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 .
Claims 1, 15, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending
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.
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.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2019/0326098 A1) in view of Kraus et al. (US 2020/0381217 A1) and further in view of Takahashi (US 2008/0025899 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen teaches a method of etching a target material of a semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor processing chamber 178, including flowing one or more plasma precursors through a remote plasma source into a remote plasma region of the semiconductor processing chamber, generating a remote plasma within the remote plasma region at a microwave frequency to form plasma effluents 196, and flowing the plasma effluents 196 into a processing region 589 of the semiconductor processing chamber (Nguyen, paragraphs [0005], [0029], [0031], [0051], [0066]). Nguyen further teaches a remote plasma source comprising a microwave applicator disposed within a remote plasma source housing (Nguyen, Figs. 4E-5C; paragraphs [0056]-[0061]). Nguyen further teaches that the microwave applicator includes a resonator body/cavity 353/363 formed from or coated with a first dielectric material and a dielectric window/plate 150 formed from or coated with a second dielectric material (Nguyen, paragraph [0051]).
semiconductor processing chamber (Nguyen, paragraphs [0005], [0029], [0031], [0051], [0066]). Nguyen further teaches that the microwave applicator 142 includes a resonator body/cavity 353/363 formed from or coated with a first dielectric material and a dielectric window/plate 150 formed from or coated with a second dielectric material (Nguyen, paragraph [0051]).
Nguyen does not expressly teach that the microwave applicator comprises a plate and a resonator body removably coupled with a top surface of the plate, wherein the resonator body is formed from or coated with a first dielectric material and the plate is formed from or coated with a second dielectric material, wherein the first dielectric material is different than the second dielectric material.
Kraus teaches a microwave source including an applicator 142 having a dielectric resonant cavity 353, wherein the dielectric resonant cavity 353 is a dielectric material dimensioned to support resonance of microwave radiation (Kraus, paragraph [0031]). Kraus further teaches that microwave radiation from applicators 142 is coupled into a chamber through dielectric plate 350, wherein the dielectric resonant cavity 353 may be in direct contact with dielectric plate 350, and wherein the applicators 142 are positioned above the dielectric plate 350 (Kraus, paragraph [0035]; Fig. 3B). Kraus further teaches that the array 140 of applicators 142 may be removable from dielectric plate 350 for maintenance or rearrangement without removing dielectric plate 350 from the chamber (Kraus, paragraph [0036]). Thus, Kraus teaches a microwave applicator having a resonator body removably coupled with a top surface of a dielectric plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microwave applicator structure of Nguyen to include the removable applicator/dielectric plate arrangement taught by Kraus because Kraus teaches that the applicators may be removed from the dielectric plate for maintenance or rearrangement without removing the dielectric plate from the chamber, thereby improving serviceability and maintenance access while predictably coupling microwave radiation through a dielectric plate into a plasma-processing region. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP §2141 III(A).
The modified method of Nguyen does not expressly teach that the generated remote plasma comprises a density of greater than 1 × 10^10 per cm^3, an ion energy of less than or about 50 eV, or a combination thereof.
Takahashi teaches generating microwave plasma having a density greater than about 1 × 10^10/cm^3 to about 5 × 10^12/cm^3 (Takahashi, paragraphs [0012], [0035]). Because claim 1 recites the density limitation, the ion-energy limitation, or a combination thereof, Takahashi’s plasma density teaching satisfies the recited plasma parameter alternative.
Nguyen further teaches that processing tools 400 illustrated in Figs. 4A-4C may be considered remote plasma processing tools because plasma 196 induced by applicators 142 is spaced away from substrate 174 (Nguyen, paragraphs [0056]-[0061]). Thus, both Nguyen and Takahashi are directed to microwave plasma generation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of Nguyen to utilize the plasma density taught by Takahashi because Takahashi teaches plasma density values suitable for semiconductor microwave plasma processing and plasma density is a known process variable adjusted to obtain desired plasma characteristics. Further, the claimed density overlaps the density range taught by Takahashi. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Nguyen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 including that the first dielectric material comprises aluminum oxide (paragraph [0051]).
Claims 2, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Kraus and in further view of Takahashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berry, III et al. (US 2016/0196969 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 5 modified Nguyen teach the limitations of claim 1 including generating a remote plasma within a remote plasma region of a semiconductor processing chamber and flowing plasma effluents into a processing region to perform an etching process.
Modified Nguyen does not teach that the plasma effluents exhibit an etch selectivity between two or more of silicon germanium (SiGe), an oxide material, a nitride material, and a polysilicon materials, of greater than or about 1:1, as required by claims 2, 4, and 5.
Berry teaches plasma etching processes for semiconductor substrates in which etch selectivity between two or more of silicon germanium (SiGe), an oxide material, a nitride material, and a polysilicon materials of greater than or about 1:1. The process can be performed in an apparatus equipped with a microwave plasma generator where remote plasma is used (paragraph [0027], [0053]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma etching process of Nguyen in view of Takahashi to achieve the selectivity relationships taught by Berry because controlling etch selectivity between different semiconductor materials is a known objective in plasma etching processes in order to selectively remove one material relative to another during semiconductor fabrication. See MPEP 2143(I)(C) which states that it is obvious to apply a known technique to improve a similar device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Kraus and further in view of Takahashi and Berry as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2013/0045605 A1).
Regarding claim 3 modified Nguyen teaches the limitations of claim 2.
However, modified Nguyen does not teach that the etch selectivity is greater than or about 10:1 as required by claim 3.
Wang teaches plasma etching processes for semiconductor substrates in which silicon nitride is etched with a selectivity relative to silicon greater than or about 10:1 (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma etching process of Nguyen, as modified by Berry, to achieve the higher selectivity values as taught by Wang because increasing etch selectivity is a known objective in plasma processes in order to improve pattern transfer and material removal control. See MPEP 2143(I)(C) which states that it is obvious to apply a known technique to improve a similar device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Kraus and in view of Takahashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al (US 6361707 B1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nguyen teaches the limitations of claim 1 including a microwave applicator comprising a resonator body and a plate formed from dielectric material (Nguyen, paragraph [0051]).
Modified Nguyen does not teach that the second dielectric material comprises quartz, alumina, sapphire, MgF2, yttrium aluminum garnet, Y2O3, MgO, calcium fluoride, barium fluoride, lithium fluoride, fused silica, borosilicate glass.
Tanaka teaches microwave plasma apparatus including a dielectric window formed from materials such as sapphire for transmitting microwave energy into a plasma processing chamber (col. 23, lines 28-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to utilize the dielectric material taught by Tanaka in the microwave applicator, specifically the plate/window, of Nguyen because sapphire and similar dielectric materials are known to be transparent and plasma resistant materials commonly used in plasma processing chambers. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Kraus and in further view of Takahashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Lubomirsky et al (US 2017/0229289 A1).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 10, modified Nguyen teaches the limitations of claim 1 including generating a remote plasma in a remote plasma region.
Modified Nguyen does not teach that the plasma precursors comprise a hydrogen-containing precursor and/or a halogen-containing precursor, including a hydrogen and fluorine-containing materials, or the claimed hydrogen ratios, as required by claims 8, 9, and 10.
Lubomirsky teaches plasma etching processes unitizing precursor gases including hydrogen-containing precursors and fluorine containing materials and further teaches hydrogen to fluorine ratios greater than or about 3:1 (paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the precursor compositions and ratios taught by Lubomirsky in the plasma etching system of Nguyen because precursor gas composition and ratios are recognized process variables in plasma etching systems that are routinely optimized to achieve desired etching performance. See MPEP 2143(I)(A), which explains that combining known elements according to yields predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 17, modified Nguyen teaches the limitations of claim 1 including generating remote plasma in a remote plasma region.
Modified Nguyen does not teach flowing hydrogen at a rate less than or about 1500 sccm, as required by claim 13, performing the etching at a pressure of about 1 torr to about 10 torr, as required by claim 14, or performing the etching at a temperature of about 20 C to about 125 C, as required by claim 17.
Lubomirsky teaches plasma processing conditions including hydrogen flow rates of less than or about 1500 sccm (paragraph [0109]), plasma processing pressure of about 1 torr to about 10 torr (paragraph [0113]), and processing temperature of about 20° C. to about 125° C (paragraph [0112]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the plasma processing system of Nguyen using the hydrogen flow rate, pressure, and temperature conditions taught by Lubomirsky because such parameters are recognized process variables in plasma etching systems that are routinely adjusted to achieve desired processing results. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art. See MPEM 2144.05(I)
Claims 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Kraus and in view of Takahashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Wang.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Nguyen teaches the limitations of claim 1 including generating plasma in a semiconductor processing chamber.
Modified Nguyen does not teach that the plasma source power is about 25 W to about 300 W or less than or about 50 W, as required by claims 11 and 12.
Wang teaches plasma etching processes in which plasma source power is about 25 W to about 300 W, including values less than or about 50 W (paragraph [0045]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the plasma processing system of Nguyen with the plasma source power values within the range taught by Wang, including values that fall within the claimed ranges, because plasma power is a known operating parameter in plasma processing systems that is routinely adjusted to achieve desired plasma characteristics. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nguyen teaches the limitations of claim 1 including generating a remote plasma using precursor gases.
Modified Nguyen does not teach introducing a nitrogen-containing precursor at a rate of about 25 sccm to about 150 sccm.
Wang teaches introducing nitrogen containing precursor gas into a processing region at a flow rate of about 25 sccm to about 150 sccm. (paragraph [0043]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to introduce the nitrogen-containing precursor taught by Wang into the plasma system of Nguyen because combining known process elements according to known methods yields predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, regarding the specific flow rate of the nitrogen-containing precursor, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Kraus and in view of Takahashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Lill et al.(US 2016/0196984 A1).
Modified Nguyen teaches that limitation of claim 1 including performing plasma etching within the semiconductor processing chamber.
Modified Nguyen does not teach wherein the etch comprises an oxide bulk removal, a native oxide preclean, an oxide/nitride removal, a nitride recess, a silicon germanium recess, or a combination thereof, as required by instant claim 16.
Lill teaches a method of etching semiconductor substrate including oxide bulk removal and a native oxide preclean operations used to remove oxide layer from underlying semiconductor materials (paragraphs [0005], [0031]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the oxide bulk removal and native oxide preclean operations taught by Lill into the plasma system of Nguyen because oxide bulk removal and preclean operations are conventional semiconductor fabrication steps preformed using plasma etching systems. See MPEP2143(I)(C), which states that it is obvious to apply a known technique to improve a similar device or process.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2019/0326098 A1) in view of Kraus et al. (US 2020/0381217 A1) and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6,361,707 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Nguyen teaches a method of etching a target material of a semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor processing chamber 178, including flowing one or more plasma precursors through a remote plasma source into a remote plasma region of the semiconductor processing chamber, generating a remote plasma within the remote plasma region at a microwave frequency to form plasma effluents, and flowing the plasma effluents into a processing region 589 of the semiconductor processing chamber (Nguyen, paragraphs [0005], [0029], [0031], [0051], [0066]). Nguyen further teaches the remote plasma source comprising a microwave applicator disposed within a remote plasma source housing (Nguyen, Figs. 4E-5C; paragraphs [0056]-[0061]). Nguyen further teaches that the microwave applicator 142 includes a resonator body/cavity 353/363 formed from or coated with a first dielectric material including aluminum oxide and a dielectric window/plate 150 formed from or coated with a second dielectric material (Nguyen, paragraph [0051]).
Nguyen does not expressly teach that the microwave applicator comprises a plate and a resonator body removably coupled with a top surface of the plate.
Kraus teaches a microwave source including an applicator 142 having a dielectric resonant cavity 353, wherein the dielectric resonant cavity 353 is a dielectric material dimensioned to support resonance of microwave radiation (Kraus, paragraph [0031]). Kraus further teaches that microwave radiation from applicators 142 is coupled into a chamber through dielectric plate 350, wherein the dielectric resonant cavity 353 may be in direct contact with dielectric plate 350, and wherein the applicators 142 are positioned above the dielectric plate 350 (Kraus, paragraph [0035]; Fig. 3B). Kraus further teaches that the array 140 of applicators 142 may be removable from dielectric plate 350 for maintenance or rearrangement without removing the dielectric plate 350 from the chamber (Kraus, paragraph [0036]). Thus, Kraus teaches a microwave applicator having a resonator body removably coupled with a top surface of a dielectric plate.
It would have been obvious to modify the microwave applicator structure of Nguyen to include the removable applicator/dielectric plate arrangement taught by Kraus because Kraus teaches that the applicators may be removed from the dielectric plate for maintenance or rearrangement without removing the dielectric plate from the chamber, thereby improving serviceability and maintenance access while predictably coupling microwave radiation through a dielectric plate into a plasma-processing region. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP §2141 III(A).
The modified method of Nguyen does not expressly teach that the plate is formed from or coated with a second dielectric material comprising quartz, alumina, sapphire, MgF2, yttrium aluminum garnet, Y2O3, MgO, calcium fluoride, barium fluoride, lithium fluoride, fused silica, borosilicate glass, or a combination thereof.
Tanaka teaches a microwave plasma apparatus including a dielectric window formed from sapphire for transmitting microwave energy into a plasma processing chamber (Tanaka, col. 23, lines 28-36).
It would have been obvious to modify the modified method of Nguyen to form the dielectric plate from sapphire as taught by Tanaka because Tanaka teaches sapphire as a microwave-transmitting dielectric material suitable for plasma processing apparatuses. Simple substitution of one known microwave-transmitting dielectric material for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP §2141 III(B).
Regarding claim 19, modified Nguyen teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the second dielectric material is sapphire, because Tanaka teaches a sapphire dielectric window for transmitting microwave energy into a plasma processing chamber (Tanaka, col. 23, lines 28-36).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2019/0326098 A1) in view of Kraus et al. (US 2020/0381217 A1), Berry, III et al. (US 2016/0196969 A1), and Lubomirsky et al. (US 2017/0229289 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Nguyen teaches a method of etching a target material of a semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor processing chamber 178, including flowing one or more plasma precursors through a remote plasma source into a remote plasma region of the semiconductor processing chamber, generating a remote plasma within the remote plasma region at a microwave frequency to form plasma effluents 196, and flowing the plasma effluents 196 into a processing region 589 of the semiconductor processing chamber (Nguyen, paragraphs [0005], [0029], [0031], [0051], [0066]). Nguyen further teaches the remote plasma source comprising a microwave applicator disposed within a remote plasma source housing (Nguyen, Figs. 4E-5C; paragraphs [0056]-[0063]). Nguyen further teaches that the microwave applicator 142 includes a resonator body/cavity 353/363 formed from or coated with a first dielectric material including aluminum oxide and a dielectric window/plate 150 formed from or coated with a second dielectric material (Nguyen, paragraph [0051]).
Nguyen does not expressly teach that the microwave applicator comprises a plate and a resonator body removably coupled with a top surface of the plate.
Kraus teaches a microwave source including an applicator 142 having a dielectric resonant cavity 353, wherein the dielectric resonant cavity 353 is a dielectric material dimensioned to support resonance of microwave radiation (Kraus, paragraph [0031]). Kraus further teaches that microwave radiation from applicators 142 is coupled into a chamber through dielectric plate 350, wherein the dielectric resonant cavity 353 may be in direct contact with dielectric plate 350, and wherein the applicators 142 are positioned above the dielectric plate 350 (Kraus, paragraph [0035]; Fig. 3B). Kraus further teaches that the array 140 of applicators 142 may be removable from dielectric plate 350 for maintenance or rearrangement without removing dielectric plate 350 from the chamber (Kraus, paragraph [0036]). Thus, Kraus teaches a microwave applicator having a resonator body removably coupled with a top surface of a dielectric plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen to include the removable applicator/dielectric plate arrangement taught by Kraus because Kraus teaches that the applicators may be removed from the dielectric plate for maintenance or rearrangement without removing the dielectric plate from the chamber, thereby improving serviceability and maintenance access while predictably coupling microwave radiation through a dielectric plate into a plasma-processing region. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP § 2141 III(A).
The modified method of Nguyen does not expressly teach that the plasma effluents exhibit an etch selectivity between the target material and a second material that includes silicon germanium (SiGe), an oxide material, a nitride material, and a polysilicon material, wherein the second material is different than the target material, and a ratio of hydrogen to a fluorine-containing precursor material is greater than or about 3:1.
Berry teaches controllably etching silicon oxide and germanium oxide from semiconductor substrates and teaches selective etching of silicon oxide, germanium oxide, or combinations thereof in the presence of exposed silicon, germanium, or silicon germanium, wherein the selectivity is at least 5:1 (Berry, paragraphs [0024], [0027]). Berry further teaches F-based etchants including F radical, NF3, F2, CF4, C2F6, HF, and XeF2, and teaches sources of hydrogen-containing gas for formation of hydrogen-containing plasma (Berry, paragraphs [0046]-[0057]). Berry also teaches that silicon oxide etch rate is controlled by the flow rate and composition of reactant gases, plasma power, substrate temperature, or chamber pressure (Berry, paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to modify the modified method of Nguyen to include the etch selectivity characteristics and reactant gas chemistry taught by Berry because Berry teaches selective oxide etching in the presence of exposed silicon, germanium, or silicon germanium, and controlling etch selectivity between semiconductor materials is a known objective in plasma etching processes. It would further have been obvious to optimize the ratio of hydrogen-containing gas to fluorine-containing precursor material to include ratio of hydrogen to a fluorine-containing precursor material is greater than or about 3:1 because Berry teaches that silicon oxide etch rate is controlled by reactant gas flow rate and composition. Thus, Berry recognizes reactant gas flow rate and composition as result-effective variables for controlling oxide etching and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to use as much or as little of each etch gas as necessary to achieve the etch rate and selectivity. It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §§ 2141 III(D), 2144.05.
The modified method of Nguyen, as further modified by Berry, does not expressly teach that the plasma source power is less than or about 50 watts.
Lubomirsky teaches operating a plasma at reduced power, including below or about 50 W, 20 W, or less (Lubomirsky, paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to modify the modified method of Nguyen, as further modified by Berry, to use the reduced plasma power taught by Lubomirsky because Lubomirsky teaches that reduced plasma power may be used to maintain plasma while reducing degradation of chamber components and improving uniform plasma delivery (Lubomirsky, paragraph [0077]). Plasma power is also a known process variable adjusted to obtain desired plasma characteristics. It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the claim 112(b) rejection of claim 20. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive of patentability in view of the modified rejections set forth above.
Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended to recite “the remote plasma source comprising the microwave applicator disposed within a remote plasma source housing,” wherein the microwave applicator comprises “a plate” and “a resonator body removably coupled with a top surface of the plate.” Applicant further argues that Nguyen does not disclose a microwave applicator where the resonator body is removably coupled with a top surface of the plate and where both the resonator body and plate are disposed within a housing of a remote plasma source.
During the interview, no agreement was reached regarding allowability of the claims. Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 18, and 20 to further recite structural limitations directed to the remote plasma source and microwave applicator assembly. The rejections have been modified to address the amended claim language.
The modified rejections rely on Kraus to address the newly added applicator/plate relationship. Kraus teaches a microwave source including an applicator 142 having a dielectric resonant cavity 353, wherein the dielectric resonant cavity 353 is a dielectric material dimensioned to support resonance of microwave radiation (Kraus, paragraph [0031]). Kraus further teaches that microwave radiation from applicators 142 is coupled into a chamber through dielectric plate 350, wherein the dielectric resonant cavity 353 may be in direct contact with dielectric plate 350, and wherein the applicators 142 are positioned above the dielectric plate 350 (Kraus, paragraph [0035]; Fig. 3B). Kraus further teaches that the array 140 of applicators 142 may be removable from dielectric plate 350 for maintenance or rearrangement without removing dielectric plate 350 from the chamber (Kraus, paragraph [0036]). Thus, Kraus teaches a microwave applicator having a resonator body removably coupled with a top surface of a dielectric plate.
It would have been obvious to modify Nguyen’s microwave applicator structure to include the removable applicator/dielectric plate arrangement taught by Kraus because Kraus teaches that such an arrangement allows applicators to be removed from the dielectric plate for maintenance or rearrangement without removing the dielectric plate from the chamber. The modification improves serviceability and maintenance access while predictably coupling microwave radiation through a dielectric plate into a plasma-processing region.
Applicant has not provided persuasive argument or evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to apply Kraus’s removable microwave applicator/dielectric plate arrangement to Nguyen’s microwave plasma etching system, or that the modification would have produced unexpected results. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the modified rejections.
The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained as modified.
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 JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights