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/Amendments
Claims 4-12, 16 and 18-20 were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
In the 9 March 2026 submission, claims 1 and 14 were amended, claim 2 was cancelled, claims 21-24 were added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the second upper electrode is configured with an inner wall of the chamber or a deposition shield provided along the inner wall of the chamber” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Also see rejections under 35 USC 112 below.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on dependence.
Claim 22 recites “a normal line with respect to a surface of the lower recess” and “a normal line with respect to a surface of the upper recess”. It is unclear how the “a normal line” of these features are meant to relate to the “a normal line with respect to a surface of the recess” of claim 21. It is also unclear how the “a surface” associated with each of the lower recess and the upper recess in claim 22 is meant to associate with the “a surface of the recess” in claim 21. In order to expedite examination, in both instances, overlap between the features has been assumed to be acceptable, if not necessary. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 23 recites “a normal line with respect to a bottom surface of the recess”. It is unclear how the “a normal line” of this feature is meant to relate to the “a normal line with respect to a surface of the recess” of claim 21. It is also unclear how the “a bottom surface” is meant to be associated with the “a surface of the recess” in claim 21. In order to expedite examination, in both instances, overlap between the features has been assumed to be acceptable, if not necessary. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 24 recites “the second upper electrode is configured with an inner wall of the chamber or a deposition shield along the inner wall of the chamber”. As written, the claim lacks the required clarity and is generally non-sensical. First, the claim appears to require the inner wall in either instance, although the claim language fails to reflect this requirement. Second, if Applicant intends for the inner wall to serve as the second upper electrode “configured with” fails to convey this feature. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to expressly include “an inner wall of the chamber” as a feature of the plasma processing apparatus and has interpreted “configured with” to be inclusive of two features at issue being proximate or being coextensive has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Again, in all instances, clarification and/or correction is requested.
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 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0121609 to Ohmi et al. in view U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0066247 to Koshiishi et al. and U.S. Patent No. 5,997,687 Koshimizu.
Regarding claim 1: Ohmi et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a chamber (Fig. 1, 100) having a plasma processing region; a first lower electrode (101) provided inside the chamber and having a substrate placement region (101a) on which the substrate is placed; a second lower electrode (103) disposed in a region outside the substrate placement region; a first upper electrode (106) disposed to face the substrate placement stage; a second upper electrode (107) disposed in a region outside the first upper electrode to face the second lower electrode; and a first power supply (110) configured to supply a first periodic signal to the first lower electrode, wherein the second lower electrode as a first surface facing the second upper electrode and the second upper electrode has a second surface facing the second lower electrode.
However, modified Ohmi et al. fail to disclose a second power supply configured to supply a DC voltage to the second upper electrode; a sensor configured to measure a self-bias of the second lower electrode; and a controller configured to control an output of the second power supply according to the self-bias voltage measured by the sensor.
Koshiishi et al. teach providing second upper electrode (34a) (i.e. outer upper electrode, see, e.g., Figs. 34-35, 38, although other embodiments are also applicable) for assisting a first upper electrode (34b) with a power supply (50a) configured to supply a DC voltage to the second upper electrode for the purpose controlling spatial distribution of plasma in the radial direction so as to arbitrarily and finely control the spatial property of a reaction ion etching characteristic (see, e.g., para. 159-167, 185, 273-303). The second power supply is controlled by a controller (51) and a control section/user interface/storage section (95- 97) (see, e.g., paras., 144, 151-153, 333-335). Koshiishi et al. also disclose a sensor (detector 55) configured to detect a state of plasma and control the output of the second power supply using the controller.
Ohmi et al. and Koshiishi et al. fail to specifically disclose that a self-bias voltage of a second lower electrode is measured by the detector in order to detect a state of the plasma. Notably, however, Koshiishi et al. do teach that other types of detectors may be used for controlling the second power supply based on a detection signal therefrom (see, e.g., para. 185).
Koshimizu teach using a sensor (Fig. 1, 133) configured to measure a self-bias of a lower electrode and a controller (129) configured to control an output of a power supply for an upper electrode facing the lower electrode according to the self-bias measured by the sensor for the purpose of providing predetermined plasma processing characteristics to perform uniform plasma processing (see, e.g. column 5, row 44 through column 10, row 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Ohmi et al., a second power supply configured to supply a DC voltage to the second upper electrode; a sensor configured to measure a self-bias generated at the second lower electrode; and a controller configured to control an output of the second power supply according to the self-bias voltage measured by the sensor in order to provide a second power supply configured to supply a DC voltage to the second upper electrode, control spatial distribution of plasma in the radial direction so as to arbitrarily and finely control the spatial property of a reaction ion etching characteristic, detect a state of plasma and control the output of the second power supply, and provide predetermined plasma processing characteristics to perform uniform plasma processing as taught by Koshiishi et al. and Koshimizu.
With respect to claim 14, in modified Ohmi et al., Koshiishi et al. further teach that the polarity and value of the DC voltage applied to the second upper electrode by the second power supply can be set to predetermined conditions when processing a substrate in order to obtain a good processed shape without bowing while improving the uniformity of a processed shape (see, e.g., para. 159-167, 175-176). Additionally, the courts 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).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ohmi et al. as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0241547 to Wei.
Modified Ohmi et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Ohmi et al. fail to disclose the apparatus further comprising a third feeding line configured to supply, to the first lower electrode, the first periodic signal output from the first power supply; and a fourth feeding line configured to supply, to the second lower electrode, the first periodic signal output from the first power supply, wherein the feeding line or the fourth feeding line includes a variable impedance circuit.
Wei teaches a plasma processing apparatus providing individual feeding lines configured to supply a periodic signal from a power supply (1 or 1’) to a plurality of electrodes (31, 32, 31’, 32’, 33’) wherein the individual feeding lines include a variable impedance circuit (8 and 9)(e.g., including variable capacitors and/or inductors) and the arrangement is provided for the purpose of, inter alia, enabling different electric field distribution so as to avoid a standing wave effect and the edge effect of electric of electric field distribution of a big electrode plate, thus enabling the plasma processing apparatus to obtain a uniform distribution of plasma during a process and improving the uniformity of the process (see, e.g., Figs. 2-7, abstract and para. 49).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a third feeding line configured to supply, to the first lower electrode, the first periodic signal output from the first power supply; and a fourth feeding line configured to supply, to the second lower electrode, the first periodic signal output from the first power supply, wherein the feeding line or the fourth feeding line includes a variable impedance circuit in modified Ohmi et al. in order to enable different electric field distribution so as to avoid a standing wave effect and the edge effect of electric of electric field distribution of a big electrode plate, thus enabling the plasma processing apparatus to obtain a uniform distribution of plasma during a process and improving the uniformity of the process as taught by Wei.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ohmi et al. as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. Mo. 2014/0299273 to Fischer.
Modified Ohmi et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, regarding 21, modified Ohmi et al. fail to teach at least one of the second lower electrode and the second upper electrode includes a recess, wherein, when the second lower electrode includes the recess, the recess is formed in the first surface of the second lower electrode and recessed away from the second surface of the second upper electrode, and when the second upper electrode includes the recess, the recess is formed in the second surface of the second upper electrode and recessed away from the first surface of the second lower electrode and the second lower electrode of or the second upper electrode is located on a normal line with respect to a surface of the recess.
Fischer teach providing electrodes (see, e, g., Fig. 3, 304C) including recesses (314) in a surface facing a plasma processing area and recessed away from the plasma processing area for the purpose of providing plasma tuning capability that allows for improved process uniformity (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4 paras. 35-46). As broadly claimed, the electrode may be located on an arbitrarily selected normal line with respect to a surface of the recess. Although, the recess is only disclosed with respect to upper electrodes in Fischer, one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic would recognize that a similar effect could be achieved with a lower electrode. The courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided at least one of the second lower electrode and the second upper electrode includes a recess in modified Ohmi et al., wherein, when the second lower electrode includes the recess, the recess is formed in the first surface of the second lower electrode and recessed away from the second surface of the second upper electrode, and when the second upper electrode includes the recess, the recess is formed in the second surface of the second upper electrode and recessed away from the first surface of the second lower electrode and the second lower electrode of or the second upper electrode is located on a normal line with respect to a surface of the recess in order to provide plasma tuning capability that allows for improved process uniformity as taught by Fischer.
With respect to claims 22 and 23, in modified Ohmi et al., the teachings of Fischer provide for recesses that may be formed in both the second upper electrode and the second lower electrode. Regarding providing “the upper recess of the plurality of recesses in the second upper electrode is located on a normal line with respect to a surface of the lower recess in the second lower electrode, and the lower recess in the second lower electrode is located on a normal line with respect to a surface of the upper recess in the second upper electrode”, similar to above, as broadly claimed, normal lines can be somewhat arbitrarily chosen to meet the claim limitations, as each surface is made up of many points and a line can be drawn corresponding thereto that forms a normal with one of many points on a surface of the other of the recesses. Additionally, it is noted that Fischer teaches that the shape and configuration of the recesses may be optimized to obtain the desired tuning effect. 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).
With respect to claim 24, in modifed Ohmi et al., Ohmi et al. and Koshiishi et al. disclose the chamber having an inner wall, and the second upper electrode is proximate the inner wall. See aforementioned figures of Ohmi et al. and Koshiishi et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, 17 and 21-24 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. USP 5,990,016 discloses the provision of electrodes with recesses. USP. Pub. 2002/0020497 and JP3438003B2 disclose the provision of upper and lower secondary electrodes. USP Pub 2005/0092732 disclose a detector for detecting self-bias voltage.
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 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