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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 18-19, and 26-28 are pending
Claims 10-17 and 20-25 have been cancelled
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 27 has been amended
Claim 28 has been added
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 1-9, 18-19, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
The limitation “the outer ring having an upper surface which is located above the substrate support surface,” has no written support in the written specification. The aforementioned limitation suggests that the outer ring has an upper surface that both vertically and horizontally overlaps with the substrate support surface, but the outer ring of the instant application is not horizontally or vertically overlapping with the substrate support surface. Rather, Fig. 1 of the instant application discloses that the height of the outer ring is higher than a height of the substrate support surface.
Regarding Claims 2-9, 18-19, and 26-27:
Claims 2, 9, 18-19, and 26-27 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 28:
The limitation “wherein at least a portion of the edge ring is located above the substrate support surface,” has no written support in the written specification. The aforementioned limitation suggests that the edge ring is both vertically and horizontally overlapping with the substrate support surface, but the edge ring of the instant application is not horizontally or vertically overlapping with the substrate support surface. Rather, Fig. 1 of the instant application discloses that the height of the edge ring is higher than a height of the substrate support surface.
Claim 1-9, 18-19, and 26-28 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The limitation “the outer ring having an upper surface which is located above the substrate support surface,” does not have support in the written specification, therefore the scope of the limitation cannot be determined. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “a height of the outer ring is higher than a height of the substrate support surface.”
Regarding Claims 2-9, 18-19, and 26-27:
Claims 2, 9, 18-19, and 26-27 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 28:
The limitation “wherein at least a portion of the edge ring is located above the substrate support surface,” does not have support in the written specification, therefore the scope of the limitation cannot be determined. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “a height of the edge ring is higher than the height of the substrate support surface.”
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) 1-6, 8, 18-19, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagami et al. (US 20190057845) in view of Dhindsa et al. (US 8012306), Koshimizu et al. (US 20100304572), Lin et al. (US 20170040198), and Aramaki et al. (US 20190122864), with Tsujimoto et al. (US 20100041240) and Le et al. (US 20140179108) as further evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Nagami teaches a plasma processing apparatus (plasma processing apparatus 10) comprising: a chamber (chamber main body 12); a substrate support (stage 16) having a bias electrode (lower electrode 18); a substrate support surface (the surface of stage 16 where substrate W is disposed), and a ring support surface (the surface of stage 16 where focus ring FR is disposed); a plasma source radio frequency power source (radio frequency power supply 61) configured to generate plasma source radio frequency power that is supplied to a radio frequency electrode (lower electrode 18) to generate plasma above a substrate a substrate on the substrate support surface (power supply 61 supplies power to excite a gas for plasma generation) [Fig. 1 & 0036-0037, 0047]; the plasma source radio frequency power having a first frequency (radio frequency power supply 61 starts supply of a first radio frequency power) [Fig. 1, 4 & 0067]; and a bias power source (DC power supply 70) connected to the bias electrode through an electrical path (the DC power supply 70 is electrically connected to lower electrode 18), and configured to generate an electric bias having a second frequency which is lower than the first frequency (the DC power supply is capable of supplying power a frequency of 200 kHz. The first radio frequency power 61 is capable of supplying power at frequencies of 27 MHz to 100 MHz; the second radio frequency power supply 62 is capable of supplying power at frequencies of 400 kHz to 13.56 MHz) [Fig. 1, 4 & 0047-0048, 0089]; and a controller configured to control the plasma source radio frequency power source (controller PC is configured to control power supplies 61 and 62) [Fig. 1 & 0050], an edge ring (focus ring FR) that is mounted on the substrate support and has an inner peripheral surface surrounding a region on the substrate support surface for placement of the substrate (as evidenced by Fig. 1, focus ring FR has an inner peripheral surface that faces a region of stage 16 that supports the substrate W) [Fig. 1 & 0039, 0049], wherein the controller is configured to control the plasma source radio frequency power source to change a power level of the plasma source radio frequency power in synchronization with the electric bias that is output from the bias power source to the bias electrode, within each cycle of the electric bias (as evidenced by Fig. 6A, power supply 61 power can be changed in synchronization with changes in the power supply 62) [Fig. 1, 6A & 0067].
Nagami does not specifically disclose and an outer ring extending outside the edge ring in a radial direction to locate the edge ring between the region on the substrate support surface and the outer ring, the outer ring having an upper surface which is located above a lower surface of the substrate on the substrate support, the outer ring having an upper surface which is located above the substrate support surface, the outer ring being electrically connected to the plasma source radio frequency power source to receive a part of the plasma source radio frequency power.
Dhindsa teaches an outer ring (outer ring 333) extending outside the edge ring (dielectric ring 132) in a radial direction to locate the edge ring between the region on the substrate support surface and the outer ring (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, outer ring 333 surrounds the dielectric ring 132), the outer ring having an upper surface which is located above a lower surface of the substrate support (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, the outer ring 333 has an upper surface above a lower surface of the support where bottom electrode 331 is placed on), the outer ring being electrically connected to the plasma source radio frequency power source to receive a part of the plasma source radio frequency power (outer ring 333 is conductive and is placed above outer bottom electrode 335; the outer bottom electrode 335 is connected to RF power source 339) [Fig. 3A & Col. 7 lines 24-48].
Nagami and Dhindsa are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Nagami to have an outer ring connected to RF power, as in Dhindsa, to allow for the formation of high-density peripheral plasma, thereby improving cleaning of peripheral chamber hardware [Dhindsa - Col. 8 lines 1-6].
Modified Nagami does not specifically disclose a height of the outer ring is higher than a height of the substrate support surface.
Koshimizu teaches a height of the outer ring is higher than a height of the substrate support surface (as evidenced by Fig. 11, outer ring 224 has a height that is higher than the height of the mounting table 103) [Fig. 2 & 0049, 0070-0071, 0110]
Koshimizu discloses that the height of a conductive ring is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the height of a ring can be adjusted to change a plasma sheathe profile [Koshimizu - 0009, 0011, 0082-0083]. Modified Nagami and Koshimizu are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum height for a conductive ring around a substrate to obtained a desired plasma sheathe profile [Koshimizu - 0009, 0011, 0082]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Tsujimoto et al. (US 20100041240) and Le et al. (US 20140179108) also disclose that ring height is a result effective variable [Tsujimoto - 0040; Le - 0034].
Modified Nagami (Nagami modified by Dhindsa and Koshimizu) does not specifically disclose wherein an edge ring that is mounted on the substrate support is electrically connected to the bias power source.
Lin teaches wherein a peripheral structure (annular shoulder 236) is electrically connected to the bias power source (power source 550, which may be a DC or RF power source) [Fig. 5B & 0065].
Modified Nagami and Lin are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the peripheral structure (edge ring) of Modified Nagami, with the arrangement of the peripheral structure and bias power source of Lin, to provide control over plasma distribution at the edge of a substrate [Lin - 0065].
Modified Nagami (Nagami modified by Dhindsa, Koshimizu, and Lin) does not specifically disclose an impedance adjuster that provides variable impedance between the bias electrode and the edge ring or between the electrical path and the edge ring, or is electrically connected to an other bias power source.
Aramaki teaches an impedance adjuster (load impedance variable box 130) that provides variable impedance between the bias electrode and the edge ring or between the electrical path and the edge ring, or is electrically connected to an other bias power source (box 130 is electrically connected to conductor ring 132, which is disposed on an outer peripheral side of susceptor 113; box 130 adjusts impedance to a suitable value) [Fig. 1-3 & 0041, 0051, 0056-0057].
Modified Nagami and Aramaki are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the edge ring of Modified Nagami to be connected to an impedance adjuster, as in Aramaki, to improve control robustness and power supply efficiency [Aramaki - 0056 - 0057]. It is also noted that the edge ring of Modified Nagami is also located an outer peripheral side of a susceptor [Nagami - Fig. 1 & 0039, 0049].
Furthermore, although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations “configured to generate an electric bias having a second frequency which is lower than the first frequency,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding Claim 2:
Nagami does not specifically disclose a second electrode that is electrically coupled to the outer ring.
Dhindsa teaches a second electrode (outer bottom electrode 335) that is electrically coupled to the outer ring [Fig. 3A & Col. 7 lines 24-48].
Nagami and Dhindsa are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Nagami to have an outer ring connected to RF power, as in Dhindsa, to allow for the formation of high-density peripheral plasma, thereby improving cleaning of peripheral chamber hardware [Dhindsa - Col. 8 lines 1-6].
Modified Nagami (Dhindsa modified by Nagami and Koshimizu) does not specifically disclose a first electrode that is electrically coupled to the edge ring.
Lin teaches a first electrode (outer electrode 544) that is electrically coupled to a peripheral structure (annular shoulder 236) [Fig. 5 & 0065].
Modified Nagami and Lin are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the peripheral structure (edge ring) of Modified Nagami, with the arrangement of the peripheral structure, outer electrode, and bias power source of Lin, to provide control over plasma distribution at the edge of a substrate [Lin - 0065].
Modified Nagami (Nagami modified by Dhindsa, Koshimizu, and Lin) does not specifically disclose wherein the impedance adjuster is connected between the bias electrode and the first electrode or between the electrical path and the first electrode, and is configured to provide variable impedance between the bias electrode and the first electrode or between the electrical path and the first electrode.
Aramaki teaches wherein the impedance adjuster is connected between the bias electrode and the first electrode or between the electrical path (the electrical path of power source 124) and the first electrode (conductor ring 132), and is configured to provide variable impedance between the bias electrode and the first electrode or between the electrical path and the first electrode (load impedance variable box 130 is electrically connected to conductor ring 132, which is disposed on an outer peripheral side of susceptor 113; box 130 adjusts impedance to a suitable value) [Fig. 1 & 0041, 0051, 0056-0057].
Modified Nagami and Aramaki are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the edge ring of Modified Nagami to be connected to an impedance adjuster, as in Aramaki, to improve control robustness and power supply efficiency [Aramaki - 0056 - 0057]. It is also noted that the edge ring of Modified Nagami is also located an outer peripheral side of a susceptor [Nagami - Fig. 1 & 0039, 0049].
Regarding Claim 3:
Nagami teaches wherein the plasma source radio frequency power source is configured to supply a pulse of the plasma source radio frequency power to the radio frequency electrode and the outer ring in a same period in each cycle of the electric bias (the application of the negative DC voltage from the DC power supply 70 to the lower electrode 18 and the supply of the first radio frequency power can be synchronized with each other) [Fig. 6A & 0064].
Regarding Claim 4:
Nagami teaches wherein the same period is a first period in which the electric bias has a voltage equal to or higher than an average voltage of the electric bias within the cycle thereof, or a second period in which the electric bias has a voltage lower than the average voltage within the cycle (DC power supply 70 can supply a voltage in period T2 that is lower than a voltage supplied in period T1) [Fig. 6A & 0064].
Regarding Claim 5:
Nagami teaches wherein the substrate support has a base (lower electrode 18) and an electrostatic chuck (electrostatic chuck 20) provided on the base, the electrostatic chuck includes the substrate support surface and the ring support surface (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the chuck 20 includes a surface where substrate W is disposed, and surface where the focus ring FR is disposed), the base provides a lower electrode that is the bias electrode, the lower electrode is the radio frequency electrode, and the plasma source radio frequency power source is electrically connected to the lower electrode through the electrical path (lower electrode 18 is electrically connected to RF power supply 61, and lower electrode 18 is also electrically connected to DC power supply 70) [Fig. 1 & 0042, 0049].
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Nagami (Nagami modified by Dhindsa, Koshimizu, and Lin) does not specifically disclose an other impedance adjuster connected between the electrical path and the outer ring or between the lower electrode and the outer ring and configured to provide variable impedance between the electrical path and the outer ring or between the lower electrode and the outer ring.
Aramaki teaches an impedance adjuster (load impedance variable box 130) that provides variable impedance between the electrical path and the outer ring or between the lower electrode and the outer ring (box 130 is electrically connected to conductor ring 132, which is disposed on an outer peripheral side of susceptor 113; box 130 adjusts impedance to a suitable value) [Fig. 1-3 & 0041, 0051, 0056-0057].
Modified Nagami and Aramaki are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrical path of the outer ring of Modified Nagami to also be connected to an impedance adjuster, as in Aramaki, to improve control robustness and power supply efficiency [Aramaki - 0056 - 0057]. It is also noted that the edge ring of Modified Nagami is also located an outer peripheral side of a susceptor [Nagami - Fig. 1 & 0039, 0049]. It is noted that Aramaki does not specifically disclose an other impedance adjuster, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to utilize another impedance adjuster as this is a mere duplication of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding Claim 8:
Nagami teaches wherein the substrate support has a base (lower electrode 18) and an electrostatic chuck (electrostatic chuck 20) provided on the base, the electrostatic chuck includes the substrate support surface and the ring support surface (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the chuck 20 includes a surface where substrate W is disposed, and surface where the focus ring FR is disposed), the bias electrode (the electrostatic chuck 20 has a main body made of an insulator and a film-shaped electrode provided within the main body. The electrode of the electrostatic chuck 20 is electrically connected with a DC power supply) is provided in the electrostatic chuck, the base provides a lower electrode (the electrode plate 21 is made of a conductive material such as aluminum) that is the radio frequency electrode, and the plasma source radio frequency power source is electrically connected to the lower electrode (the first radio frequency power supply 61 is connected to the lower electrode 18 via a first matching circuit 65 of a matching device 64 and the electrode plate 21) [Fig. 1 & 0037, 0039, 0042-0049].
Regarding Claim 18:
Nagami does not specifically disclose wherein the outer ring extends to surround the edge ring.
Dhindsa teaches wherein the outer ring extends to surround the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, outer ring 333 surrounds the dielectric ring 132) [Fig. 3A & Col. 7 lines 24-48],
Nagami and Dhindsa are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Nagami to have an outer ring connected to RF power, as in Dhindsa, to allow for the formation of high-density peripheral plasma, thereby improving cleaning of peripheral chamber hardware [Dhindsa - Col. 8 lines 1-6]
Regarding Claim 19:
Nagami teaches wherein the bias power source is configured to supply radio frequency bias power to the bias electrode or periodically apply a pulsed voltage or a voltage having any waveform to the bias electrode (DC power supply 70 supplies a bias voltage to lower electrode 18; as evidenced by Fig. 4, DC voltage from power supply 70 is supplied in pulses) [Fig. 1, 4 & 0049, 0053, 0058].
Furthermore, although cited by the prior art, the limitations of claim 19 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing “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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 26:
Nagami teaches wherein the second frequency is not less than 50 kHz and not more than 27 MHz (the DC power supply 70 is capable of outputting at a frequency of 200 kHz [Fig. 1, 4 & 0089].
Furthermore, although cited by the prior art, the limitations of claim 26 is merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing “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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 27:
Nagami teaches wherein the substrate support includes an electrostatic chuck (electrostatic chuck 20) which supports the edge ring (focus ring FR) placed thereon, the plasma processing apparatus further includes an insulating member (insulating member 29) surrounding the electrostatic chuck which supports the outer ring placed thereon [Fig. 1 & 0036-0037, 0047], an edge ring (focus ring FR) [Fig. 1 & 0039, 0049].
Nagami does not specifically disclose the plasma processing apparatus further includes an insulating member surrounding the electrostatic chuck which supports the outer ring placed thereon, and the second electrode is disposed in the insulating member and under the outer ring.
Dhindsa teaches the plasma processing apparatus further includes an insulating member (dielectric member 136) surrounding the electrostatic chuck which supports the outer ring placed thereon (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, dielectric member 136 surrounds inner bottom electrode 331 and supports conductive ring 333), and the second electrode is disposed in the insulating member and under the outer ring (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, outer bottom electrode 331 is disposed in dielectric member 136 and under conductive ring 333) [Fig. 3A & Col. 3 lines 59-60, Col. 7 lines 24-48].
Nagami and Dhindsa are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Nagami to have an outer ring connected to RF power, as in Dhindsa, to allow for the formation of high-density peripheral plasma, thereby improving cleaning of peripheral chamber hardware [Dhindsa - Col. 8 lines 1-6].
Modified Nagami (Nagami modified by Dhindsa and Koshimizu) does not specifically disclose does not specifically disclose the first electrode is disposed in the electrostatic chuck and under the edge ring, and the second electrode is disposed in the insulating member and under the outer ring.
Lin teaches the first electrode (outer electrode 544) is disposed in the electrostatic chuck (chuck body 228) and under a peripheral structure (annular shoulder 236) [Fig. 5B & 0030, 0065].
Modified Nagami and Lin are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the peripheral structure (edge ring) of Modified Nagami, with the arrangement of the peripheral structure and bias power source of Lin, to provide control over plasma distribution at the edge of a substrate [Lin - 0065].
Regarding Claim 28:
Nagami teaches a height of the edge ring is higher than the height of the substrate support surface (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the focus ring FR has a height that is higher than the height of the surface where substrate W is disposed) [Fig. 1 & 0039, 0049].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagami et al. (US 20190057845) in view of Dhindsa et al. (US 8012306), Koshimizu et al. (US 20100304572), Lin et al. (US 20170040198), and Aramaki et al. (US 20190122864), with Tsujimoto et al. (US 20100041240) and Le et al. (US 20140179108) as further evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 18-19, and 26-28 above, and further in view of Kellog et al. (US 9852889).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 8, 18-19, and 26-278have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Nagami does not specifically disclose a filter connected between the other impedance adjuster and the outer ring, wherein the filter has a frequency characteristic that selectively passes the plasma source radio frequency power with respect to the electric bias that is supplied from the bias power source to the lower electrode.
Kellog teaches a filter (RF filter 208) connected between an impedance adjuster (IMC 108), wherein the filter has a frequency characteristic that selectively passes the radio frequency power with respect to the electric bias that is supplied from the bias power source to the lower electrode (RF filter 208 reduces an amount of RF current from reaching the x1 kHz RF generator or the x MHz RF generator that is coupled to the RF filter 208 via the IMC 108) [Fig. 2A & Col. 6 lines 54-67, Col. 7 lines 40-43].
Furthermore, although taught by the prior art, the limitations “wherein the filter has a frequency characteristic that selectively passes the plasma source radio frequency power with respect to the electric bias that is supplied from the bias power source to the lower electrode,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagami et al. (US 20190057845) in view of Dhindsa et al. (US 8012306), Koshimizu et al. (US 20100304572), Lin et al. (US 20170040198), and Aramaki et al. (US 20190122864), with Tsujimoto et al. (US 20100041240) and Le et al. (US 20140179108) as further evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 18-19, and 26-28 above, and further in view of Terasaki et al. (US 20030219989).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 8, 18-19, and 26-28 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Nagami (Nagami modified by Dhindsa) does not specifically disclose an other impedance adjuster having variable impedance and connected between an electrical path that connects the plasma source radio frequency power source to the lower electrode and the outer ring or between the lower electrode and the outer ring.
Lin teaches an other impedance adjuster (capacitor 552) connected between an electrical path (the electrical path of power source 550) that connects the plasma source radio frequency power source (power source 550) to the lower electrode (inner electrode 552) and an outer peripheral structure (outer portion of annular shoulder 236) or between the lower electrode and the outer peripheral structure (as evidenced by Fig. 5B, capacitor 552 is connected to power source 550 and outer electrode 554; outer electrode 554 is electrically connected to annular shoulder 236. Power source 550 is also connected to inner electrode 542) [Fig. 5B & 0058, 0065].
Modified Nagami and Lin are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the outer peripheral structure (outer ring) of Modified Nagami, with the arrangement of the outer peripheral structure and bias power source of Lin, to provide control over plasma distribution at the edge of a substrate [Lin - 0065].
Modified Nagami (Nagami modified by Dhindsa, Lin, and Aramaki) does not specifically disclose an other impedance adjuster having variable impedance.
Terasaki teaches an other impedance adjuster (impedance variable mechanism 15) having variable impedance (capacitor 23 of mechanism 15 is an adjustable variable capacitor) [Fig. 4 & 0056].
Modified Nagami and Terasaki are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adjuster of Modified Nagami to have impedance adjusting capabilities, as in Terasaki, to provide father control over electric potential, thereby improving plasma efficiency [Terasaki - 0044, 0054, 0056, 0069].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9, 18-19, 26-28 under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered but are not persuasive. A new rejection under 35 USC 112a has also been set forth herein.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation “the outer ring having an upper surface which is located above the substrate support surface.” However, there is no written support in the written specification for this limitation. The aforementioned limitation suggests that the outer ring has an upper surface that both vertically and horizontally overlaps with the substrate support surface, but the outer ring of the instant application is not horizontally or vertically overlapping with the substrate support surface. Rather, Fig. 1 of the instant application discloses that the height of the outer ring is higher than a height of the substrate support surface.
This amendment has also necessitated the maintenance of the rejection under 35 USC 112b. Since the limitation “the outer ring having an upper surface which is located above the substrate support surface,” does not have support in the written specification, the scope of the limitation cannot be determined. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “a height of the outer ring is higher than a height of the substrate support surface.”
Newly added Claim 28 also recites the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the edge ring is located above the substrate support surface.” However, there is no written support in the written specification for this limitation. The aforementioned limitation suggests that the edge ring is both vertically and horizontally overlapping with the substrate support surface, but the edge ring of the instant application is not horizontally or vertically overlapping with the substrate support surface. Rather, Fig. 1 of the instant application discloses that the height of the edge ring is higher than a height of the substrate support surface. Furthermore, since the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the edge ring is located above the substrate support surface,” does not have support in the written specification, the scope of the limitation cannot be determined. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “a height of the edge ring is higher than the height of the substrate support surface.”
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9, 18-19, 26-28 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “the outer ring having an upper surface which is located above the substrate support surface.” Firstly, due to the aforementioned rejection for new matter, this limitation is being read as “a height of the outer ring is higher than a height of the substrate support surface.” The applicant argues that the combination of references does not disclose this because Dhindsa et al. (US 8012306) shows that all the rings are at the same vertical position. The applicant agrees that the rings of Dhindsa are all in the same vertical position, however, the applicant has now utilized the teachings of Koshimizu et al. (US 20100304572) to disclose ring heights, with Tsujimoto et al. (US 20100041240) and Le et al. (US 20140179108) as further evidentiary references.
Specifically, Koshimizu discloses that the height of a conductive ring is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the height of a ring can be adjusted to change a plasma sheathe profile [Koshimizu - 0009, 0011, 0082-0083]. Modified Nagami and Koshimizu are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum height for a conductive ring around a substrate to obtained a desired plasma sheathe profile [Koshimizu - 0009, 0011, 0082]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Tsujimoto et al. (US 20100041240) and Le et al. (US 20140179108) also disclose that ring height is a result effective variable [Tsujimoto - 0040; Le - 0034].
Applicant also argues that Koshimizu does not specifically disclose “an outer ring extending outside the edge ring in a radial direction to locate the edge ring between the region on the substrate support surface and the outer ring.” In response, the examiner would like to note that Koshimizu is not being used to teach this limitation, but rather, to disclose motivation for modifying the heights of rings around a substrate. Dhindsa is the reference being used to disclose the aforementioned limitation. It is noted that 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).
Dhindsa teaches an outer ring (outer ring 333) extending outside the edge ring (dielectric ring 132) in a radial direction to locate the edge ring between the region on the substrate support surface and the outer ring (as evidenced by Fig. 3A, outer ring 333 surrounds the dielectric ring 132) [Dhindsa - Fig. 3A & Col. 7 lines 24-48].
Nagami and Dhindsa are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Nagami to have an outer ring connected to RF power, as in Dhindsa, to allow for the formation of high-density peripheral plasma, thereby improving cleaning of peripheral chamber hardware [Dhindsa - Col. 8 lines 1-6].
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718