DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 12/16/2025.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 15, and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 4, 12-14, and 16-17 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 18-20 are currently amended.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation: “the central heating element” and “the peripheral heating element” lack proper antecedent basis. This appears to be a minor typographical error associated with the most recent amendments, and is interpreted as reciting: “the central heating zone” and “the peripheral heating zone”, respectively.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny (US 2012/0152901) in view of Banna (US 2015/0191823).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Nagorny teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1, apparatus #100), comprising: a processing chamber ([0032] and Fig. 1, body of chamber with interior space #102); a pedestal located in the processing chamber configured to support a workpiece during processing (Fig. 1, pedestal #104 with substrate #106); a dielectric window forming at least a portion of the processing chamber (Fig. 1, dielectric window #110 with portions #112/#114); an inductive coupling element located proximate the dielectric window (Fig. 1, inductive element #140), the inductive coupling element configured to generate a plasma in the processing chamber when energized with radio frequency (RF) energy (par. [0033]); a Faraday shield located between the inductive coupling element and the processing chamber (Figs. 7-8, Faraday shield #150).
Nagorny does not teach at least one temperature control element in thermal communication with the Faraday shield, the at least one temperature control element comprises at least one heating element and the at least one heating element comprises a central heating zone and a peripheral heating zone, wherein the first temperature control element is independently controllable relative to the second temperature control element.
However, Banna teaches this limitation (Banna – [0022] and Fig. 2, heater element #204 may be embedded inside the conductive base #202, coupled to RF shield #206); [0025]: heater elements in each spoke #308 of Fig. 3A may be individually controlled; Fig. 3A shows long spokes #308A and short spokes #208B, which would primarily influence a central region and peripheral region, respectively).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Regarding claim 2, Nagorny teaches wherein the Faraday shield is located between the inductive coupling element and the dielectric window (see Figs. 1, 7).
Regarding claim 3, Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Banna teaches wherein the at least one temperature control element provides a thermally conductive path between the dielectric window and the Faraday shield (Banna – Fig. 2, #204 embedded in #202 forms a path between #206 and #120).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Banna teaches wherein the heating element has a shape that at least partially conforms to a shape of the Faraday shield (Banna – [0022]: shield #206 has the same plan form as the conductive base, which contains heater elements #204).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Nagorny teaches wherein the Faraday shield comprises one or more solid metal portions and plurality of leaf elements, each of the plurality of leaf elements coupled to at least one of the one or more solid metal portion via at least one radial spike element, the thin film heating element comprising a plurality of leaf elements, each leaf element coupled to a ring portion via at least one radial spike element (Fig. 8 identical to instant Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Banna teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a power source configured to independently provide power to the central heating zone and the peripheral heating zone (Banna – [0025]: heater elements in each spoke #308 of Fig. 3A may be individually controlled via AC power supply #123).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny (US 2012/0152901) and Banna (US 2015/0191823), as applied to claims 1-3, 7-8, 15, and 18 above, further in view of Ni (CN 104717817A, using the machine translation as provided in parent application 15/896,124).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 7-8, 15, and 18 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 5-6, Nagorny does not teach wherein the heating element is a polyimide thin film heating element or is a silicon rubber sheet heating element.
However, Ni teaches wherein a heating element is a thin film polyimide heating element (Ni – pg. 4, lines 15-17).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the heating element of modified Nagorny to comprise the polyimide heating element of Ni in order to utilize a smaller volume, resist deformation, and bend more easily (Ni, pg. 4, lines 15-17).
Claims 9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny (US 2012/0152901) and Banna (US 2015/0191823) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-8, 15, and 18 above, further in view of Li (US 2002/0100557).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 7-8, 15, and 18 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Banna teaches wherein the apparatus comprises: a first set of conductors configured to provide power to the at least one temperature control element (Banna – [0025] and Fig. 3A, connectors #322).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Modified Nagorny does not teach a second set of conductors, the second set of conductors associated with a temperature sensor configured to generate one or more signals indicative of a temperature associated with the at least one temperature control element.
However, Li teaches this limitation (Li – [0050] and Fig. 1, temperature sensor #136 coupled to heating assembly #130; see annotated Li Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature sensor assembly of Li in order to provide a controlled amount of heat energy to the heating element (Li – [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Nagorny modified by Banna does not teach wherein the apparatus comprises one or more control devices configured to control the delivery of power to the at least one temperature control element based at least in part on one or more signals indicative of the temperature of the Faraday shield.
However, Li teaches this limitation (Li – [0050] and Fig. 1, temperature sensor #136 coupled to heating assembly #130).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature sensor assembly of Li in order to provide a controlled amount of heat energy to the heating element (Li – [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Banna teaches a central and peripheral heating zone, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more control devices (Banna – [0049]: controller #140 controls all components of the apparatus #100), wherein the one or more control devices are configured to control power to the central and peripheral heating zones (Banna – [0025]: heater elements in each spoke #308 of Fig. 3A may be individually controlled).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Modified Nagorny does not teach wherein the one or more control devices are configured to receive one or more signals indicative of a temperature, wherein the one or more control devices control power based at least in part on the one or more signals indicative of a temperature.
However, Li teaches this limitation (Li – [0050] and Fig. 1, temperature sensor #136 coupled to heating assembly #130 to adjust temperature).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature sensor assembly of Li in order to provide a controlled amount of heat energy to the heating element (Li – [0042]).
Modified Nagorny does not teach wherein the one or more control devices are configured to receive one or more signals indicative of a temperature associated with the second heating zone, wherein the one or more control devices are configured to control power to the second heating element based at least in part on the one or more signals indicative of a temperature associated with the second heating zone (Li appears to only teach one sensor, thus only one zone is measured).
However, the only difference between the prior art of record (particularly, the multi-zone heater of Banna and the sensor/control method of Li) and this limitation is merely a second sensor the same as/similar to that of Li.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise additional Li sensors as a matter of obvious duplication of parts to achieve a known result (detection of multiple zones for temperature control, where Banna already establishes multiple heater zones as set forth above). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny (US 2012/0152901), Banna (US 2015/0191823), and Li (US 2002/0100557), as applied to claims 9, 11, and 19 above, and further in view of DiPalma (US 4,070,083).
The limitations of claims 9, 11, and 19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, modified Nagorny does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, DiPalma teaches wherein a conductors passes through a tube element (DiPalma – C2, L1 and Fig. 1, wires #13, cable #14 pass through stiff wire sheath #29).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise the tube elements of DiPalma in order to provide means for resisting the sharp bending of an electrical cable which would damage the cable and dangerously expose live wires (DiPalma – C2, L51-54).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny (US 2012/0152901) in view of Banna (US 2015/0191823) and Li (US 2002/0100557).
Regarding claim 20, Nagorny teaches a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1, apparatus #100), comprising: a processing chamber ([0032] and Fig. 1, body of chamber with interior space #102); a pedestal located in the processing chamber configured to support a workpiece during processing (Fig. 1, pedestal #104 with substrate #106); a dielectric window forming at least a portion of the processing chamber (Fig. 1, dielectric window #110 with portions #112/#114); an inductive coupling element located proximate the dielectric window (Fig. 1, inductive element #140), the inductive coupling element configured to generate a plasma in the processing chamber when energized with radio frequency (RF) energy (par. [0033]); a Faraday shield located between the inductive coupling element and the processing chamber (Figs. 7-8, Faraday shield #150).
Nagorny does not teach at least one temperature control element in thermal communication with the Faraday shield, the at least one temperature control element comprises at least one heating element and the at least one heating element comprises a central heating zone and a peripheral heating zone, wherein the first temperature control element is independently controllable relative to the second temperature control element.
However, Banna teaches this limitation (Banna – [0022] and Fig. 2, heater element #204 may be embedded inside the conductive base #202, coupled to RF shield #206); [0025]: heater elements in each spoke #308 of Fig. 3A may be individually controlled; Fig. 3A shows long spokes #308A and short spokes #208B, which would primarily influence a central region and peripheral region, respectively).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature control element of Banna in order to reduce deposition on the window facing the plasma in the process chamber (Banna – [0004]) and to minimize the power loss through the shield by allowing higher power coupling efficiency and increasing the overall window of operation (Banna – [0016]).
Nagorny modified by Banna does not teach wherein the apparatus comprises one or more control devices configured to control delivery of power to the at least one heating element based at least in part on one or more signals from a temperature sensor.
However, Li teaches this limitation (Li – [0050] and Fig. 1, temperature sensor #136 coupled to heating assembly #130).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Nagorny apparatus to comprise the temperature sensor assembly of Li in order to provide a controlled amount of heat energy to the heating element (Li – [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim 19 to render the previous objection moot, thus said objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning amended claim 1 have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. Particularly, Applicant alleges that Banna does not teach the recited central and peripheral heating zones of the claims. The Examiner disagrees.
Most notably, Applicant confirms the Examiner’s position that Banna teaches “long spokes 308A and short spokes 308B” and that “heater elements in each spoke may be individually controlled” (Remarks, pg. 8). Then, Applicant erroneously concludes that “Banna does not disclose combining these features where the temperature control element comprises a designated central heating zone and a peripheral heating zone that are independently controllable.”
The Examiner believes this argument to be in error because because it: 1) ignores the explicit teachings of Banna and 2) ignores what the reference as a whole would convey to a PHOSITA. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by the word “combining” in relation to the above features- no internal combination of Banna is being made by the Examiner as part of the obviousness rejections
Regarding 1): as confirmed by Applicant, Banna teaches long and short spokes 308A/B (see Fig. 3A reproduced below for convenience) that are individually controllable (see par. [0025]).
PNG
media_image2.png
198
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As was previously stated, each set of spokes A/B has their own primary region of heating. As seen above, short spokes #308B only extend about the peripheral area, and thus are reasonably considered to have primary temperature control over the peripheral region. Likewise the long spokes #308A, which extend to the central area in addition to the peripheral area, are reasonably considered to have primary temperature control over the center region.
The BRI of the claims is not as narrow as Applicant alleges- nothing in the claim language would preclude Banna from meeting the limitations of the claim simply because part of one heating element contributes to both the central and peripheral areas.
If a PHOSITA wanted to utilize the Banna structure to increase a central temperature, they could only increase power to the long spokes. Likewise, if a PHOSITA wanted to increase a peripheral temperature, they would increase power to the short spokes. A PHOSITA would not increase power to the long spokes to increase a peripheral temperature because such an operation would also increase power to the central portion.
Regarding 2), Banna additionally teaches that the shape and configuration of the various spokes depicted in Fig. 3A-C can be changed in various ways:
Par. [0025]: “heater elements 204 may be disposed only in one or more of the horizontal portions 312 of the spokes 308”
Par. [0026]: “the horizontal portion 312 of the spokes 308 may be different lengths depending on the amount of surface area coverage desired”, “the spokes 308 may be all the same length of have more than just two different lengths”, and “the width of spokes 308 may also be adjusted based on the amount of shield overage of the lid is sought”.
In accordance with the above, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would recognize that the structure shown in Figs. 3A-C of Banna is merely exemplary, and that various changes could be made to the shape and configuration of the heater structure. In keeping with this line of reasoning, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would be well within the knowledge and capabilities of a PHOSITA to arrive at the claimed invention without any benefit of the instant disclosure simply by routine experimentation based upon the disclosure of Banna.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the PE-CVD arts is a highly educated, highly skilled, highly trained engineer with a breadth of knowledge in numerous technical disciplines.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that a “central heating area” and “peripheral heating area” is not a new concept in the CVD arts. In support of this assertion, the Examiner submits that Mahadeswaraswamy (US 2012/0273162, pars. [0048]-[0050]) teaches this concept.
For at least these reasons, the rejections of claims using Banna are maintained.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718