DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 5/26/2026.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant has withdrawn non-elected claims 13-19 as part of the same reply, thus no further action is required by the Examiner at this time.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-12 have been examined herein on the merits.
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 1-12 (all pending, non-withdrawn claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um (US Pub. 2017/0084427, hereinafter – ‘427) in view of Liao (US Pub. 2018/0158653).
The Examiner notes Um and Liao were supplied by the Applicant on the IDS’ filed 9/14/2023 and 5/13/2026, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, ‘427 teaches a dielectric window for a process chamber ([0038] and Figs. 12A-13, dielectric window #100), comprising: a disc-shaped body (see Fig. 12A) consisting of a first dielectric material having a first dielectric constant ([0040], various exemplary dielectric materials); an annular portion consisting of a second dielectric material having a second dielectric constant ([0086] and Fig. 12B, material layer #130 with various exemplary materials), the annular portion being seated in the disc-shaped body (see Fig. 12B); wherein the dielectric window has a substantially constant thickness over a process region of the process chamber (see Fig. 14), the process region being an interior region of the process chamber in which a plasma is generated during processing of a substrate in the process chamber ([0007]); wherein the seating of the annular portion in the disc-shaped body is configured to maintain the substantially constant thickness of the dielectric window (see Fig. 12B).
‘427 does not explicitly teach wherein the second dielectric material has a second dielectric constant greater than the first dielectric constant. (Examiner’s note: the Examiner respectfully submits that ‘427 alone would likely convey to a PHOSITA where such a material can be used, but feels an obviousness rejection is stronger at this time).
However, Liao teaches wherein a second dielectric material insert has a second dielectric constant greater than a first dielectric constant window (Liao – [0028]-[0032]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the second dielectric material portion of ‘427 to a higher dielectric constant material since Liao teaches this configuration allows for modulation of the plasma to enhance process uniformity (Liao – [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, ‘427 teaches wherein a top surface of the disc-shaped body includes an annular recess that accommodates the annular portion (see Figs. 12A-B).
Regarding claim 3, ‘427 teaches wherein the disc-shaped body and the annular portion are configured so that an efficiency of inductive coupling of power through the dielectric window is different for different radial sections of the dielectric window (see Fig. 12A, dielectric constant varies in a radial direction center-to-edge, [0086] details how different dielectric constants change the EM field generated by the inductive electrode).
Regarding claim 4, ‘427 teaches wherein the different radial sections include a first section through which power is inductively coupled through the first dielectric material alone (see Figs. 12A-B, either the inner or outer portions comprising only #110), and a second section through which power is inductively coupled through both of the first and the second dielectric materials (see as above, middle portion comprising #130 and #110).
Regarding claim 5, ‘427 teaches wherein the disc-shaped body defines a bottom surface of the dielectric window, such that the bottom surface of the dielectric window is defined from the first dielectric material alone (see Figs. 12B and 14).
Regarding claim 6, ‘427 teaches wherein a top surface of the dielectric window includes a surface region defined from the first dielectric material and a surface region defined from the second dielectric material (see Figs. 12A-B, upper surface comprises regions of #110 and #120).
Regarding claim 7, ‘427 teaches wherein the disc-shaped body spans a width of the process region, and wherein the annular portion does not span the width of the process region (see Fig. 14, #100 spans entire width of the chamber, #120 only spans part of the width of the wafer #2000).
Regarding claim 8, ‘427 teaches wherein the annular portion is positioned to be substantially disposed below a coil that inductively couples power into the process region (see Fig. 14, #120 below #400).
Regarding claim 9, ‘427 teaches wherein the disc-shaped body and the annular portion reduce radial non-uniformity of the plasma generated in the process region ([0004]).
Regarding claim 10, ‘427 teaches wherein the annular portion defines an insert having a bottom contour shaped to conform to an upper contour of the disc-shaped body, so as to maintain the substantially constant thickness of the dielectric window (see Fig. 12B and Fig. 13A, could comprise a material filling a contour-bottomed recess).
Regarding claim 11, ‘427 teaches wherein the annular portion has a substantially rectangular cross-section (see Fig. 12B).
Regarding claim 12, ‘427 teaches wherein the annular portion is embedded within the disc-shaped body (see Fig. 12B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Howald (US 6,074,516) teaches an insert for a dielectric window (Fig. 5). Koshimizu (US 2012/0031560) teaches various structures/cutouts for a dielectric window (all Figs).
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
Prosecution Insights