DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention Group I, claims 1-6 and 9-19, without traverse, in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/27/2026.
Claim Interpretations
The “respective power feeding points” and “respective grounding points” of claim 14, “a power feeding point” and “a grounding point” of claim 19, and “end positions” of claims 2 and 17 (which seems to refer to power feeding points and grounding points), these points have not been clearly defined. From various figures, it appears to be the exact point where a spiral of the same diameter starts to deviate from that diameter and to turn outward.
The ”electrical midpoints” of claim 18 and “electrical midpoint” of claim 19, it is considered the middle point between the power feeding point and the grounding point. Applicants please acknowledge or point out exact definition of this midpoint.
The following are considered an intended use of the apparatus:
The “a net amplitude obtained by superposition of standing waves respectively generated by the at least two coils is set to be smaller than a peak amplitude of each of the standing waves” of claim 1,
The “wherein at least one gas selected from the group of an oxygen-containing gas, a nitrogen-containing gas, a hydrogen-containing gas, a fluorine-containing gas and a chlorine-containing gas is capable of being used as the process gas” of claim 5,
“wherein the high frequency powers are supplied to the at least two coils simultaneously” of claim 9,
“wherein the at least two coils are operated simultaneously” of claim 10,
An apparatus that is capable of using the type of gas, and use power to the coils simultaneously and the phase and frequency of the power supplies, is considered read into the respective claims.
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
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.
Claims 2, 4 and 17 are 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein end positions of spirals of the at least two coils are arranged such that a circumferential range of ±30° from an end position of a spiral of each of the at least two coils does not overlap with that of a spiral of any other one of the at least two coils”, it is not clear for many reasons.
First of all, “end positions of spirals of the at least two coils”, it is not clear whether end positions including “feeding point”, or “grounding point” or both. By Applicants’ Specification [0056] and [0057], it appears both feeding points and grounding points are end points (four end points when there are two coils).
Secondly, “a circumferential range of ±30° from an end position of a spiral of each of the at least two coils does not overlap with that of a spiral of any other one of the at least two coils”, it is not clear if only one end position of the four end position need to satisfy this relationship or each of the end position of all four end positions needs to satisfy this relationship.
Thirdly, “a circumferential range of ±30° from an end position of a spiral of each of the at least two coils does not overlap with that of a spiral of any other one of the at least two coils”, it is not clear what “that” includes “feeding point”, or “grounding point” or both. Furthermore, if the “an end position of a spiral” is a feeding point, it is not clear if “that” has to be a feeding point, or can also be a “grounding point”.
Applicants’ Fig. 8 shows the feeding point and the grounding point of a spiral overlap with each other. Therefore, “a circumferential range of ±30° from an end position of a spiral of each of the at least two coils does not overlap with that of a spiral of any other one of the at least two coils” seems not referring to any one of all four points need to avoid the other three end points. Unlike Figs. 4 and 7.
Fourthly, when there are more than six spirals, which is includes in claim 1 “comprising at least two coils” (no upper bound), it is not clear how the both end points of all six spirals can fit the relationship “does not overlap with that of a spiral of any other one of the at least two coils”. When there are more than twelve spirals, even by the single end point interpretation, it is not clear “does not overlap with that of a spiral of any other one of the at least two coils” will fit.
Claim 2 will be examined inclusive all of the above interpretations.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the at least two coils are configured to be wound along the outer periphery of the process vessel a same odd number of times”, it is not clear the “odd number of times” has to be a complete circle or may be more or less, but close to complete circles. Applicants’ Fig. 8 shows complete circle from the feeding point to ground point, however, Figs. 1-4 and 7 does not have complete circle for each coil. It is also not clear if a spiral has 3.5 circle, it is considered an odd number or an even number of times.
Claim 4 will be examined inclusive both interpretations.
Claim 17 recites “wherein end positions of the at least two coils are located at angular positions ±90° or ±180° away from each other”, it is not clear whether it is A) the power feeding point of the first coil to power feeding point of the second coil, however, this does not work if there are three coils or five or more coils. Or B) it is the power feeding point comparing to grounding point of each coil.
Claim 17 will be examined inclusive all of the above interpretations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over SAKAMOTO (JP 2000012287, from IDS, hereafter ‘287).
‘287 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: a plasma processing apparatus for performing etching, ashing, CVD, ion implantation, and the like on a semiconductor wafer ([0001], includes the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising”):
the upper half part of the chamber 3 is a small-diameter portion 3a, the lower half part is a large-diameter portion 3b, the inside of the small-diameter portion 3a is a plasma generating space, and the inside of the large-diameter portion 3b is a space where etching or ashing is performed by generated plasma. The reaction gas introducing pipe 6 is provided at the upper end of the small diameter portion 3a, and two antennas 7a and 7b are spirally wound outside the small diameter part 3a of the chamber 3 ([0011]), upper end portions of the antennas 7a and 7b are shifted in phase by 180° from each other in a plan view and are used as connecting portions (feeding portions) to a high-frequency power source. The lower ends of the antennas 7a and 7b are also grounded with their phases shifted by 180° from each other in a plan view ([0012], includes the claimed “a process vessel in which a process gas is excited into a plasma state; a gas supplier configured to supply the process gas into the process vessel; and a plasma generation structure provided so as to be wound in a spiral shape along an outer periphery of the process vessel and comprising at least two coils to which high frequency powers are respectively supplied”),
Figs. 1 and 2 show the claimed “wherein diameters of the at least two coils are set to be substantially same, lengths of the at least two coils are set to be substantially same”, the control of the power supply frequency and phase is capable of the claimed “ and a net amplitude obtained by superposition of standing waves respectively generated by the at least two coils is set to be smaller than a peak amplitude of each of the standing waves”, (if applicants argue that ‘287 does not explicitly teaches frequency and phase control, it is obvious to includes the control of power).
Claim 2. upper end portions of the antennas 7a and 7b are shifted in phase by 180° from each other in a plan view and are used as connecting portions (feeding portions) to a high-frequency power source. The lower ends of the antennas 7a and 7b are also grounded with their phases shifted by 180° from each other in a plan view ([0012], therefore, grounding point not overlapping within ±30° from the other grounding point of the other spiral, includes the claimed “wherein end positions of spirals of the at least two coils are arranged such that a circumferential range of ±30° from an end position of a spiral of each of the at least two coils does not overlap with that of a spiral of any other one of the at least two coils”, see 112(b) rejection above).
Claim 4: Fig. 1 shows antenna 7a and 7b each wound along the upper chamber 3a three times (includes the claimed “wherein the at least two coils are configured to be wound along the outer periphery of the process vessel a same odd number of times”, see also 112(b) rejection above).
Claim 5: the apparatus is capable of using various gases (includes the claimed “wherein at least one gas selected from the group of an oxygen-containing gas, a nitrogen-containing gas, a hydrogen-containing gas, a fluorine-containing gas and a chlorine-containing gas is capable of being used as the process gas”).
Claims 9-10: power supply intrinsically have control to turn it on and off and is capable of using both antenna simultaneously (includes the claimed “wherein the high frequency powers are supplied to the at least two coils simultaneously” of claim 9 and “wherein the at least two coils are operated simultaneously” of claim 10).
Claims 11-12: the upper half part of the chamber 3 is a small-diameter portion 3a, the lower half part is a large-diameter portion 3b, the inside of the small-diameter portion 3a is a plasma generating space, and the inside of the large-diameter portion 3b is a space where etching or ashing is performed by generated plasma. The reaction gas introducing pipe 6 is provided at the upper end of the small diameter portion 3a, and two antennas 7a and 7b are spirally wound outside the small diameter part 3a of the chamber 3 ([0011], includes the claimed “wherein the process vessel comprises:
a plasma generation space around which the at least two coils are provided; and
a substrate processing space arranged below the plasma generation space” of claim 11 and “wherein the plasma generation space is located above lower ends of the at least two coils, and the substrate processing space is located below the lower ends of the at least two coils” of claim 12).
Claims 13-18: Fig. 1 shows the claimed “wherein the at least two coils are arranged alternately at equal intervals in a vertical direction” of claim 13, “wherein lengths of the at least two coils from respective power feeding points to respective grounding points are set to be substantially same within an error range of ±10%” of claim 14, “wherein wire diameters of the at least two coils are set to be substantially same within an error range of ±10%” of claim 15, “wherein the at least two coils comprise a first coil and a second coil, a winding diameter of the first coil is substantially same as that if the second coil, and a distance from a surface of an outer wall of the process vessel to an inner peripheral surface of the first coil and a distance from the surface of the outer wall of the process vessel to an inner peripheral surface of the second coil are set to be constant” of claim 16, “wherein end positions of the at least two coils are located at angular positions ±90° or ±180° away from each other” of claim 17, “wherein electrical midpoints of the at least two coils are arranged at different positions in a circumferential direction” of claim 18).
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘287, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, in view of YOSHINO et al. (US 20200312625, from IDS, hereafter ‘625). Alternatively, claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-19 is also rejected over ‘287 in view of ‘625.
‘287 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 3: wherein a structure containing an impedance is connected to an end position of a spiral of at least one among the at least two coils.
Claim 6: wherein a peak position of a high frequency current is configured to be capable of being adjusted by adjusting the impedance of the structure.
‘625 is an analogous art in the field of SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS (title), inductive coupling plasma ([0060], last sentence). ‘625 teaches that A RF sensor 272, a high-frequency power supply 273, and a matching device 274 for matching the impedance and output frequency of the high-frequency power supply 273 are connected to the resonance coil 212a (Fig. 1, [0037]), A RF sensor 282, a high-frequency power supply 283, and a matching device 284 for matching the impedance and output frequency of the high-frequency power supply 283 are connected to the resonance coil 212b ([0041]), a waveform adjustment circuit (not shown) composed of a resonance coil and a shield is inserted in one end (or the other end or both ends) of each of the resonance coils 212a and 212b so that a phase current and an anti-phase current How symmetrically with respect to the electrical midpoint of each of the resonance coils 212a and 212b ([0056]), for the purpose of uniformly treating the interior of a groove having a high aspect ratio ([0005]).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added matching devices 274, 284 plus waveform adjustment circuit of ‘625, to each of antenna 7a, 7b of ‘287, for the purpose of uniformly treating the interior of a groove having a high aspect ratio, as taught by ‘625 ([0005]).
In case Applicants argue that ‘287 does not teach a capability to adjust phase of the power supplies to affect standing wave of claim 1, ‘625 clearly teaches phase adjustment capability (see also [0045] and Fig. 3). ‘625 also teaches various gases of claim 5 ([0027]).
Claim 19, and alternatively claims 3-5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘287 (optionally with ‘625), as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, in view of Tomioka et al. (US 5897713, from IDS, hereafter ‘713).
‘287 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 19: Fig. 1 shows the claimed “wherein the at least two coils comprise a first coil and a second coil, and wherein, in a state where the first coil and the second coil are arranged in a manner that a circumferential position of an electrical midpoint of the first coil is deviated from that of an electrical midpoint of the second coil”.
‘287 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 19: a circumferential position of a power feeding point of the first coil is substantially same as that of a grounding point of the first coil, and a circumferential position of a power feeding point of the second coil is substantially same as that of a grounding point of the second coil.
‘713 is an analogous art in the field of an apparatus and method for generating a plasma used for the purpose of conducting a process, e.g., etching or film formation in, e.g., semiconductor device manufacturing processes (col. 1, lines 6-9). ‘713 teaches that A first coil 3 and a second coil 4 are wound on the outer surface of the quartz cylinder 2. The process chamber 1 and the quartz cylinder 2 are integrally formed to constitute a plasma process room. The first and second coils 3 and 4 have substantially the same inductances (col. 5, lines 34-39, Fig. 1 shows the power supply position and grounding position for each of the coil 3 and coil 4 are at the same circumferential position, note also both wound at one full turn/time), for the purpose of capable of controlling progress of dissociation of a process gas regardless of the magnitude of power of the power supply (col. 3, lines 3-5).
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have re-arranged the antenna 7a, 7b of ‘287 with coils 3, 4 of ‘713, for the purpose of capable of controlling progress of dissociation of a process gas regardless of the magnitude of power of the power supply, as taught by ‘713 (col. 3, lines 3-5). Note ‘713 also teaches impedance/adjustable capacitor to each coil of claim 3, single coil turn of claim 4, and various gases of claim 5 (col. 12, line 18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200243301 is cited for power feeding point and grounding point at the same feed circumferential location (Fig. 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights