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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Responsive to communication filed 07/28/2026
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 3-5, 11, and 13-15 have been withdrawn
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12, and 16-20 are rejected
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A2, B1, and C1 drawn to claims 1-2, 6-10, 12, and 16-20, in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no excessive burden comes from the search and examination of all pending claims. Examiner disagrees. The species have mutually exclusive structural features which would require different search strategies and/or syntaxes. As such, a serious search burden would exist. This requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-5, 11, and 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking
claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US 20200219701) in view of Moroz et al. (US 20040194890).
Regarding Claim 1:
Koshimizu teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a plasma processing chamber; a substrate support (substrate support 16) disposed in the plasma processing chamber and including at least one electrode (lower electrode 18); a second power source (power supply 61) configured to supply a second electric signal to the at least one electrode, the second electric signal including a second RF signal having a second RF frequency (the radio frequency power supply 61 is configured to generate a radio frequency power HF to be supplied to generate plasma in the chamber 10; the radio frequency power HF has a frequency within a range of 27 MHz to 100 MHz, e.g., 40 MHz or 60 MHz); a third power source (BPS 62) configured to supply a third electric signal to the at least one electrode, the third electric signal including a third RF signal or a DC signal having a third RF frequency that is lower than the second RF frequency (the frequency of the radio frequency power generated by the bias power supply 62 is within a range of 50 kHz to 27 MHz, e.g., 400 kHz); and a controller (controller MC) that includes a processor (the controller MC is a computer including a processor) [Fig. 1 & 0056-0057, 0060, 0066].
Koshimizu does not specifically disclose an antenna disposed above the plasma processing chamber; a first power source configured to supply a first electric signal to the antenna, the first electric signal including a first RF signal having a first RF frequency.
Moroz teaches an antenna (ICP RF antenna 110) disposed above the plasma processing chamber (airtight process chamber 102); a first power source (first RF power supply 114) configured to supply a first electric signal to the antenna, the first electric signal including a first RF signal having a first RF frequency (first RF power supply 114 outputs RF power for the ICP source) [Fig. 1A & 0057].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Koshimizu to include an antenna, as in Moroz, to provide a processing chamber with the benefits of both ICP and CCP plasma generation; to reach higher plasma density and better plasma uniformity [Moroz - Abstract, 0004-0006].
It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "the third electric signal including a third RF signal or a DC signal having a third RF frequency that is lower than the first RF frequency and the second RF frequency," since Koshimizu discloses the bias power supply 62 is within a range of 50 kHz to 27 MHz, e.g., 400 kHz and the radio frequency power HF has a frequency within a range of 27 MHz to 100 MHz, e.g., 40 MHz or 60 MHz [Koshimizu - 0056-0057, 0060]. Meanwhile, Moroz discloses that the first RF power supply 114 outputs RF power for the ICP source enough to produce a plasma in the process chamber and operates in a RF frequency range of 10-1000 MHz [Moroz - 0057].
Furthermore the limitations “that is configured by execution of computer readable instructions stored in a computer-readable storage to control the first power source, the second power source, and the third power source so as to selectively execute a first plasma processing mode, a second plasma processing mode, and a third plasma processing mode, wherein in the first plasma processing mode, the third electric signal is not supplied to the at least one electrode, the first electric signal is supplied to the antenna, and the second electric signal is supplied to the at least one electrode, in the second plasma processing mode, the second electric signal is not supplied to the at least one electrode, the first electric signal is supplied to the antenna, and the third electric signal is supplied to the at least one electrode, and in the third plasma processing mode, the first electric signal is not supplied to the antenna, and the second electric signal and the third electric signal are supplied to the at least one electrode,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
It is noted that Koshimizu has a controller, and as such, modifying Koshimizu to include the coil of Moroz would result in an apparatus capable of controlling the timing of power applied. In order to overcome the intended use, the applicant must amend the controller limitation to recite “and a controller configured to control the first power source.”
Regarding Claim 2:
The limitations “wherein the first plasma processing mode and the second plasma processing mode are inductively coupled plasma processing modes, and the third plasma processing mode is a capacitively coupled plasma processing mode,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
It is noted that Koshimizu has a controller, and as such, modifying Koshimizu to include the coil of Moroz would result in an apparatus capable of controlling the timing of power applied.
Regarding Claim 6:
Koshimizu teaches wherein the third electric signal includes the DC signal (the bias power supply 62 may be configured to apply a pulsed DC voltage as the bias power LF to the lower electrode 18), and the DC signal includes a sequence of pulses having a first voltage level during a first state of a repetition period (the supply and the shut-off of the supply of the radio frequency power from the bias power supply 62 to the lower electrode 18 may be switched alternately) [Fig. 1 & 0061-0062]. Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim 6 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding Claim 7:
Koshimizu teaches wherein the first voltage level has a negative polarity (the pulsed DC voltage may have a negative polarity) [Fig. 1 & 0062]. Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim 7 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding Claim 8:
Koshimizu teaches wherein the sequence of pulses has a pulse frequency in a range of 100 kHz to 1 MHz (the frequency of the radio frequency power generated by the bias power supply 62 is within a range of 50 kHz to 27 MHz, e.g., 400 kHz) [Fig. 1 & 0060]. Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim 8 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding Claim 9:
The limitations “wherein the DC signal has a second voltage level during a second state of the repetition period, and an absolute value of the second voltage level is smaller than an absolute value of the first voltage level,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
It is noted that Koshimizu has a controller, and as such, modifying Koshimizu to include the coil of Moroz would result in an apparatus capable of controlling the timing and value of power applied.
Regarding Claim 10:
Koshimizu teaches wherein the at least one electrode includes a first electrode, and the second electric signal and the third electric signal are supplied to the first electrode (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the BPS 62 and power supply 61 are electrically connected to the lower electrode 18) [Fig. 1 & 0060].
Claim(s) 12 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshimizu (US 20200219701) in view of Moroz et al. (US 20040194890).
Regarding Claim 12:
Koshimizu teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a plasma processing chamber; a substrate support (substrate support 16) disposed in the plasma processing chamber and including at least one electrode (lower electrode 18); a second power source (power supply 61) configured to supply a second electric signal to the at least one electrode, the second electric signal including a second RF signal having a second RF frequency (the radio frequency power supply 61 is configured to generate a radio frequency power HF to be supplied to generate plasma in the chamber 10; the radio frequency power HF has a frequency within a range of 27 MHz to 100 MHz, e.g., 40 MHz or 60 MHz); a third power source (BPS 62) configured to supply a third electric signal to the at least one electrode, the third electric signal including a third RF signal or a DC signal having a third RF frequency that is lower than the second RF frequency (the frequency of the radio frequency power generated by the bias power supply 62 is within a range of 50 kHz to 27 MHz, e.g., 400 kHz); and a controller (controller MC) that includes a processor (the controller MC is a computer including a processor) [Fig. 1 & 0056-0057, 0060, 0066].
Koshimizu does not specifically disclose an antenna disposed above the plasma processing chamber; a first power source configured to supply a first electric signal to the antenna, the first electric signal including a first RF signal having a first RF frequency.
Moroz teaches an antenna (ICP RF antenna 110) disposed above the plasma processing chamber (airtight process chamber 102); a first power source (first RF power supply 114) configured to supply a first electric signal to the antenna, the first electric signal including a first RF signal having a first RF frequency (first RF power supply 114 outputs RF power for the ICP source) [Fig. 1A & 0057].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Koshimizu to include an antenna, as in Moroz, to provide a processing chamber with the benefits of both ICP and CCP plasma generation; to reach higher plasma density and better plasma uniformity [Moroz - Abstract, 0004-0006].
It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "the third electric signal including a third RF signal or a DC signal having a third RF frequency that is lower than the first RF frequency and the second RF frequency," since Koshimizu discloses the bias power supply 62 is within a range of 50 kHz to 27 MHz, e.g., 400 kHz and the radio frequency power HF has a frequency within a range of 27 MHz to 100 MHz, e.g., 40 MHz or 60 MHz [Koshimizu - 0056-0057, 0060]. Meanwhile, Moroz discloses that the first RF power supply 114 outputs RF power for the ICP source enough to produce a plasma in the process chamber and operates in a RF frequency range of 10-1000 MHz [Moroz - 0057].
Furthermore the limitations “that is configured by execution of computer readable instructions stored in a computer-readable storage to control the first power source, the second power source, and the third power source so as to selectively execute an inductively coupled plasma processing mode and a capacitively coupled plasma processing mode, wherein in the inductively coupled plasma processing mode, the first electric signal is supplied to the antenna, and the second electric signal and/or the third electric signal is supplied to the at least one electrode, and in the capacitively coupled plasma processing mode, the first electric signal is not supplied to the antenna, and the second electric signal and the third electric signal are supplied to the at least one electrode,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
It is noted that Koshimizu has a controller, and as such, modifying Koshimizu to include the coil of Moroz would result in an apparatus capable of controlling the timing of power applied. In order to overcome the intended use, the applicant must amend the controller limitation to recite “and a controller configured to control the first power source.”
Regarding Claim 16:
Koshimizu teaches wherein the third electric signal includes the DC signal (the bias power supply 62 may be configured to apply a pulsed DC voltage as the bias power LF to the lower electrode 18), and the DC signal includes a sequence of pulses having a first voltage level during a first state of a repetition period (the supply and the shut-off of the supply of the radio frequency power from the bias power supply 62 to the lower electrode 18 may be switched alternately) [Fig. 1 & 0061-0062]. Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim 16 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding Claim 17:
Koshimizu teaches wherein the first voltage level has a negative polarity (the pulsed DC voltage may have a negative polarity) [Fig. 1 & 0062]. Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim 17 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding Claim 18:
Koshimizu teaches wherein the sequence of pulses has a pulse frequency in a range of 100 kHz to 1 MHz (the frequency of the radio frequency power generated by the bias power supply 62 is within a range of 50 kHz to 27 MHz, e.g., 400 kHz) [Fig. 1 & 0060]. Although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations of claim 18 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding Claim 19:
The limitations “wherein the DC signal has a second voltage level during a second state of the repetition period, and an absolute value of the second voltage level is smaller than an absolute value of the first voltage level,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
It is noted that Koshimizu has a controller, and as such, modifying Koshimizu to include the coil of Moroz would result in an apparatus capable of controlling the timing and value of power applied.
Regarding Claim 20:
Koshimizu teaches wherein the at least one electrode includes a first electrode, and the second electric signal and the third electric signal are supplied to the first electrode (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the BPS 62 and power supply 61 are electrically connected to the lower electrode 18) [Fig. 1 & 0060].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Dokan et al. (US 20200118814) and Shoeb et al. (US 10395894) teach power timing control [Dokan – Fig. 5; Shoeb – Fig. 1C]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights