DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 4, and 9 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 remain pending and subject to examination on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 7/9/2026 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments are directed almost exclusively at the FOX reference (see Remarks at 9-10). The arguments are not persuasive for at least two reasons. First, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Second, only a small fraction of the 103 rejections use FOX as the primary reference (see 4/20/2026 Non-Final Action at ¶¶ 16-28). Instead, the bulk of the 103 rejections use JOHNSON as the primary reference (see Non-Final at ¶¶ 29-68), which Applicant’s arguments do not address.
In view of the 7/9/2026 claim amendments, Claim 1 and its dependent claims are now rejected based on the primary reference JOHNSON as modified in view of several secondary references (e.g., FOX, CHANDRA, etc.).
Claim Objections
In Claim 1 from line 25 to pg. 3 line 2, the language should clarify that the ratio is between two flow rates:
before the radio-frequency power supply system in the process chamber is turned on, a flow rate of the cleaning gas in the clean-process gas is gradually increased so as to achieve a certain ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to a flow rate of the purge gas, wherein the ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to [[a]] the flow rate of the purge gas is gradually increased or stepwise increased;
In Claim 1 on pg. 3 line 5, “exciting purge gas” should be “exciting the purge gas” (i.e., restore the deleted word “the”).
In Claim 7 line 3, “a stable state” should be “the stable state,” because Claim 1 already recites “a stable state” at line 6.
In Claim 8 on pg. 4 line 5, “PECVD deposition apparatus” should be changed to “the process chamber.”
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 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 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 1 recites “the plasma” at the last line. It’s unclear which plasma is being referred to, as Claim 1 previously recites “plasma” at, e.g., line 4, line 10, line 23. It’s recommended that “the plasma” at the last line of Claim 1 be changed to “the plasma generated from exciting the purge gas” or some similar variation thereof.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on Claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites: “in the step (b), when the remote plasma system is turned on for 5 - 150 seconds, the remote plasma system is considered to reach a stable state, the radio-frequency power supply system is turned on.” But Claim 1 already recites the same or nearly identical limitation: “(b) after operation of the remote plasma system reaches a stable state when the remote plasma system is turned on for 5 - 150 seconds, turning on a radio-frequency power supply system” (see lines 6-8 of Claim 1). Indeed, the difference (if any) between Claim 1 and Claim 7 is unclear. Therefore, Claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOHNSON et al. (US PGPUB 20060027249), in view of FOX et al. (US PGPUB 20180305814); CHANDRAN et al. (US PGPUB 20050103266); and “Application Note: Astron Remote Plasma Source Ignition Best Practices” published by MKS Instruments in August 2022 (hereinafter “MKS” or “MKS Note”).
Regarding Claim 1, JOHNSON teaches a method for cleaning a process chamber (see ¶¶ 0057-58, 0100-09). JOHNSON teaches a process chamber (see ¶ 0057, a CVD chamber); a remote plasma system (see id., “Astron” brand from MKS Instruments); and a radio-frequency power supply system in the process chamber (see id., RF power connected to a top shower electrode; see also ¶¶ 0101, 0105).
Hereinafter, “RPS” is shorthand for “remote plasma source” or “remote plasma system,” and “RF” is shorthand for “radio frequency.” Moreover, the term “Astron” or “Astron-ex” is synonymous with RPS (remote plasma source/system).
JOHNSON’s method comprises: (a) introducing a clean-process gas (e.g., NF3 gas, O2 gas, Ar gas) into a RPS (see ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105), turning on the RPS (see id.), exciting the gas into remote plasma (see id.), and supplying remote plasma to the process chamber (see id.).
JOHNSON’s method comprises: (b) after operation of the RPS reaches a stable state (see ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105, after remote plasma has stabilized), turning on a RF power supply system in the process chamber (see id., RF power is applied to showerhead electrode), re-exciting and enhancing the remote plasma positioned in the process chamber by the RF power supply system (see ¶ 0048, discussing remote activation of a gas to generate reactive species, and in-situ activation of those reactive species that may have recombined), and cleaning the process chamber by utilizing the re-excited and enhanced plasma (see ¶¶ 0048, 0074, 0101, 0105).
JOHNSON teaches using both the RPS and the RF power supply system for jointly acting and cleaning the process chamber during a period of cleaning time (see ¶¶ 0048, 0074, 0100-09).
JOHNSON teaches or reasonably suggests: (c) when the cleaning of the process chamber is completed, turning off the RF power supply system in the process chamber; and (d) turning off the RPS, for at least two reasons.
First, JOHNSON teaches turning on the RPS and turning on the RF power supply system for each run of the experiment (see ¶¶ 0074, 0100-01, 0104-05), wherein multiple runs are performed (see ¶¶ 0074, 0100, 0104, Tables II, VI, XII, XIII). This means or suggests that the RPS and the RF power supply system are turned off at the end of each run.
Second, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, after each chamber-cleaning process is completed, the RPS and the RF power supply system are turned off to prevent damage to the process chamber and to save cost/electricity (i.e., the RPS and the RF systems are not turned on forever).
JOHNSON teaches the clean-process gas comprises purge gas (Ar gas, see ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105) and cleaning gas (NF3 gas or O2 gas, see id.).
JOHNSON teaches the step (a) comprises:
(a1) pre-treating an inner chamber of the RPS and the process chamber, the pre-treatment comprising purging the inner chamber of the RPS and the process chamber by utilizing the purge gas (see ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105, Ar gas is introduced to the RPS/Astron and the process chamber), and then turning on the RPS (see id. at ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105);
(a2) after the RPS is turned on, introducing the cleaning gas (see ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105, after RPS/Astron turned on, introduce either NF3 gas or NF3-O2 gas mixture to generate remote plasma), and supplying the remote plasma generated by excitation of the RPS to the process chamber (see id., chamber is cleaned with both remote and in-situ plasma).
JOHNSON teaches that: before the RF power supply system in the process chamber is turned on in step (b), a clean-process gas—which comprises a purge gas (e.g., Ar gas) and a cleaning gas (e.g., NF3 gas)—is introduced into the RPS to generate remote plasma (see ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105). Because the purge gas and the cleaning gas are introduced into the RPS, each gas inherently has a flow rate and there is inherently a ratio of the cleaning gas to the purge gas.
JOHNSON does not explicitly teach:
the RPS reaches a stable state “when the RPS is turned on for 5 - 150 seconds”;
the RPS is turned off (i.e., step (d)) “after” the RF power supply system is turned off (i.e., step (c));
a “gas line” between the RPS and the process chamber;
“a flow rate of the cleaning gas in the clean-process gas is gradually increased so as to achieve a certain ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to the purge gas, wherein the ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to a flow rate of the purge gas is gradually increased or stepwise increased”;
the step (d) comprises: “before the remote plasma system is turned off, only introducing the purge gas, exciting the purge gas by utilizing the remote plasma system to generate plasma, and purging the process chamber by utilizing the plasma.”
Regarding the “gas line” between the RPS and the process chamber, such gas line is still reasonably expected in JOHNSON because JOHNSON teaches that the process chamber is retrofitted with the Astron-brand RPS (see ¶ 0057), wherein plasma generated in the Astron/RPS is then supplied to the process chamber (see ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105). Thus, because JOHNSON teaches supplying Ar purge gas to the Astron/RPS and the process chamber (as explained above)—wherein the two structures are connected via the gas line—this means step (a1) comprises pre-treating the gas line by purging the gas line with the Ar purge gas.
Alternatively, if a “gas line” is not clearly envisaged by JOHNSON’s teachings, it still would’ve been obvious to incorporate a gas line between JOHNSON’s RPS and JOHNSON’s process chamber, with reasonable expectation of supplying plasma from the Astron/RPS to the process chamber. It’s well known in the art for a deposition apparatus to comprise a gas line connecting between the RPS and the process chamber (see FOX at Fig. 1). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. In the resulting combination: because JOHNSON teaches supplying Ar purge gas to the Astron/RPS and the process chamber (as explained above)—wherein the two structures are connected via the gas line —this means step (a1) comprises pre-treating the gas line by purging the gas line with Ar purge gas.
FOX also teaches a method for cleaning a process chamber (see abstract, Fig. 1-3, ¶¶ 0005-12, 0033-36, cleaning process chamber 102) using a RPS (RPS 138, see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0026-27) and a RF power supply system (RF generating system 120, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0025). FOX teaches (c) when the cleaning of the process chamber is completed, firstly turning off the RF power supply system in the process chamber (see Figs. 2-3, ¶¶ 0028, 0036-37, in-situ plasma is extinguished first); and (d) after the RF power supply system is turned off, turning off the RPS (see Figs. 2-3, ¶¶ 0028, 0036-37, RPS is stopped after extinguishing in-situ plasma).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify JOHNSON’s method to incorporate the order/ sequence of turning off JOHNSON’s RF power supply system first and then turning off JOHNSON’s RPS, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the chamber. It’s already known in the prior art to turn off the RF power supply system first and then turn off the RPS (see FOX). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of JOHNSON and FOX: step (d) is performed after step (c), i.e., step (d) comprises: after the RF power supply system is turned off (in step (c)), turning off the remote plasma system.
The combination of JOHNSON and FOX does not explicitly teach:
the RPS reaches a stable state “when the RPS is turned on for 5 - 150 seconds”;
“a flow rate of the cleaning gas in the clean-process gas is gradually increased so as to achieve a certain ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to the purge gas, wherein the ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to a flow rate of the purge gas is gradually increased or stepwise increased”;
the step (d) comprises: “before the remote plasma system is turned off, only introducing the purge gas, exciting the purge gas by utilizing the remote plasma system to generate plasma, and purging the process chamber by utilizing the plasma.”
CHANDRA teaches a chamber cleaning method using remote plasma (see Figs. 3-4, ¶¶ 0055-56, abstract). CHANDRA teaches introducing a clean-process gas—which comprises both a purge gas (e.g., Ar gas) and a cleaning gas (e.g., NF3 gas) (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0052)—into a remote plasma system (RPS 300, see ¶ 0052) to generate said remote plasma.
CHANDRA teaches that a flow rate of the cleaning gas in the clean-process gas is gradually increased (see abstract, ¶¶ 0010-12, 0054-55, slowly accelerating the flow of fluorine source gas) so as to achieve a certain ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to the flow rate of the purge gas (see abstract, ¶¶ 0010-12, 0054, 0056, 0059), wherein the ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to the flow rate of the purge gas is gradually increased (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0055, the ratio is initially 1.67 to 13.33 scc/s, or approximately 1:8, and the ratio is increased to 8.33 to 13.33 scc/s, or approximately 1:1.6; see also ¶¶ 0011, 0054, target ratio is about 3:2).
By gradually increasing the flow rate of the cleaning gas to increase the ratio of the flow rate of cleaning gas to the flow rate of purge gas, it’s possible to avoid quenching the plasma in the RPS (see CHANDRA at ¶¶ 0010, 0054).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of JOHNSON and FOX to incorporate a flow rate of the cleaning gas in the clean-process gas is gradually increased so as to achieve a certain ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to the flow rate of the purge gas, wherein such ratio is gradually increased, with reasonable expectation of generating the remote plasma, for several reasons. First, given the benefit of avoiding the plasma being quenched in the RPS, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to gradually increase the flow rate of the cleaning gas to achieve a certain ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to the flow rate of the purge gas, wherein said ratio is also gradually increased. Second, it’s already known in the art to gradually increase the flow rate of the cleaning gas to achieve a certain ratio of the flow rate of the cleaning gas to the flow rate of the purge gas, wherein said ratio is also gradually increased (see CHANDRA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
The combination of JOHNSON, FOX, and CHANDRA does not explicitly teach:
the RPS reaches a stable state “when the RPS is turned on for 5 - 150 seconds”;
the step (d) comprises: “before the remote plasma system is turned off, only introducing the purge gas, exciting the purge gas by utilizing the remote plasma system to generate plasma, and purging the process chamber by utilizing the plasma.”
MKS Instruments published a note called “Astron Remote Plasma Source Ignition Best Practices” (Aug. 2022), available at https://api.p1.mks.com/medias/sys_master/resources/he3/ h30/9954640232478/ASTRON-BestPractices-AppNote/ASTRON-BestPractices-AppNote.pdf. The MKS Note discloses that, after the RPS is turned on, it typically takes 5-45 seconds to reach a stable state (see pg. 5, durations for Ignition and Transition 1). Therefore, when JOHNSON teaches that the operation of its Astron RPS (made by MKS) reaches a stable state (see ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105 of JOHNSON), it’s understood or reasonably expected that the RPS has been turned on for a duration that falls within or overlaps with the claimed range of 5-150 seconds.
The MKS Note also discloses that, after completing the chamber clean, it’s ideal to keep the RPS still activated while transitioning back to argon gas to run argon plasma for a several seconds (see item 3 on pg. 4, see table in pg. 5). In other words, the MKS Note teaches: after completing the chamber clean and before the RPS is turned off, only introducing the purge gas (e.g., Ar gas), exciting the purge gas by utilizing the RPS to generate plasma, and purging the process chamber by utilizing the plasma. This argon plasma helps remove residues left by the cleaning gas to avoid impeding the next ignition of the RPS (see pg. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of JOHNSON, FOX, and CHANDRA to incorporate the following steps: after completing the chamber clean and before the RPS is turned off, only introducing the purge gas (e.g., Ar gas), exciting the purge gas by utilizing the RPS to generate plasma, and purging the process chamber by utilizing the plasma, with reasonable expectation of removing residues. First, given the benefits of removing residues left by the cleaning gas to avoid impeding the next ignition of the RPS, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to keep the RPS still activated and run an argon plasma, after the chamber clean is completed. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to keep the RPS still activated and run an argon plasma, after the chamber clean is completed (see MKS Note). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of JOHNSON, FOX, CHANDRA, and the MKS Note: when the chamber cleaning is completed, the RF power supply system is turned off first (see step (c)) and then the RPS is turned off (see step (d)); but before the RPS is turned off, the RPS is still activated to generate an argon plasma to clean residues, i.e., step (d) further comprises: after the RF power supply system is turned off and before the RPS is turned off, only introducing the purge gas, exciting the purge gas by utilizing the remote plasma system to generate plasma, and purging the process chamber by utilizing the plasma.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of JOHNSON, FOX, CHANDRA, and the MKS Note teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches the purge gas comprises at least one of Ar, He, N2, or H2 (see JOHNSON at ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105; see also JOHNSON at ¶¶ 0040, additive gas can be argon, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen, and mixtures thereof).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of JOHNSON, FOX, CHANDRA, and the MKS Note teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches the cleaning gas comprises a corrosive gas, which comprises at least one of NF3, CF4, SF6, C2F6, F2, C3F8, CHF3, or HF (see JOHNSON at ¶¶ 0074, 0101, 0105; see also id. at ¶¶ 0008, 0038).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of JOHNSON, FOX, CHANDRA, and the MKS Note teaches the method according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches or suggests: wherein in the step (b), when the RPS is turned on for 5 - 150 seconds, the RPS is considered to reach a stable state, the RF power supply system is turned on.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of JOHNSON, FOX, CHANDRA, and the MKS Note teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches operation parameters of the RF power supply system comprise:
a frequency of a RF power supply being 13.56 MHz (see JOHNSON at ¶¶ 0045, 0055, 0057), which falls within the claimed range of “2 MHz to 100 MHz”; and/or
a power of the RF power supply being 1000W (see JOHNSON at ¶ 0074), 750-1750W (see id. at ¶ 0100), or 1250W (see id. at ¶ 0104), all of which falls within the claimed range of “500 W to 90,000 W”; and/or
an operation gas pressure during cleaning of the process chamber being 2.5 torr (see JOHNSON at ¶ 0074), 1.75-2.50 torr (see id. at ¶ 0100), or 2.0 torr (see id. at ¶ 0104), all of which fall within the claimed range of “0.01 Torr to 10 Torr.”
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of JOHNSON, FOX, CHANDRA, and the MKS Note teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches the method is applied in vacuum deposition process apparatus, wherein the vacuum deposition process apparatus comprises chemical vapor deposition apparatus (see JOHNSON at ¶¶ 0035, 0057, claim 20) or atomic layer deposition apparatus (see id. at ¶ 0035, claim 20).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of JOHNSON, FOX, CHANDRA, and the MKS Note (as applied to Claim 1), in view of TANG et al. (US PGPUB 20140091417) and Wikipedia.org (“Artificial plasmas” and “Radio frequency”).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of JOHNSON, FOX, CHANDRA, and the MKS Note teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches that the RPS belongs to the “Astron” brand from MKS Instruments (see JOHNSON at ¶ 0057, using the “Astron-ex” model). Because the “Astron-ex” RPS is turned on (as explained above), it inherently has a power supply.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “the remote plasma system comprises an inductive coil coupled discharge structure, and the remote plasma system adopts an alternating-current power supply having a frequency of 100 KHz to 13.56 MHz.”
But the “Astron-ex” RPS is known to comprise an inductive coil coupled discharge structure (see TANG at ¶¶ 0044, 0066). In other words, for the “Astron-ex” RPS disclosed in JOHNSON’s method, the inductive coil coupled discharge structure is either inherently present or reasonably expected to be present.
Moreover, the “Astron-ex” RPS is known to adopt a RF power supply having a frequency of about 2 KHz to 15 MHz (see TANG at ¶ 0044), which overlaps with the claimed range of “100 KHz to 13.56 MHz.” Given the overlap, the claimed range is considered obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the RF power supply in the “Astron-ex” RPS is an alternating-current (AC) power supply. See “Plasma (physics)—artificial plasmas,” Wikipedia.org, archived by Wayback Machine on July 18, 2020, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20200718193547/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Plasma_(physics)#Artificial_plasmas (treating RF and AC as synonymous or interchangeable); see also “radio frequency”, Wikipedia.org, archived by Wayback Machine on April 26, 2020, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20200426223934/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Radio_frequency (RF refers to the oscillation rate of alternating electric current).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
SAWIN et al. (US PGPUB 20070028943) teaches generating a remote plasma using an Astron-brand RPS by MKS Instruments (see ¶ 0027, the “Astron-ex” is a toroidal-type RPS), wherein such RPS comprises an inductively coupled discharge structure (see ¶ 0018, the toroidal-type RPS is inductively coupled).
ASHIGAKI et al. (WIPO Publication WO2006121117A1, as translated by Espacenet) discloses that an Astron-brand RPS (by MKS) that generates plasma using an inductive coupling plasma (ICP) method (¶ 0027).
MILLS (US PGPUB 20100209311) discloses that the Astron-brand RPS (by MKS) comprises an inductively coupled plasma source (¶¶ 0100, 0107), wherein the RPS is driven by a RF power supply at about 1 kHz to 100 MHz, preferably around 13.56 MHz (see id.).
MILLS (US PGPUB 20060233699) discloses that the Astron-brand RPS (by MKS) comprises an inductively coupled plasma source (¶¶ 0101, 0109), wherein the RPS is driven by a RF power supply at about 1 kHz to 100 MHz, preferably around 13.56 MHz (see id.).
ARGHAVANI et al. (US PGPUB 20140308812) discloses that the Astron-brand RPS (by MKS) comprises an inductively coupled source (¶ 0070).
CHEN et al. (US PGPUB 20140030889) discloses that the Astron-brand RPS (by MKS) comprises an inductively coupled source (¶ 0069).
HAVERKAMP et al. (US PGPUB 20140094038) discloses that the Astron-brand RPS (by MKS) comprises an inductively coupled source (¶ 0052).
Conclusion
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights