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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims have been amended to language referring to each and every one of a plurality of through holes/openings, but not clearly and necessarily stating that all through holes/openings formed in the second member are meant to be included in claim limitation plurality of through holes/openings. Although, this appears to be the intention. In interpreting the claim language, Examiner understands and assumes the claim is meant to express the same – that is, is all through holes or openings formed through the second member are included as part of the plurality of through holes (claim 1) and plurality openings (claim 7).
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) 1, 3, 6-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0047595 to Kofuji et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 1 and 9, e.g., Kofuji et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a processing chamber (106) in which a sample (121) is subjected to plasma processing; a radio frequency power source (113) configured to supply radio frequency power for generating plasma through a first member (117) of a dielectric material disposed above the processing chamber; a coil (114) configured to form a magnetic field inside the processing chamber; a sample stage (120) where the sample is placed; and a second member disposed (116) between the first member and the sample stage and having a plurality of through holes (150) formed therein, the second member being constructed so that the plurality of through holes is arranged to define a plurality of concentric rings of through holes surrounding a center (e.g. 151) of the second member (e.g. see annotated figure below), each ring of through holes being formed at a periphery of the second member at a position outside of a predetermined radius (e.g., corresponding to center 151) from the center of the second member and being constructed to control a cyclotron motion of ions which pass through the plurality of through holes, wherein the first and second member are arranged such that a distance (see, e.g., para. 50, 40mm or more) from the first member to the second member is a distance such that a density of plasma generated between the first member and the second member is a cutoff density or higher (i.e., 55mm or more per Applicant’s specification).
During an intended use of the apparatus wherein a process gas is turned into plasma by electron cyclotron resonance (ECR), using a radio frequency power source (magnetron, 113), waveguide (e.g., structures and volume between 113 and 117), and coil (114), the through holes/openings through which the plasma passes en route to an article to be processed, are by their mere presence and resulting exposure to the plasma produced, constructed to control a cyclotron motion of ions which pass therethrough during the intend use (also see, e.g., para. 46, which states that the apparatus of Kofuji et al. can be used in an ECR plasma processing method). Regarding intended use, again, it is noted that the courts have ruled 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the court have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), wherein Kofuji et al. teach that that various features of the apparatus may be optimized (e.g. distances between the first member, second member, and sample stage; arrangement of holes, density of holes and diameter of holes with respect to sample) in order to provide desired plasma processing environment and perfectly shield ions generated between the first member and the second member from being incident on the sample (see, e.g., para. 50, 57, 69-72, 75). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Finally, while Kofuji et al. do, disclose a coil, as detailed above, a plurality of coils is not explicitly disclosed. Although, notably, a plurality of coils does appear to be illustrated in Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case there does not appear to be any new or unexpected result by providing additional coils. Thus, the provision of a plurality of coils is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic and the disclosure of Kofuji et al. before the claimed invention was effectively filed.
With respect to claim 3, as detailed above, a distance from the first member to the second member may be 55 mm or more (see, e.g., para. 50, 40mm or more) to be capable of causing plasma to be generated only in a region between the first member and the second member. Also see above regarding intended use and/or optimization.
With respect to claim 6, in Kofuji et al., the radio frequency power is radio frequency power of microwaves (see, e.g., para. 46 and claim 2), the second member is a quartz flat plate (see, e.g., para. 52).
Regarding claim 7: In Figs. 1 and 9, e.g., Kofuji et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: disclose a processing chamber (106) in which a sample (121) is subjected to plasma processing; a radio frequency power source (113) configured to supply radio frequency power for generating plasma through a first member (117) of a dielectric material disposed above the processing chamber; a coil (114) configured to form a magnetic field inside the processing chamber; a sample stage (120) where the sample is placed; and a second member disposed (116) between the first member and the sample stage and formed with a plurality of openings (150) arranged to define a plurality of concentric rings of openings surrounding a center (e.g. 151) of the second member and formed along a circumferential direction in a region that extends inwardly from an outer edge to a position outside of a predetermined radius (e.g., corresponding to 151) from the center of the second member in a plan view (e.g. see annotated figure below), the plurality of openings being constructed to control a cyclotron motion of ions which pass through the plurality of openings, such that the plurality of openings are not within an inner portion (e.g., corresponding to 151) of the second member inside of the predetermined radius, wherein the first and second members are arranged such that a distance (see, e.g., para. 50, 40mm or more) from the first member to the second member is a distance such that a density of plasma generated between the first member and the second member is a cutoff density or higher (i.e., 55mm or more per Applicant’s specification).
During an intended use of the apparatus wherein a process gas is turned into plasma by electron cyclotron resonance (ECR), using a radio frequency power source (magnetron, 113), waveguide (e.g., structures and volume between 113 and 117), and coil (114), the through holes/openings through which the plasma passes en route to an article to be processed, are by their mere presence and resulting exposure to the plasma produced, constructed to control a cyclotron motion of ions which pass therethrough during the intend use (also see, e.g., para. 46, which states that the apparatus of Kofuji et al. can be used in an ECR plasma processing method). Regarding intended use, again, it is noted that the courts have ruled 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the court have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), wherein Kofuji et al. teach that that various features of the apparatus may be optimized (e.g. distances between the first member, second member, and sample stage; arrangement of holes, density of holes and diameter of holes with respect to sample) in order to provide desired plasma processing environment and perfectly shield ions generated between the first member and the second member from being incident on the sample (see, e.g., para. 50, 57, 69-72, 75). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Finally, while Kofuji et al. do, disclose a coil, as detailed above, a plurality of coils is not explicitly disclosed. Although, notably, a plurality of coils does appear to be illustrated in Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case there does not appear to be any new or unexpected result by providing additional coils. Thus, the provision of a plurality of coils is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic and the disclosure of Kofuji et al. before the claimed invention was effectively filed.
With respect to claim 9, as detailed above, a distance from the first member to the second member may be 55 mm or more (see, e.g., para. 50, 40mm or more) to be capable of causing plasma to be generated only in a region only between the first member and the second member. Also see above regarding intended use and/or optimization.
With respect to claim 10, in Kofuji et al., the radio frequency power is radio frequency power of microwaves (see, e.g., para. 46 and claim 2), the second member is a quartz flat plate (see, e.g., para. 52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7 and 9-10 have been considered but are moot and/or unpersuasive as the rejections have been modified or are addressed below.
Applicant has argued that the previously relied upon prior art is not teaching or suggesting features according to Applicant’s specifical desired intended use and specifically desired results. In response to this argument, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Additionally, Applicant points to the configuration of concentric holes as an example regarding how Applicant’s claimed invention distinguishes over the relied upon prior art, arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood relied upon prior art reference, Kofuji, as teaching any circular arrangement of through holes, rather one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kofuji discloses holes arranged in a linear pattern. Examiner disagrees and notes in Kofuji, at least, the two do not appear to be mutually exclusive. See annotated figure in rejections above.
Applicant also appears to argue that Kofuji fails to explicitly teach any particular gap distance between the plates or between a plate and the sample in order to provide a specifically intended result based on a specific intended use. Examiner first notes that the Kofuji discloses the claimed gap distance as detailed in the rejection above. And, again, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus, not a method of using the apparatus.
Applicant also appears to advance an argument based on a supposed improvement that should be considered unexpected results. Examiner notes that an improvement and unexpected results are, in fact, not the same thing in patent examination. See above regarding an invention obtaining a result not contemplated by prior art. Also, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Finally, as previously mentioned, regarding the myriad of disclosed or claimed intended use(s) and results included in Applicant’s arguments, as opposed to distinguishing structural features of the claimed apparatus, Applicant may want to consider a separate application drawn to a method for providing an apparatus (or a method of using an apparatus), which may be helpful in overcoming interpretations based on the intended uses of the claimed/disclosed apparatus on which Applicant appears to be putting a large amount of weight in setting forth potential distinguishing features. Note: rejections based on anticipation and teachings of optimization contained in the prior art may still be applicable to a claimed invention that is a method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 6,335,293 teaches various types of diverters and combinations of diverters, baffles, and restricters can be used in embodiments of the present invention to achieve the desired process results. The diverter used in some embodiments may comprise one or more plates, and at least one of those plates may contain a hole or pattern of holes. The diameter of the diverter, hole pattern, hole size, and distance of separation between the diverter and the substrate may be adjusted to achieve the desired process results. In one embodiment, the diverter may also screen the line of sight from the plasma to the substrate, minimizing UV radiation and charging damage, thus contributing to process optimization. In the case where the diverter consists of more than one plate, exemplary embodiments may include configurations in which that part of the diverter closest to the wafer has holes for gaseous species to flow through to the wafer. This multi-plate diverter may be used to prevent line-of sight to the wafer from the generation region, which may contain a plasma.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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 on (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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights