii et al. to include the claim range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain optimal longitudinal length for achieving optimal device performance. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 2-3, Ishii et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0064]
wherein the antenna [73 and 59] further comprises a second slot through an eighth slot;
wherein the first slot through the eighth slot have discrete axial symmetry.
Regarding claim 8, Ishii et al. discloses in Fig. 9
wherein the antenna [117] is coupled to a power source [103], the power source [103] being configured to supply VHF range power.
Notes, the limitation “the power source being configured to supply VHF range power” directs to manner of operating and intended function of the device. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114 II.
Regarding claim 14, Ishii discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0064]
wherein the plurality of slots comprises eight slots.
Regarding claims 15-16, Ishii discloses in Fig. 6, paragraph [0073]
a top electrode [153] over the showerhead [157];
wherein the top electrode [153] is coupled to a ground terminal.
Regarding claim 17, Ishii discloses in Fig. 5,
wherein the top electrode [133] is coupled to a second RF source [143][ paragraph [0073] “the opposing electrode 133 is connected to the high-frequency source 143, it is possible to form a desired strong and uniform electromagnetic field between the mounting table and the opposing electrode. Therefore, it is possible to accomplish the extraction of ions from the plasma more effectively and also the uniform processing.”]
Claims 4-7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (US Pub. 20020050486) in view of Otsubo et al. (US Pat. 4985109) and Yamazawa et al. (US Pub. 20230282446) as applied to claim 2 and claim 8 above and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pub. 20240030613) and Hill et al. (US Pub. 2100123632)
Regarding claims 4-7, 12, Ishii et al. fails to disclose
wherein the first slot through the eighth slot are filled with a dielectric;
wherein the dielectric is air at atmospheric pressure;
wherein the dielectric is vacuum.
wherein the dielectric is a solid dielectric material;
wherein the plurality of slots are filled with air at atmospheric pressure.
Hill et al. discloses in paragraph [0057], [0059]
wherein antenna slots are filled with a dielectric;
wherein the dielectric is air at atmospheric pressure;
wherein the dielectric is a solid dielectric material;
wherein the plurality of slots are filled with air at atmospheric pressure.
Wang et al. discloses in claim 6
wherein antenna slots are filled with a dielectric;
wherein the dielectric is air at atmospheric pressure;
wherein the dielectric is vacuum;
wherein the plurality of slots are filled with air at atmospheric pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hill et al. and Wang et al. into the method of Ishii et al. to include wherein the first slot through the eighth slot are filled with a dielectric; wherein the dielectric is air at atmospheric pressure; wherein the dielectric is vacuum; wherein the plurality of slots are filled with air at atmospheric pressure. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ishii et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable dielectric can be used to fill the openings associated with the slot antennas [paragraph [0059] of Hill et all., claim 6 of Wang et al.].
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (US Pub. 20110174778) in view of Mitrovic (US Pub. 20050067386) and Smolanoff et al. (US Pat. 6117279).
Regarding claim 9, Sawada et al. discloses in Fig. 21, Fig. 32, paragraph [0138], [0142], [0157] an apparatus for a plasma processing system, the apparatus comprising:
a plasma processing chamber [1021], the plasma processing chamber [1021] comprising:
a substrate holder [1003];
a showerhead [1043], the showerhead [1043] being over the substrate holder [1003];
an insulating structure [1060], the insulating structure [1060] covering the showerhead [1043]; and
a slot antenna plate [1101], the slot antenna plate [1101] being mounted in the insulating structure [1060], the slot antenna plate [1101] comprising a plurality of slots [1101a] extending through the slot antenna plate [1101]; and
a first radio frequency (RF) source [1080], the first RF source [1080] coupled to the slot antenna plate [1101] through an upper surface of the insulating structure.
Sawada et al. fails to disclose
the first RF source coupled to the slot antenna plate by a conduction line through a sidewall of the insulating structure.
Mitrovic discloses in Fig. 1
the first RF source [130] coupled to an antenna [132] by a conduction line through a sidewall of the chamber 110.
Sawada et al. discloses the slot antenna plate [1101] being mounted in the insulating structure [1060] and a sidewall of the chamber comprises a sidewall of the insulating structure [62]. Thus, incorporating the teaching of Mitrovic into Sawada et al. would result to “the first RF source coupled to the slot antenna plate by a conduction line through a sidewall of the insulating structure.”
For further providing support that an RF source coupled to an antenna by a conduction line through a sidewall of the insulating structure, Smolanoff et al. is cited.
Smolanoff et al. suggests in Fig. 1, column 7, lines 5-21, 50-55
an RF source [32] coupled to an antenna [30] by a conduction line through a sidewall of an insulating structure [62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Mitrovic and Smolanoff et al. into the method of Sawada et al. to include the first RF source coupled to the slot antenna plate by a conduction line through a sidewall of the insulating structure. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Mabuchi et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative method for coupling the first RF source to the slot antenna plate.
Regarding claim 11, Sawada et al. discloses in Fig. 32, paragraph [0169]
a vacuum seal [an O-ring or the like] disposed between the slot antenna plate [1101] and the showerhead [1043][paragraph [0169] “the antenna module 1071 is airtightly maintained by engaging the step surface of the engaging stepped portion 1121 with the engaged surfaces corresponding to the lower peripheral edge of the antenna module 1071 via, e.g., an O-ring or the like.”].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (US Pub. 20110174778) in view of in view of Mitrovic (US Pub. 20050067386) and Smolanoff et al. (US Pat. 6117279) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Ishii et al. (US Pub. 20020050486)
Regarding claim 10, Sawada et al. fails to disclose
wherein the insulating structure comprises aluminum oxide.
Ishii et al. discloses in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, paragraph [0062]
wherein the insulating structure [55] comprises aluminum oxide [alumina].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ishii et al. into the method of Sawada et al. to include wherein the insulating structure comprises aluminum oxide. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sawada et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable dielectric material exhibiting heat-resistance, microwave permeability and small dielectric loss [paragraph [0062] of Ishii et al.]
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. (US Pub. 20020050486) in view of Otsubo et al. (US Pat. 4985109) and Yamazawa et al. (US Pub. 20230282446) as applied to claim 2 and claim 8 above and further in view of Sawada et al. (US Pub. 20110174778)
Regarding claim 13, Ishii et al. and Otsubo et al. discloses
wherein each slot of the plurality of slots has a respective longitudinal length that is a half wavelength of an excited frequency electromagnetic wave of the antenna.
Ishii et al. and Otsubo et al. fails to disclose
the excited frequency electromagnetic wave of the antenna is an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in the insulating structure.
Sawada et al. discloses in Fig. 21, Fig. 32, paragraph [0135], [0169]
the excited frequency electromagnetic wave of an antenna [1101] is an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in the insulating structure [1060].
Sawada et al. discloses in Fig. 18
Alternatively, the excited frequency electromagnetic wave of an antenna [1101] is an excited frequency electromagnetic wave above the insulating structure [1060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sawada et al. into the method of Ishii et al. and Otsubo et al. to include the excited frequency electromagnetic wave of the antenna is an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in the insulating structure. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ishii et al. and Otsubo et al. in the above manner for the purpose of forming airtightly buried antenna [paragraph 0169] of Sawada et al.].
As a result, the combination of Sawada et al., Ishii et al. and Otsubo et al. result to “each slot of the plurality of slots has a respective longitudinal length that is a half wavelength of an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in the insulating structure”.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (US Pub. 20110174778) in view of Yamazawa et al. (US Pub. 20230282446).
Regarding claim 18, Sawada et al. discloses in Fig. 21, Fig. 32, paragraph [0138], [0142], [0157] a method for plasma processing, the method comprising:
coupling RF power [1080] to a slot antenna plate [1101] mounted in an insulating structure [1060], wherein the slot antenna plate [1101] comprises a plurality of slots [1101a], the insulating structure [1060] being a top portion of a plasma processing chamber [1021] ;
igniting a plasma in the plasma processing chamber [1021] with the RF power [1080] coupled through the slot antenna plate [1101]; and
processing a substrate [W] with the plasma.
Further, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02 I
Ishii et al. fails to disclose
each slot of the plurality of slots being in a shape of an Archimedean spiral.
Yamazawa et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0040], [0065]-[0066]
each slot of the plurality of slots being in a shape of an Archimedean spiral.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamazawa et al. into the method of Ishii et al. to include each slot of the plurality of slots being in a shape of an Archimedean spiral. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ishii et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable shape of the first slot of the antenna to form a spiral antenna and provide a uniform electromagnetic field within the plasma chamber [paragraph [0065]-[0066] of Yamazawa et al.].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (US Pub. 20110174778) in view of Yamazawa et al. (US Pub. 20230282446) as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Ishii et al. (US Pub. 20020050486).
Regarding claim 19, Sawada et al. fails to disclose
wherein the RF power has a frequency in a range of 160 MHz to 240 MHz.
Ishii et al. discloses in paragraph [0067]
wherein the RF power has a frequency in a range of 160 MHz to 240 MHz [200 MHz to 35 GHz].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ishii et al. into the method of Sawada et al. to include wherein the RF power has a frequency in a range of 160 MHz to 240 MHz. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sawada et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable frequency of RF power applied to the antenna.
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claim range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sawada et al. and Ishii et al. to include the claim range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (US Pub. 20110174778) in view of Yamazawa et al. (US Pub. 20230282446) as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Otsubo et al. (US Pat. 4985109).
Regarding claim 20, Sawada et al. and Yamazawa et al. fails to disclose
each slot of the plurality of slots having a respective longitudinal length that is a half wavelength of an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in the insulating structure.
Otsubo et al. discloses in column 6, lines 49-53 “the length of the annular slots in plural structure provided on the slot plate in the direction crossing the surface is set to value in the vicinity of 1/2 of the wavelength λ of the microwaves so as to improve the antenna efficiency.” Sawada et al. discloses in Fig. 32 the excited frequency electromagnetic wave is in the insulating structure because the annular antenna is in the insulating structure.
Thus, the combination of Otsubo et al., Sawada et al. and Yamazawa et al. would result to each slot of the plurality of slots having a respective longitudinal length that is a half wavelength of an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in the insulating structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Otsubo et al. into the method of Sawada et al. and Yamazawa et al. to include each slot of the plurality of slots having a respective longitudinal length that is a half wavelength of an excited frequency electromagnetic wave in the insulating structure. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sawada et al. and Yamazawa et al. in the above manner for the purpose of improving the antenna efficiency [column 6, lines 49-53 of Otsubo et al.].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights