DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on August 17, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 11, 13, and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder – portion, in this case – that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “substrate installation portion” of claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The substrate installation portion (114) will be interpreted as a table in accordance with Figure 1 of Applicant’s disclosure.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, US 6,036,878, in view of Shin et al., US 6,179,955.
Claims 1, 18: Collins discloses an inductively coupled plasma processing apparatus, comprising:
A chamber (105) comprising an open upper side and an open lower side (Fig. 46);
A window unit (110) coupled to an upper portion of the chamber;
Wherein the window unit and the chamber form a processing space (100);
A coil (175, 180) in an upper portion of the window unit, where the coil forms an EM field;
Wherein the main body comprises a table (120), i.e., the “substrate installation portion,” configured to receive a substrate;
Wherein the window unit comprises a plurality of windows (110a, 110b).
The plurality of windows, however, lack differing thicknesses or materials. Shin, however, discloses an inductively coupled plasma processing apparatus comprising a window unit (30) coupled to an upper portion of a chamber (10) (Fig. 3). Critically, Shin selectively modifies the thickness of the window unit so that its lower portions, proximate to high plasma density, are farther from the chuck than those portions which are proximate to lower plasma density (3, 59ff). This configuration reduces plasma concentration at the center of the window, thereby minimizing the attachment of byproducts (5, 15-23). As Collins shares this desideratum, it would have been obvious to vary window thickness accordingly, since applying a known technique to improve similar devices is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Lastly, Collins contemplates an embodiment in which the plasma chamber (215) is disposed within the internal space of a main body (147) (Fig. 38B). Although the window unit in this case is not segmented, there is no structural barrier to such a modification. As such, it would have been obvious to try a hybrid embodiment in which Collins’ chamber, comprising the segmented window, is enclosed by a main body, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 2: As shown by Figure 3 of Collins, the plurality of windows is concentric.
Claim 3: As shown by Figures 42 and 43, the first window (110a) is a flat disk, and the second window is a ring (110b) concentrically surrounding the first.
Claims 8-9, 14: The mere act of subdividing Collins’ second window is sufficient to satisfy the claimed limitation. Necessarily, because the thickness of Shin’s window unit varies radially, the thickness of the individual windows will be different.
Claim 12: Collins’ window unit may be quartz (1, 65ff).
Claims 4, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Shin, and in further view of Chen et al., US 5,226,967.
Claims 4, 10, 19: Collins is silent regarding the feature of a cover window. In supplementation, Chen discloses an inductively coupled plasma system comprising a dielectric window (18) (Fig. 4). Chen proposes various embodiments in which a cover window (182) is disposed on the underside of the dielectric window; thickening the window in this region shapes the induced electric field adaptively (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to affix a cover window to the underside of Collins’ window unit to for purposes of regulating the shape of the EM field, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 20: The rejection of claim 8, above, addresses these limitations.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins.
The rejections of claims 1 and 2, above, substantially address these limitations. In addition, Collins contemplates an embodiment in which the plasma chamber (215) is disposed within the internal space of a main body (147) (Fig. 38B). Although the window unit in this case is not segmented, there is no structural barrier to such a modification. As such, it would have been obvious to try a hybrid embodiment in which Collins’ chamber, comprising the segmented window, is enclosed by a main body, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka, US 2013/0264014, in view of Collins.
Claims 1-3: Iizuka provides a chamber (11) comprising a window unit formed in the upper portion of the chamber, a coil (16) disposed on an upper portion of the window unit, and a substrate table ([0039]; Fig. 1A). The window unit, in turn, comprises a first window (14) formed of aluminum and a second, concentric window (19) formed of another material, like nickel [0040, 0054]. Iizuka does not teach a main body, but Collins contemplates an embodiment in which the plasma chamber (215) is disposed within the internal space of a main body (147) (Fig. 38B). It would have been obvious to enclose Iizuka’s chamber within a main body simply to provide enhanced thermal housing for the hot coil.
Claim 4: Iizuka provides a cover window (15) disposed on the underside of the first and second windows [0040].
Claim 5: Iizuka’s second window (16) is constituted by a plurality of second windows which may be formed of any of “aluminum, nickel, copper, alloy or the like” [0053]. It would have been obvious to try various permutations of these materials, since choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claims 6-7: Iizuka’s first window (14) may be formed of aluminum, and the second window (19) may be formed of nickel [0040, 0053].
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Banna et al., US 2015/0068682. Banna discloses an inductively coupled plasma system comprising a chamber with a window (104) formed at its upper portion (Fig. 1). As shown by Figure 2, Banna’s window varies in thickness in order to regulate the plasma distribution [0023]/
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights