DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 3, 2026.
Applicants’ election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-24 in the reply filed on August 3, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (1) all of the claims are properly presented in the same application; (2) undue diverse searching should not be required; and (3) all claims should be examined together. This is not found persuasive because (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto et al. (JP 2017-022136 A) in view of Dorf et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0234922 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Muto et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus (Fig. 1): a chamber (Fig. 1); a substrate support provided in the chamber (Fig. 1 – sample stage 103); a plasma generator configured to generate plasm in the chamber (Machine translation –
ECR type plasma etching apparatus is a plasma processing chamber, a vacuum evacuable chamber 101 inside, a sample stage 103 for placing the wafer 102 as a sample, microwave quartz provided on the upper surface of the chamber 101 a transmission window 104, a waveguide 105 provided thereabove, and a magnetron 106 for generating microwaves, a first high frequency power supply 113 for supplying high frequency power to the magnetron 106, provided around the chamber 101 a solenoid coil 107, made from a connected electrostatic chuck power supply 108 and a second high-frequency power source 109 to the sample stage 103.
Wafer 102 after being carried from the wafer inlet port 110 into the chamber 101, is electrostatically attracted to the sample stage 103 by electrostatic attraction power source 108. Then, the process gas is introduced into the chamber 101 from the gas inlet 111. The chamber 101 is evacuated by a vacuum pump (not shown) is adjusted to a predetermined pressure (e.g., 0.1Pa~50Pa). Next, the microwave frequency 2.45GHz from the high frequency power magnetron 106 supplies the oscillated in the first high frequency power supply 113 from the magnetron 106, is propagated into the chamber 101 through the waveguide 105. Here, the first high frequency power supply 113 can supply either a modulated continuous radio frequency power or time frequency power to the magnetron 106.
Is excited processing gas by the action of the generated magnetic fields by the microwave and the solenoid coil 107, the plasma 112 is formed on the wafer 102 the space above. On the other hand, the sample stage 103, a bias is applied by the second high frequency power supply 109, ions in the plasma 112 are accelerated vertically above the wafer 102 is incident. The second high frequency power supply 109 may apply a continuous bias power or bias power, which is time-modulated in the sample stage 103. Wafer 102 is anisotropically etched by the action of radicals and ions from the plasma 112.);
and a bias power supply configured to repeatedly apply a voltage pulse to a bias electrode of the substrate support, to draw ions from the plasma to a substrate disposed on the substrate support, (Paragraph 0018 – power supply 109);
wherein the bias power supply is configured to change a duration length of the voltage pulse, in order to change a potential of the substrate during the repetition of the application of the application of the voltage pulse to the bias electrode. (Paragraph 0018 – power supply 109 time modulated bias power to the sample stage 103; Paragraph 0022; Paragraph 0027)
The difference between Muto et al. and claim 1 is that a level equal to or lower than a maximum potential reached by the substrate corresponding to a set voltage level of the voltage pulse is not discussed.
Regarding a level equal to or lower than a maximum potential reached by the substrate corresponding to a set voltage level of the voltage pulse (Claim 1), Dorf et al. teach applying a Vm from a pulse generator to the biasing electrode which biases the substrate. The Vm is the set voltage level. The potential of the substrate cannot exceed the applied Vm. Nor can the sheath voltage exceed the Vm. Therefore, the maximum potential reached by the substrate is equal to or lower than the Vm. (Paragraph 0099, 0068, 0096, 0097, 0095, Figs. 9A-9B)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bias power supply is further configured to repeatedly apply the voltage pulse to the bias electrode, and change the duration length of the voltage pulse to change the potential of the substrate, in each of the plurality of ON periods among a plurality of ON periods and a plurality of OFF periods that alternates with the plurality of ON periods, and stop an application of the voltage pulse to the bias electrode, in each of the plurality of OFF periods.
Regarding claim 12, Muto et al. teach the bias power supply is further configured to repeatedly apply the voltage pulse to the bias electrode, and change the duration length of the voltage pulse to change the potential of the substrate, in each of the plurality of ON periods among a plurality of ON periods and a plurality of OFF periods that alternates with the plurality of ON periods, and stop an application of the voltage pulse to the bias electrode, in each of the plurality of OFF periods. (Paragraphs 0022, 0027, Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bias power supply is further configured to increase the duration length of the voltage pulse during the repetition of the application of the voltage pulse to the bias electrode in each of the plurality of ON periods.
Regarding claim 13, Muto et al. teach wherein the bias power supply is further configured to increase the duration length of the voltage pulse during the repetition of the application of the voltage pulse to the bias electrode in each of the plurality of ON periods.
(Paragraphs 0022, 0027, Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bias power supply is further configured to adjust the duration length of the voltage pulse to make emission intensity or a deviation of distribution of the emission intensity in the chamber to close to a predetermined value in each of the plurality of ON periods.
Regarding claim 14, Muto et al. teach wherein the bias power supply is further configured to adjust the duration length of the voltage pulse to make emission intensity or a deviation of distribution of the emission intensity in the chamber to close to a predetermined value in each of the plurality of ON periods. (Paragraph 0056)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bias power supply is further configured to repeatedly apply the voltage pulse to the bias electrode in each of the plurality of ON periods among a plurality of ON periods and a plurality of OFF periods that alternates with the plurality of ON periods, stop the application of the voltage pulse to the bias electrode in each of the plurality of OFF periods, and set the duration length of the voltage pulse in at least one ON period of the plurality of ON periods to a different value from the duration length of the voltage pulse in another ON period of the plurality of ON periods.
Regarding claim 15, Muto et al. teach wherein the bias power supply is further configured to repeatedly apply the voltage pulse to the bias electrode in each of the plurality of ON periods among a plurality of ON periods and a plurality of OFF periods that alternates with the plurality of ON periods, stop the application of the voltage pulse to the bias electrode in each of the plurality of OFF periods, and set the duration length of the voltage pulse in at least one ON period of the plurality of ON periods to a different value from the duration length of the voltage pulse in another ON period of the plurality of ON periods. (Paragraphs 0022, 0027, Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bias power supply is further configured to periodically apply electric bias energy including the voltage pulse and having a waveform cycle to the bias electrode and change the duration length of the voltage pulse by changing a duty ratio of the voltage pulse in the waveform cycle.
Regarding claim 16, Muto et al. teach wherein the bias power supply is further configured to periodically apply electric bias energy including the voltage pulse and having a waveform cycle to the bias electrode and change the duration length of the voltage pulse by changing a duty ratio of the voltage pulse in the waveform cycle. (Paragraphs 0019-0027; Paragraphs 0052; Fig. 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plasma generator includes a radio-frequency power supply, and the radio-frequency power supply is configured to adjust the source frequency of the source radio-frequency power to reduce the degree of reflection of the source radio-frequency power supplied to generate the plasma.
Regarding claim 17, Muto et al. teach wherein the plasma generator includes a radio-frequency power supply, and the radio-frequency power supply is configured to adjust the source frequency of the source radio-frequency power to reduce the degree of reflection of the source radio-frequency power supplied to generate the plasma. (Paragraph 0016)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the radio- frequency power supply is configured to adjust the source frequency in each of a plurality of phase periods within the waveform cycle of the electric bias energy including the voltage pulse.
Regarding claim 18, Muto e al. teach wherein the radio- frequency power supply is configured to adjust the source frequency in each of a plurality of phase periods within the waveform cycle of the electric bias energy including the voltage pulse. (Paragraphs 0019-0027; Paragraphs 0052; Figs. 2, 3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bias power supply is further configured to
repeatedly apply the voltage pulse to the bias electrode and draw ions from the plasma generated in the plasma generator into the substrate to etch a film of the substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Muto et al. teach wherein the bias power supply is further configured to repeatedly apply the voltage pulse to the bias electrode and draw ions from the plasma generated in the plasma generator into the substrate to etch a film of the substrate. (Paragraph 0052)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bias power supply is further configured to further change a set voltage level of the voltage pulse during repeatedly applying the voltage pulse to the bias electrode.
Regarding claim 20, Dorf et al. teach the voltage pulse is repeatedly applied and that the voltage pulse conditions are adjustable. Because the voltage level of each pulse is selectable set value, changing the selected voltage level for a subsequent pulse constitutes the “Set voltage” during the repetition of the voltage-pulse application. (Paragraph 0102)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bias power supply includes a DC power supply and a switch, and the switch generates a voltage pulse from a DC voltage output from the DC power supply by the switch of opening/closing thereof.
Regarding claim 21, Dorf teaches the bias power supply includes a DC power supply and a switch, and the switch generates a voltage pulse from a DC voltage output from the DC power supply by the switch of opening/closing thereof. (Fig. 8A)
PNG
media_image1.png
408
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The motivation for utilizing the features of Dorf et al. is that it allows for controlling the features formed on the substrate. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Muto et al. by utilizing the features of Dorf et al. is that it allows for controlling the features formed on the substrate.
Claim(s) 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto et al. in view of Dorf et al. as applied to claims 1-21 above, and further in view of Trachuck et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,673,069).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 22:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a damping circuit configured to reduce the variation rate of the voltage level of the voltage pulse output from the bias power supply.
Regarding claim 22, Trachuck et al. teach a damping circuit configured to reduce a variation rate of the voltage level of the voltage pulse output from the bias power supply. (See Fig. 4; Column 9 lines 8-33)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 23:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the damping circuit is disposed between the bias power supply and the bias electrode.
Regarding claim 23, Trachuck et al. teach wherein the damping circuit is disposed between the bias power supply and the bias electrode. (See Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 24:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the damping circuit includes an inductor connected between the bias power supply and the bias electrode, and a capacitor connected between one end of the inductor and the ground.
Regarding claim 24, Trachuck et al. teach wherein the damping circuit includes an inductor connected between the bias power supply and the bias electrode, and a capacitor connected between one end of the inductor and the ground. (See Fig. 4)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Trachuck et al. is that it allows for dampening any interference. (Column 9 lines 8-33)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Trachuck et al. because it allows for dampening any interference.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto et al. in view of Dorf et al. and Trachuck et al. as applied to claims 11-24 above, and further in view of Porter et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,747,935).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 25:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the damping circuit further includes a resistor connector in series with the inductor.
Regarding claim 25, Porter et al. teach utilizing a resistor in a damping circuit. (Column 7 lines 4-58; Figs. 3, 4)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Porter et al. is that it allows for stabilizing. (Column 7 lines 4-58)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Porter et al. because it allows for stabilizing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights