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 .
Status of Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to applicant’s amendments filed 12 Feb 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 are pending. Claims 1, 4 are amended. Claim 3 is canceled. Claim 8 and 9 are withdrawn.
Drawings
Drawing filed 12 Feb 2026 are acknowledged. However, Applicant did not address all drawing objections discussed in the non-final rejection of 24 Nov 2025.
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number 10 in Fig. 1 is not disclosed in the Specification. In order to overcome this drawing objection, the Applicant can remove reference numeral 10 from Fig. 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The Specification objections discussed in the non-final rejection of 24 Nov 2025 is withdrawn in light of amendments to the Specification filed 12 Feb 2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitation(s) is/are magnetic field forming unit (claim 1, 2, 6).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purpose of examination, magnetic field forming unit (claim 1, 2, 6) shall be interpreted in light of original Specification bottom page 8 as comprising an electromagnet or permanent magnet or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Other claim interpretation
Claim 1 limitation “a plurality of supply portions configured to alternately supply a precursor gas and a reactant gas” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as comprising a plurality of gas supply or delivery lines or pipes capable of alternately supplying a precursor gas and a reactant gas in view of Fig. 1 and lower page 7.
Regarding claim 4 limitation “lattice arrangement or an amorphous arrangement” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of lattice and amorphous as a regular geometric arrangement of objects in an area or an arrangement having no definite form.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (US 2010/0006543 A1 hereinafter “Sawada”) in view of (KR100449645B1 IDS art hereinafter “Bae” and referring to English Machine Translation) or alternatively Bae et al. (KR100449645B1 IDS art hereinafter “Bae” and referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Sawada et al. (US 2010/0006543 A1 hereinafter “Sawada”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sawada teaches:
A deposition device (comprising plasma apparatus 1, Fig. 1-4, para. [0051],[0089]), comprising:
a chamber (comprising processing chamber 11, Fig. 1) with a stage (comprising mounting table 2, Fig. 1) inside which a substrate (comprising substrate B, Fig. 1) is placed (para. [0053]);
a plasma generation unit (comprising comb electrodes 31 and 32, Fig. 1 and 4) that generates plasma in the chamber by forming an electric field (para. [0065]); and
a plurality of supply portions (comprising gas lines in gas supply system 45 including valve and mass flow controllers connected to gas sources 44A, 44B, 44C, para. [0060]) configured to alternately supply a precursor gas and a reactant gas {Examiner explains that the gas supply system 45 would be capable of alternately supplying precursor gas and a reactant gas (i.e. a first and second processing gas) because the gas supply system includes multiple gas lines and control structures such as the valves and the mass flow controllers disclosed in para. [0060]), wherein:
the plasma generation unit comprises a plurality of split electrodes (comprising comb electrodes 31 and 32, Fig. 1 and 4) that are adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction with respect to the substrate (comprising B, Fig. 1) and electrically coupled (para. [0065]), and generates an electric field in the horizontal direction with respect to the substrate (comprising B, Fig. 1) when power is applied (para. [0065]){Examiner explains that since para. [0065] discloses that the RF electric current flow between the comb electrode 31 and 32, in light of Fig. 4 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the electric field is in the horizontal direction. See annotated Fig. 4 below}.
PNG
media_image1.png
981
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sawada does not explicitly teach:
An external magnetic field-coupled plasma atomic layer, a magnetic field forming unit, which is provided outside the chamber and forms a magnetic field to create a high-density plasma within the chamber, is characterized by being included.
However, Bae teaches an external magnetic field-coupled plasma atomic layer device (comprising ALD reaction vessel including reactor block 20, Fig. 8, para. [0039], [0078]-[0088]) a magnetic field forming unit (comprising magnetic field generating device 60 comprising permanent or electromagnets, Fig. 3 and 8, para. [0057]), which is provided outside the chamber (comprising reactor block 20, Fig. 3 and 8) and forms a magnetic field to create a high-density plasma within the chamber (comprising 20, Fig. 3 and 8), is characterized by being included (para. [0085]-[0086]). Bae teaches that such a configuration enables generating high density plasma and increases the probability of collision between reactive gases on the wafer/substrate and thus results in increased reactivity and denser thin film deposition (para. [0085], [0097]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a magnetic field forming unit, which is provided outside the chamber and forms a magnetic field to create a high-density plasma within the chamber, is characterized by being included because Bae teaches that such a configuration enables generating high density plasma and increases the probability of collision between reactive gases on the wafer/substrate and thus results in increased reactivity and denser thin film deposition (Bae: para. [0085], [0097]).
Alternatively, regarding independent claim 1, Bae teaches an external magnetic field-coupled plasma atomic layer deposition device (comprising ALD reactor vessel including reactor block 20Fig. 8, para. [0078]-[0088], [0097]), comprising:
a chamber (comprising reactor block 20, Fig. 8) with a stage (comprising wafer block 30, Fig. 8) inside which a substrate (wafer W, Fig. 8) is placed (para. [0039]);
a plasma generation unit (comprising RF electrode 77 and showerhead 50, Fig. 8, para. [0081]) that generates plasma in the chamber by forming an electric field (para. [0081]);
a magnetic field forming unit (comprising magnetic field generating device 60 comprising permanent or electromagnets, Fig. 3 and 8, para. [0057]), which is provided outside the chamber (comprising reactor block 20, Fig. 3 and 8) and forms a magnetic field to create a high-density plasma within the chamber (comprising 20, Fig. 3 and 8), is characterized by being included (para. [0085]-[0086]), and
a plurality of supply portions (comprising 51a and 52b, Fig. 8) configured to alternately supply a precursor gas and a reactant gas (i.e. first reaction gas and second reaction gas, para. [0081]-[0083]).
Bae does not explicitly teach: the plasma generation unit comprises a plurality of split electrodes that are adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction with respect to the substrate and electrically coupled, and generates an electric field in the horizontal direction with respect to the substrate when power is applied.
However, Sawada teaches a plasma deposition device (comprising plasma apparatus 1, Fig. 1-4, para. [0051],[0089]) including a plasma generation unit comprises a plurality of split electrodes (comprising comb electrodes 31 and 32, Fig. 1 and 4) that are adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction with respect to the substrate (comprising B, Fig. 1) and electrically coupled (para. [0065]), and generates an electric field in the horizontal direction with respect to the substrate (comprising B, Fig. 1) when power is applied (para. [0065]){Examiner explains that since para. [0065] discloses that the RF electric current flow between the comb electrode 31 and 32, in light of Fig. 4 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the electric field is in the horizontal direction. See annotated Fig. 4 above}. Sawada teaches that such an arrangement suppresses substrate damage by the plasma (para. [0022],[0030]).
Alternatively, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plasma generation unit to comprise a plurality of split electrodes that are adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction with respect to the substrate and electrically coupled, and generates an electric field in the horizontal direction with respect to the substrate when power is applied because Sawada teaches that such an arrangement enables suppressing substrate damage by the plasma (Sawada: para. [0022], [0030]).
Regarding preamble limitation “atomic layer deposition” and “to create a high-density plasma within the chamber” are intended use limitations. Since Sawada in view of Bae or alternatively Bae in view of Sawada teaches all of the structural limitations, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: 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). MPEP §2114. II
Regarding claim 2, Sawada in view of Bae (or alternatively Bae in view of Sawada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Furthermore, Bae teaches the direction of the magnetic field formed by applying power to the magnetic field forming unit is along a horizontal direction (para. [0078], see Fig. 4).
Recall Sawada teaches the electric field is in the horizontal direction (Sawada: para. [0065]).
Thus the combination of Sawada in view of Bae or alternatively Bae in view of Sawada would meet claim 2 limitation an angle formed between a direction of an electric field formed by the plasma generation unit and a direction of a magnetic field formed by applying power to the magnetic field forming unit is from 0 to 360 degrees {i.e. the angle would be 0, Bae teaches the magnetic field forming unit can comprise electromagnets which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize creates a magnetic field when power is applied.}.
Regarding claim 4, Sawada in view of Bae (or alternatively Bae in view of Sawada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Sawada further teaches each of the plurality of split electrodes (comprising 31 and 32, Fig. 2) is arranged in a lattice arrangement (i.e. a regular geometric pattern, as understood from Fig. 2). Thus, the combination meets claim 4 limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Sawada in view of Bae (or alternatively Bae in view of Sawada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Sawada further teaches the plasma generation unit (comprising 31 and 32, Fig. 1) is installed inside the chamber (comprising 11, Fig. 1 and 2). Thus, the combination meets claim 5 limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Sawada in view of Bae (or alternatively Bae in view of Sawada) teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Bae further teaches the magnetic field forming unit comprises an electromagnet or a permanent magnet (Bae: para. [0057]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (US 2010/0006543 A1 hereinafter “Sawada”) in view of (KR100449645B1 IDS art hereinafter “Bae” and referring to English Machine Translation) or alternatively Bae et al. (KR100449645B1 IDS art hereinafter “Bae” and referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Sawada et al. (US 2010/0006543 A1 hereinafter “Sawada”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 above and further in view of Masuda et al. (US 6,245,190 B1 hereinafter “Masuda”).
Regarding claim 6, Sawada in view of Bae (or alternatively Bae in view of Sawada) teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not clearly and explicitly teach an intensity of a magnetic field formed by the magnetic field forming unit is adjusted to control ion collision energy and plasma density responsive to the substrate.
However, Bae teaches that the magnetic field forming unit (comprising 60, Fig. 8) comprises an electromagnet (para. [0057]).
Additionally, Masuda teaches a magnetic field forming unit (comprising magnetic field forming means 50 including coil 51, Fig 1 and 2) comprising electromagnets (claim 1) wherein an intensity of a magnetic field formed by the magnetic field forming unit (comprising 50 and 51, Fig. 1) is adjusted to control ion collision energy and plasma density responsive to the substrate (comprising 42, Fig. 1 and 2) (col 17 line 1-65, col 19 line 18-31). Masuda teaches that such a configuration enables controlling the electron energy distribution in the plasma and the ratio of ions and radicals in the plasma (col 17 line 7-10, and 63-65).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the magnetic field forming unit to have adjustable intensity such that an intensity of a magnetic field formed by the magnetic field forming unit is adjusted to control ion collision energy and plasma density responsive to the substrate because Masuda teaches that such a configuration enables controlling the electron energy distribution in the plasma and the ratio of the ions and radicals in the plasma (Masuda: col 17 line 7-10, and 63-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 7) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 1, Masuda does not teach or suggest ALD, a plurality of supply portions configured to alternately supply a precursor gas and a reactant gas, and wherein the plasma generation unit comprises a plurality of split electrodes that are adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction with respect to the substrate and electrically coupled, and generates an electric field in the horizontal direction with respect to the substrate when power is applied as currently claimed in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Bae or alternatively Bae in view of Sawada. Masuda is no longer cited to teach the limitations of claim 1 and therefore Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 8) there is no motivation to modify Masuda's vertical parallel-plate system with Perrin's split electrodes specifically to create a horizontal electric field for an ALD process, as neither Masuda nor Perrin recognizes the benefit of a horizontal field in a magnetic-coupled ALD environment. Additionally, Sawada does not teach alternating gas supply and ALD.
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Bae or alternatively Bae in view of Sawada. Masuda is no longer cited to teach the limitations of claim 1 and therefore Applicant’s arguments directed toward Masuda and claim 1 are moot. Perrin is no longer cited in the current rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward Perrin is moot. Examiner further notes that ALD is an intended use limitation. Since Sawada teaches a plurality of gas supply portions including structures such as valves and mass flow controllers, the apparatus is considered capable of alternating gas supply. Furthermore, Bae teaches ALD and alternating gas supply as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
In light of the above, independent claim 1 is rejected.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claim 1, the dependent claims 2, 4-7 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Collins et al. (US 2018/0308667 A1) teaches an ALD device (comprising plasma reactor 100, Fig. 1, para. [0048]) comprising a plurality of split electrodes (comprising electrode assembly 120, Fig. 1, 2B, para. [0068]; 300, Fig. 3A-3C, para. [0071]-[0080]; 400, Fig. 4A-4C; para. [0082]-[0093]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights