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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 June 2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the amendments and Arguments filed 25 June 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 1, and 14 are currently amended. Claims 4, 15, and 17-20 are currently cancelled and no new claims are added. This is a Non-Final office action.
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.
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.,
[Examiner’s note: Crossed out limitations are not disclosed by that reference]
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7,9-11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (Japanese Patent Publication JP2008060148; in applicant’s filed IDS) in view of Hirayama (Wipo Patent Publication WO 2014184824; in applicant’s filed IDS) and Ohmi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0303361) and Sekizuka (U.S. Patent 5,368,648) and Ritchie (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 0216922).
Regarding claim 1, Kasahara discloses a plasma processing apparatus (¶3, “plasma generation”), comprising:
a chamber (fig. 3) including a
holder (44) located in the chamber, and electrically isolated from the chamber (via “insulating member” 43, ¶0038), the holder holding a work
first member (elements 41 bottom of the chamber), and
a second member (42, top of the chamber) detachable from the first member, the first member and the second member defining an interior of the chamber (fig. 3);
a conductive member (¶0041 element 48, “forming a conductive member made of an elastic body”)) disposed between the first member and the second member; and
a first high frequency power supply (¶0040 high frequency supply 67) generating plasma in the chamber,
the first member being grounded and facing an interior of the chamber (Kasahara, the lower half the of chamber is grounded through 44, fig. 3),
the second member being not grounded and facing the interior of the chamber (the upper and lower sections both have parts facing the interior of the chamber, fig. 3),
Kasahara does not disclose wherein “ a voltage controller connected to the holder;
a second high frequency power supply connected to the voltage controller and supplying a high frequency current to the holder via the voltage controller,
the conductive member includes a resin member made of a resin material, and a metal film covering a surface of the resin member, the conductive member solid torus having a disk-shaped cross section, and the conductive member being disposed in a state of being compressed to cause a compression ratio to be in a range of 5 to 25% nor the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded.
However, Hirayama teaches an elastic conductive member within a plasma generator, wherein “the conductive member includes a resin member made of a resin material, and a metal film covering a surface of the resin member (Hirayama, element 150, figs. 3-5, p. 4 of 5, 6th paragraph, “conductive elastic member”, “a resin O-ring plated with metal can also be used”, which would be the “metal film covering” the resin), the conductive member having a circular cross-sectional shape (the cross-sectional shape of the spirally wound wired that is formed in a large ring shape is, indeed, circular, fig. 5 element 150). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the conductive member of Kasahara with the conductive member of Hirayama, because the substitution of one known formation of the elastic conductive member (Kasahara, 48, an elastic conductive member, ¶0041) for another would have yielded predictable results of conductively connecting the first member to the second member with the elastic conductive member being pushed upon by the members.
And while Kasahara in view of Hirayama teaches all the limitations of the claims above, it still does not teach a voltage controller connected to the holder;
a second high frequency power supply connected to the voltage controller and supplying a high frequency current to the holder via the voltage controller,
the conductive member solid torus having a disk-shaped cross section nor that the conductive member being disposed in a state of being compressed to cause a compression ratio to be in a range of 5 to 25%, nor the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded.
However, it is also noted that Hirayama does teach that the elastic piece may be compressed “with an appropriate elastic force” (Hirayama, p. 4 of 5, 7th paragraph) in order to put the appropriate force on the proper piece to create the required contact. As well, Ohmi teaches that a resilient connector in a plasma processing chamber may compress 10%-30% (Ohmi, ¶0042, this overlaps the claimed range). Thus, it would have also been obvious to modify Kasahara in view of Hirayama with the teaching of Ohmi, to compress the elastic member to an appropriate degree, as described in Hirayama, even within the claimed range, in order to put the proper force on the indicated member to create good contact, and to also ensure that the piece remains “elastic” and that the proper force may be maintained, which may not be if the elastic member was plastically deformed, because then the indicated pressure may not be entirely accounted for or calculable, and the extent of the elastic deformation may be determined through routine experimentation.
And while Kasahara in view of Hirayama and Ohmi teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the conductive member solid torus having a disk-shaped cross section, nor a voltage controller connected to the holder;
a second high frequency power supply connected to the voltage controller and supplying a high frequency current to the holder via the voltage controller,
the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded.
However, Sekizuka teaches a conductive member solid torus having a disk-shaped cross section (Sekizuka, Fig. 2, sealing member 7 is an O-ring with circular cross-section). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kasahara in view of Hirayama and Ohmi with the teachings of Sekizuka, to have a conventional O-ring sealing element as in Sekizuka, in order to substitute a conventional method of sealing the device, but also to electrically connect and also be able to resist high temperatures (Sekizuka, column 3 lines 55-56, column 4 line 1) so as not to be damaged by the heating in the chamber, and this would be a substitution of a known sealing element for another would yield the predictable result of sealing and connecting the chambers.
And while Kasahara in view of Hirayama Ohmi and Sekizuka teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach a voltage controller connected to the holder;
a second high frequency power supply connected to the voltage controller and supplying a high frequency current to the holder via the voltage controller,
the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded.
However, Ritchie, in his plasma chamber, teaches a voltage controller (14, fig. 2, fig. 9) connected to the holder(fig. 3, element 302, ¶¶34, 36); a second high frequency power supply (362) connected to the voltage controller and supplying a high frequency current to the holder via the voltage controller (as seen in fig. 2), nor
the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded (via ground next to 362, and 365 is also connected to ground).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi and Sekizuka with the teachings of Richie, to be able to modify and adjust the voltage, as well as doing impedance matching, in order to have an impedance matching device that adjusts a bias voltage to the holder to better have the plasma target the substrate for etching when processing the wafer, and this is in connection to the secondary power source that that is also grounded, and this would be controlling the chamber in a conventional way to achieve the expected result of more efficient processing.
Regarding claim 2, Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi and Sekizuka, and Ritchie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a plasma processing apparatus, wherein a gap is formed between the first member and the second member (Kasahara, gap where the conductive member is inserted, ¶0008).
Regarding claim 5, Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi, Sekizuka, and Ritchie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a plasma processing apparatus further comprising: a coil fixed to the second member, a high frequency current being supplied from the first high frequency power supply to the coil (Kasahara, fig. 3, element 67 high frequency)
Regarding claim 6, Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi, Sekizuka, and Ritchie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a plasma processing apparatus wherein a compression ratio of the conductive member is a compression ratio in a range in which cracks do not occur in the metal film. Given the structure of claim 1, and that it has a certain compression of the conductive member, and no cracks result, making this an inherent characteristic of the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi, Sekizuka, and Ritchie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a compression ratio of the conductive member is determined by repeatedly compressing the conductive member while changing the compression ratio and by measuring an electrical resistance value of the conductive member each compression and release. This limitation does not define the structure or functionality of the apparatus, but rather a process by which the compression ratio is determined. As such, it is considered a 'product-by-process' claim. As stated in MPEP 2113, “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Accordingly, since the structure of the apparatus is obvious from the prior art, the process by which the compression ratio is determined is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi and Sekizuka and Ritchie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein the resin material is elastic rubber. However, Hirayama teaches an O-ring made of rubber (Hirayama, p. 1 of 5, 3rd paragraph), and by the elastic conductive member, it teaches it could be made out of a plated “resin O-ring”, (Hirayama, p. 4 of 5, 6th paragraph). Thus, if would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to look to the teachings of Hirayama, wherein the O-rings are made of the same material, resin as this would be substituting in a known conventional technology in a known way to yield the predictable result of elasticity for this particular conductive member (see MPEP 2143A).
Regarding claim 10, Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi and Sekizuka and Ritchie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein the resin material is fluororubber. Hirayama teaches that a ring may be made of fluororubber (Hirayama, p. 3 of 5, 3rd paragraph, “fluorocarbon resin”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention, to modify Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi and Sekizuka with a further teaching of Hirayama, to have the resin material be fluororubber, as this is a conventional, known resin material to the inventor, already used elsewhere in the invention, so its use here would seem almost expected, and this substitution would result in conventional and predictable effects of an elastic resin member squeezed into the wall.
Regarding claim 11, Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi, Sekizuka, and Ritchie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a plasma processing apparatus wherein the metal film includes at least one type of metal selected from the group consisting of nickel, chrome, titanium, tungsten, cobalt, gold, silver, copper, tin, and zinc (in the combination above, since Hirayama mentions those types of metal conductor (Hirayama, p. 4 of 5, 6th paragraph, these metals are considered good conductors for the conductive member, so it would be obvious to consider them for the plating and this would have been obvious in the combination above).
Regarding claim 13, Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi, Sekizuka, and Ritchie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a plasma processing apparatus, wherein the plasma processing apparatus is a plasma etching apparatus (Kasahara, ¶0002, etching).
Regarding claim 14, Kasahara discloses a method, comprising: placing a work on a holder (44) in a chamber (Kasahara, fig. 1, element 1) including a first member (42) and a second member (41, 43, 44), disposing a conductive member (48) between the first member and the second member, and compressing the conductive member, the first member and the second member defining an interior of the chamber (Hirayama, fig. 3), the holder being electrically isolated from the chamber (via insulating member 43, ¶0038);
the first member being grounded and facing the interior of the chamber (Kasahara, fig. 1, the lower half the of chamber is grounded, fig. 3),
the second member being not grounded and facing the interior of the chamber (the upper and lower sections both have parts facing the interior of the chamber, fig. 3),
(¶0041) from a first high frequency power supply, and
Kasahara does not disclose wherein “the conductive member including a metal film on a surface of a resin member, the resin member being made of a resin material, the conductive member being solid torus having a disk-shaped cross section, and the conductive member being disposed in the plasma processing apparatus in a state of being compressed to cause a compression ratio to be in a range of 5-25%, nor supplying a high frequency current from a second high frequency power supply to the holder via a voltage controller, the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded.
However, Hirayama teaches wherein “the conductive member including a metal film on a surface of a resin member, the resin member being made of a resin material (Hirayama, element 150, figs. 3-5, p. 4 of 5, 6th paragraph, “conductive elastic member”, “a resin O-ring plated with metal can also be used”, which would be the “metal film covering” the resin), the conductive member having a circular cross-sectional shape (the cross-sectional shape of the spirally wound wired that is formed in a large ring shape is, indeed, circular, fig. 5 element 150). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the conductive member of Kasahara with the conductive member of Hirayama, because the substitution of one known formation of the elastic conductive member for another would have yielded predictable results of conductively connecting the first member to the second member with the elastic conductive member being pushed upon by the members.
And while Kasahara in view of Hirayama teaches all the limitations of the claims above, it still does not teach the conductive member being solid torus having a disk-shaped cross section, nor that the conductive member being disposed in a state of being compressed to cause a compression ratio to be in a range of 5 to 25%, nor supplying a high frequency current from a second high frequency power supply to the holder via a voltage controller, the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded.
However, it is also noted that Hirayama does teach that the elastic piece may be compressed “with an appropriate elastic force” (Hirayama, p. 4 of 5, 7th paragraph) in order to put the appropriate force on the proper piece to create the required contact. As well, Ohmi teaches that a resilient connector in a plasma processing chamber may compress 10%-30% (Ohmi, ¶0042, this overlaps the claimed range). Thus, it would have also been obvious to modify Kasahara in view of Hirayama with the teaching of Ohmi, to compress the elastic member to an appropriate degree, as described in Hirayama, even within the claimed range, in order to put the proper force on the indicated member to create good contact, and to also ensure that the piece remains “elastic” and that the proper force may be maintained, which may not be if the elastic member was plastically deformed, because then the indicated pressure may not be entirely accounted for or calculable, and the extent of the elastic deformation may be determined through routine experimentation.
And while Kasahara in view of Hirayama and Ohmi teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the conductive member solid torus having a disk-shaped cross section, nor supplying a high frequency current from a second high frequency power supply to the holder via a voltage controller, the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded.
However, Sekizuka teaches a conductive member solid torus having a disk-shaped cross section (Sekizuka, Fig. 2, sealing member 7 is an O-ring with circular cross-section). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kasahara in view of Hirayama and Ohmi with the teachings of Sekizuka, to have a conventional O-ring sealing element as in Sekizuka, in order to substitute a conventional method of sealing the device, but also to electrically connect and also be able to resist high temperatures (Sekizuka, column 3 lines 55-56, column 4 line 1) so as not to be damaged by the heating in the chamber, and this would be a substitution of a known sealing element for another would yield the predictable result of sealing and connecting the chambers.
And while Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi and Sekizuka teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach supplying a high frequency current from a second high frequency power supply to the holder via a voltage controller, the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded.
However, Ritchie, in his plasma chamber, teaches supplying a high frequency current from a second high frequency power supply to the holder (362) to the holder (fig. 3, 302) was “via a voltage controller (14, fig. 2, fig. 9)”, the voltage controller and the second high frequency power supply being grounded (as seen in fig. 2, ground next to 362).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi and Sekizuka with the teachings of Richie, to be able to modify and adjust the voltage, as well as doing impedance matching, in order to make the chamber more efficient, when processing the wafer, and this is in connection to the secondary power source that that is grounded, and this would be controlling the chamber in a conventional way to achieve the expected result of more efficient processing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (Japanese Patent Publication JP2008060148; in applicant’s filed IDS) in view of Hirayama (Wipo Patent Publication WO 2014184824; in applicant’s filed), Ohmi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0303361), Sekizuka (U.S. Patent 5,368,648), and Ritchie (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 0216922) and further in view of Hirayama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0146910, herein “Hirayama ‘910”),
Regarding claim 12, Kasahara in view of Hirayama, Ohmi, Sekizuka, and Ritchie teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a film thickness of the metal film is not less than 200 nm. Now, Obviously, the thickness of the film/plating has to be thick enough to serve its function of conductively connecting the members, as well as to maintain the desired elasticity of the resin member (Hirayama, p. 4 of 5, paragraph 7). However, Hirayama ‘910 teaches a conductive film a film thickness of the metal film is not less than 200 nm (Hirayama ‘910, ¶0244). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kasahara in view of Hirayama Ohmi and Sekizuka, with a teachings of Hirayama ‘910, to have the thickness of the plating as claimed, as Hirayama ‘910 demonstrates that at least a thickness may be required for electrical conductivity (and it does not interfere with the resin) and thus it would be obvious that the thickness of the film meet the claimed limitations, but it is also noted that the thickness also must be appropriate to the elastic nature of the conductive member, and thus with limited routine experimentation, an appropriate thickness of the film may be implemented, even meeting this limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights