DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/26 has been entered.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the embodiment recited in claim 7, i.e., the antenna being located above the processing unit and being provided in a spiral shape on a plane must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims--note that these limitations are a consistent with what is recited in base claim 1, specifically the limitation in claim 1 that the antenna includes the coil wound around the plasma chamber on an external portion of the plasma chamber. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On the last line of claim 1, the word --variable-- should be inserted before "capacitor", note what is indicated on line 17 of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The originally filed specification and drawings do not provide enablement for what is recited in claims 7 and 16, i.e., the limitation that the antenna is located above the processing unit and is provided in a spiral shape on a plane because, as noted above in the drawing objection, this is inconsistent with what is recited in base claim 1, specifically the limitation in claim 1 that the antenna includes the coil wound around the plasma chamber on an external portion of the plasma chamber.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected as being non-enabled in view of their dependencies on rejected claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
5. 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.
Claims 7, 12, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 16 are indefinite because they are misdescriptive of the invention for the reason noted above, i.e., the originally filed specification and drawings do not provide enablement for what is recited in claims 7 and 16, i.e., the limitation that the antenna is located above the processing unit and is provided in a spiral shape on a plane because, as noted above in the drawing objection, this is inconsistent with what is recited in base claim 1, specifically the limitation in claim 1 that the antenna includes the coil wound around the plasma chamber on an external portion of the plasma chamber.
Claim 12 is indefinite in view of the recitation of "a capacitor" on line 9 and the further recitation of "a variable capacitor" on line 13, i.e., it cannot be determined by the examiner if these two capacitors are the same capacitor in the method of claim 12, or if they are referring to different capacitors. In response to this office action, applicant should make an appropriate amendment to claim 12 so as to clear up this ambiguity.
Claims 13 and 15-18 are indefinite in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on indefinite claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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, 5-7, 10, 12, 13, 15-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (USPAP 2021/0193440) in view of Barnes et al (USP 5,241,245).
As to claim 1, Ma et al discloses, in figure 2,
apparatus (1000) for processing a substrate (W), the apparatus comprising:
a processing unit (the inherent processing unit in figure 2 of Ma et al) providing a processing space (the inherent processing space in Ma et al's processing unit in which substrate W is processed) in which a substrate is processed;
a plasma chamber (Ma et al's plasma chamber shown in figure 2) having a generating space (the inherent generating space within Ma et al's plasma chamber) in which the plasma is generated above the processing unit; and
a plasma source (Ma et al's plasma source formed by power source 434 in combination with coil 432), wherein the plasma source includes an antenna (the antenna formed by coil 432) including a coil wound with a plurality of turns; and
a power application unit (power application unit 434) for applying high-frequency power to the coil.
Not disclosed by Ma et al are the limitations recited on lines 10-28 of claim 1. These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Barnes et al, supra, note that this reference discloses, in figure 1, a first ground line connected to one end of an antenna coil (note the top end of coil 11 in the upper right-hand corner of figure 1 of Barnes et al which is connected directly to a first ground line), a second ground line connected to an other end of the coil (note the bottom end of coil 11 in the middle left-hand portion of figure 1 of Barnes et al which is connected directly to a second ground line), a power application unit (17) connected to the coil 11 to apply high-frequency power directly to the coil at a location between the one end and the other end of the coil, note that only one of Barnes et al's first ground line and second ground line should obviously be provided with a variable capacitor in view of what Barnes et al shows in figure 3 of this reference, i.e., a variable capacitor 39 between one end of an antenna coil 31 and another end of the antenna coil 31 (note that such a variable capacitor 39, when added to the Barnes et al figure 1 apparatus, will inherently adjust a ratio of power distributed to the first ground line and the second ground line by changing capacitance thereof), the antenna shown in figure 1 of Barnes et al includes the coil 11 wound around the plasma chamber on an external portion thereof (and note that Ma et al similarly discloses the antenna coil 432 being wound around the plasma chamber on an external portion thereof), the coil of either Ma et al or Barnes et al can obviously be wound around the plasma chamber with an odd number of turns selected from five, seven, or nine turns (an obvious design expedient, as indicated in the previous office actions), the one end of the coil and the other end of the coil can obviously be provided in an overlapping position when viewed from above such that a virtual straight line connecting the one end and the other end passes through a center of the coil (obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons indicated in the previous office actions), and wherein the apparatus of Ma et al's figure 2 would inherently or obviously comprise a controller for controlling the variable capacitor 39 when such a variable capacitor is added to the plasma processing apparatus of Ma et al's figure 2, i.e., such a controller would be necessary in order to adjust the capacitance of variable capacitor 39, note also that using such a variable capacitor will inherently or obviously adjust the ratio of power distributed to the first ground line and the second ground line by changing the capacitance of the variable capacitor.
As to claim 5, note that the coil shown in figure 2 of Ma et al and the coil shown in figure 1 of Barnes et al will both be provided in a circular shape when viewed from above, i.e., because both coils are provided in a spiral around the external surface of the plasma chamber in each of these references.
As to claim 6, the claimed power application unit reads on power application unit 434 in figure 2 of Ma et al and power application unit 17 in figure 1 of Barnes et al, note that each includes a power source for generating the high-frequency power and a power line for delivering the high-frequency power generated by the power source, and power line in Ma et al as modified by Barnes et al will be connected at an intermediate position between the one end and the other end of the coil, and when viewed from above a virtual straight line connecting a first ground terminal at which the first ground line will be connected to the coil and a power application terminal at which the power line is connected to the coil will pass through the center of the coil.
As to claim 7, note that antenna 432 of Ma et al as modified by Barnes et al can obviously be located above the above-noted processing unit, and can obviously be provided in a spiral shape on a plane, the reason being that it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that an antenna coil used in a plasma processing apparatus typically includes antenna coils with first and second ends which are grounded, wherein a power application unit is connected to a midpoint of the antenna coils, and wherein the antenna is provided in a spiral shape in a plane, four examples of this well-known concept being shown in figure 2 of Holland et al (USP 6,028,395), figure 1B of Mohn et al (USP 6,401,652), figure 2 of Kim et al (USPAP 2007/0163500) and figure 2 of Benjamin et al (JP 2011–010494).
As to claim 10, note that antenna 432 of Ma et al as modified by Barnes et al is located to face a support unit porting a substrate in the processing space, when viewed from above.
As to claim 12, the limitations of this method claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 1 (the claimed capacitor and variable capacitor can both be read on Barnes et al's capacitor 439 shown in figure 3, when it is added into the figure 2 plasma processing apparatus of Ma et al, and note that Ma et al's high-frequency current will inherently be divided into a first current flowing from the power application terminal toward the one end of the coil and a second current from the power application terminal toward the other end of the coil, and a distribution ratio of the two currents will inherently be determined by the above-noted variable capacitor, as per lines 6-9 of claim 12).
As to claim 13, note that during the operation of Ma et al's figure 2 as modified by Barnes et al, the current ratio of the first and second currents will inherently be adjusted by changing the capacitance of the above-noted variable capacitor.
As to claim 15, note that when viewed from above, in Ma et al's figure 2 as modified by Barnes et al, a half region based on an arbitrary straight line passing through a center of a substrate will inherently have a plasma density of the first magnitude, and a remaining region of the half region will inherently have a plasma density of a second magnitude.
As to claim 16, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 7.
As to claim 17, note what is indicated by Barnes et al at column 2, lines 51-54, i.e., the disclosure in this reference that the tap 16 is adjustable two different positions between the above-noted one end of the coil and the other end of the coil.
As to claim 18, note that in Ma et al's figure 2 as modified by Barnes et al, in a region opposite the one end of the coil, a plasma density of the first magnitude will inherently be formed from the first current, and in a region opposite the other end of the coil, a plasma density of a second magnitude will inherently be formed by the second current.
As to claims 21-23, the limitations of these three claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above, i.e., all of the structural limitations will be met by Ma et al's figure 2 as modified by Barnes et al, and all of the functional limitations will be inherent in Ma et al's figure 2 as modified by Barnes et al.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed on 05/01/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's first argument is that the cited references either alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest wherein only one of the first ground line and the second ground line is provided with a variable capacitor that adjusts a ratio of power distributed to the first ground line and the second ground line by changing capacitance of the variable capacitor. This argument is not persuasive because, as noted above, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use such a variable capacitor provided only on one of first and second grounding lines, note variable capacitor 39 shown in figure 3 of Barnes et al, and note that when such a variable capacitor is added to the figure 2 plasma processing apparatus Ma et al, inherently a ratio of power distributed to the first and second ground lines will be adjusted by changing capacitance of such a variable capacitor.
Applicant's second argument is that the cited references do not disclose or suggest wherein the high-frequency current is divided into a first current flowing from the power application terminal toward the one end of the coil and a second current from the power application terminal toward the other end, and a distribution ratio of the two currents is determined by a capacitor provided at one end of the coil or at the other end of the coil. This argument is not persuasive because, as noted above, variable capacitor 39 of Barnes et al, when added to the figure 2 plasma processing apparatus of Ma et al, will inherently provide this operation, i.e., the high-frequency current will inherently be divided into a first current flowing from the power application terminal toward the one end of the coil and a second current from the power application terminal toward the other end, and a distribution ratio of the two currents will inherently be determined by this capacitor. The same is true for the recitation in the claims that the variable capacitor adjusts the distribution ratio of the first and second currents by changing the capacitance of the variable capacitor.
Applicant's third argument is that winding the coil with an odd number of turns and combining such with the vertical overlapping arrangement structure recited in the claims provides the result that the density of the plasma formed in the upper region (A) and the lower region (B) along the upper-lower direction of the plasma chamber can be made different from each other, thereby enabling fine adjustment of the plasma formation density. This argument is not persuasive because when the coils in Ma et al's figure 2 as modified by Barnes et al are formed with an odd number of turns (obvious, as noted above) and the two coil ends are formed in a vertically overlapping arrangement structure (also obvious, as noted above), inherently or obviously the density of the plasma formed in the upper region (A) and the lower region (B) along an upper-lower direction of the plasma chamber can be made different from each other, thereby enabling fine adjustment of the plasma formation density.
Applicant's further arguments, set forth on line 28 of page 9 through line 13 of page 10, are not persuasive for the same reasons noted above, i.e., winding the coil in Ma et al's figure 2 as modified by Barnes et al with an odd number of turns would have been obvious as a routine design expedient, particularly in view of the fact that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use an odd number of turns when forming the antenna coil in a plasma processing apparatus.
Applicant's further arguments, set forth on page 10, line 14 through page 12, line 22 are not persuasive because applicant here is merely pointing out the differences between the claims and each of the individual references applied by the examiner, i.e., the examiner concedes that there are differences between the claims in each of the references applied in the rejection above, but it should be noted that the rejection is based on obviousness under 35 USC 103 and there is clear motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art as set forth by the examiner.
Applicant's final argument is that the combination of references applied against the claims "does not even recognize the problems addressed by the claims, let alone teach or suggest...a solution similar to that of the claims." This argument is not persuasive because, as applicant is well aware, the combined prior art does not need to recognize the problems addressed by applicants claims, nor does it need to teach or suggest a solution similar to that of the claims. Rather, it is only necessary that all of the limitations of the claims are met by the combined prior art and that there is motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art. As indicated in the rejection above, all of the limitations of the claims are met by the combined prior art and there is clear motivation to combine the teachings of such prior art, and therefore the obviousness rejection set forth above is still deemed to be proper.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 May 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights