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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 27 September 2023 fails to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. NPL Doc 1 does not include any translation of relevant material.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-14 were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in a previous reply.
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).
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, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0311038 to Park et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0041160 to Barnes et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0163500 to Kim et al.
Regarding claim 1: Park et al. disclose a substrate treating apparatus of treating a substrate substantially as claimed and comprising: a chamber (Fig. 1, 100) having a space for treating the substrate therein; a support unit (200) supporting the substrate in the chamber; a gas supply unit (300) supplying gas into the chamber, and a plasma generation unit (400) exciting the gas in the chamber into a plasma state, wherein the plasma generation unit includes a high frequency power supply (420); a first antenna (411); a second antenna (413); a matcher (e.g., plurality of structured between high frequency power supply and first and second antennas)) connected between the high frequency power supply and the first and second antennas, wherein the matcher includes a current distributor (plurality of structures/capacitors) distributing a current to the first antenna and the second antenna, the current distributor includes a first capacitor (435) disposed between the first antenna and the second antenna; a second capacitor (433) connected with the second antenna in series; and a third capacitor (437) connected with the second antenna in parallel, wherein the second capacitor is a variable capacitor. Additionally, Park et al. teach that variable devices may be configured in such a way that its electrical characteristics can be changed by a control signal transmitted from a controller (not shown). In other words, by adjusting the electrical characteristics of the variable devices under the control of the controller, it is possible to generate plasma having physical properties suitable for a plasma process (see, e.g., para. 75).
However, Park et al. fails to disclose the first capacitor is a variable capacitor or the matcher further includes a fourth capacitor connected in parallel with the current distributor and a fifth capacitor connected in series with the current distributor, wherein the fourth capacitor and the fifth capacitor are variable capacitors configured to perform impedance matching.
Barnes et al. teach providing a variable capacitor (180) between a first antenna and a second antenna for the purpose of providing additional flexibility in control for power distribution between the first and second antenna (see, e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B and para. 32). Additionally, Barnes et al. disclose the matcher further includes a fourth capacitor (see, e.g., Fig. 6, 198), connected in parallel with the current distributor (i.e. “power distribution network”) and a fifth capacitor (e.g., 196) connected in series with the current distributor, wherein the fourth capacitor and the fifth capacitor are variable capacitors configured to perform impedance matching for the purpose of providing efficient and optimized power from an RF power source to coils/antennas (also see, e.g., para. 39).
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 variable capacitor as the first capacitor in order to provide additional flexibility in control for power distribution between the first and second antenna as taught by Barnes et al. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the matcher further includes a fourth capacitor connected in parallel with the current distributor and a fifth capacitor connected in series with the current distributor, wherein the fourth capacitor and the fifth capacitor are variable capacitors configured to perform impedance matching a variable capacitor as the first capacitor in order to provide efficient and optimized power from the RF power source the first antenna and the second antenna as also taught by Barnes et al.
Additionally, in Park et al. the third capacitor is provided as a fixed capacitor and the current distributor is disposed between the high frequency power supply, the first antenna and the second antenna. See, e.g., Fig. 3.
Additionally, in modified Park et al., the current distributor is capable of distributing the current to the first antenna and the second antenna by adjusting the capacitances of the first capacitor and the second capacitor and the current distributor is capable of setting a resonance range by adjusting the capacitance of the first capacitor within a predetermined range, performing a phase control between the currents flowing in the first antenna and the second antenna by adjusting the capacitance of the second capacitor. These features are considered intended uses of the claimed apparatus of which the prior art would be capable, wherein as detailed above, the prior art teaches the first capacitor and second capacitor are capable of adjusting their capacitance. The courts have ruled that 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). Note in particular that Park et al. (e.g., para. 75) states that each of the variable devices may be configured in such a way that its electrical characteristics can be changed by a control signal transmitted from a controller (not shown). In other words, by adjusting the electrical characteristics of the variable devices under the control of the controller, it is possible to generate plasma having physical properties suitable for a plasma process. Also Barnes et al. (e.g., para 32.) states -- The series capacitor 180 and the shunt capacitor 190 may comprise one or more variable capacitors that may be regulated by a controller configured to vary or change the capacitance of the capacitor. Also Barnes et al. (e.g., para 37.) states -- further advantage of the power distribution network of the invention is the ability to maintain a common phase angle for the RF currents in the multiple source coils, even as the current ratio is varied. The ability of control a common phase relationship in the RF currents is a major factor in achieving a controllable plasma uniformity because out-of-phase RF currents in adjacent source coils causes a net canceling effect, thereby shifting the power deposition away from the plasma load. The invention provides control of the phase relationship between the currents in the coils while the current ratio is varied. Typically, the invention maintains a phase difference of less than about 10 degrees between the currents in the two coils. Also, Barnes et al. para. 55 states -- Embodiments of the invention further provide an automated controller for use in conjunction with the method of the invention. The automated controller, which may be a microprocessor based controller, as is known in the art, may generally be configured to store a control program thereon, execute the control program, receive program inputs, and provide control signals to hardware elements of a processing system. Therefore, the controller may be configured to store a predetermined processing recipe and execute a program that provides control signals to hardware components of the processing system capable of varying parameters such as the current ratio applied to coils. The controller may be configured to interface with a matching network or a power distribution network in order to vary the current supplied to at least one coil positioned above a processing system. The controller may further be configured to vary the current supplied to the coils, i.e., the current ratio, in a linear manner, a non-linear manner, a curvilinear manner, or other time varying manner. Alternatively, the controller may be a manually actuated control configured to adjust a parameter of the power distribution network or the matching network.
Modified Park et al. fail to disclose a first terminal capacitor disposed between the first antenna and ground or a second terminal capacitor disposed between the second antenna and ground.
Kim et al. teach the provision of a first terminal capacitor (Fig. 3, 80) disposed between an antenna (40) and a second terminal capacitor (Fig. 3, 80) between a second antenna (50) and ground for the purpose of condensing electricity and allowing the voltage applied to the entire antenna (i.e. 40 and 50) to be uniform, and for minimizing a phase difference of current and voltage (see, e.g., paras. 35-36).
In modified Park et al., including the first and second terminal capacitors of Kim et al. as part of the overall circuit, with the overall circuit powering and controlling the first antenna and second antenna, the first terminal capacitor is electrically coupled to the first antenna and to the current distributor of the matcher and, the second terminal capacitor is electrically coupled to the second antenna and to the current distributor of the matcher.
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 first terminal capacitor between the first antenna and ground and to have provided to have provided a second terminal capacitor between the second antenna and ground in modified Park et al. in order condense electricity and allow the voltage applied to the entire antenna to be uniform, and for minimizing a phase difference of current and voltage as taught by Kim et al.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Park et al., the current distributor is capable of controlling a current ratio of the currents flowing in the first antenna and the second antenna by adjusting the capacitance of the second capacitor. This feature is considered an intended use of the claimed apparatus of which the prior art would be capable, wherein the courts have ruled that 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). Note also that Park et al. (e.g., para. 75) teach that each of the variable devices may be configured in such a way that its electrical characteristics can be changed by a control signal transmitted from a controller (not shown). In other words, by adjusting the electrical characteristics of the variable devices under the control of the controller, it is possible to generate plasma having physical properties suitable for a plasma process.
With respect to claim 7, modified Park et al. fails to explicitly teach a predetermined range of the first capacitor is 20-25 pF or 180-185pF. However, Barnes et al. does teach a variable capacitor capable of functioning in the claimed range (see again, e.g., para. 34). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed and exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic that a variable capacitor in the same range could also be used as the first capacitor, wherein the courts have ruled 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). Additionally, similar to features addressed above, this feature appears to be related to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, wherein the courts have also ruled that 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). Note also that Park et al. (e.g., para. 75) teach that each of the variable devices may be configured in such a way that its electrical characteristics can be changed by a control signal transmitted from a controller (not shown). In other words, by adjusting the electrical characteristics of the variable devices under the control of the controller, it is possible to generate plasma having physical properties suitable for a plasma process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4 and 7 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 except where addressed below.
Applicant has argued “The blocking capacitor of Miyake functions as a bias-isolation element in a single-antenna system and is not described as being part of a multi-antenna plasma generation unit or as being electrically coupled to a current distributor of a matcher. Accordingly, Miyake fails to teach or suggest "a first terminal capacitor disposed between the first antenna and ground and electrically coupled to the first antenna and to the current distributor of the matcher," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner does not find that the Miyake et al. disclose the terminal capacitor merely as argued above. Miyake et al., as relied upon previously, finds it advantageous to provide a terminal capacitor between the antenna and ground in order to generate a plasma of high density and low plasma potential, with the result that plasma processing which causes less damage can be realized and large high-frequency power can be supplied. It is not necessary that Miyake et al. explicitly disclose a multi-antenna system or electrical connection to a current distributor of a matcher. In modified Park et al. the electrical connection would necessarily be made as the features are part of the same circuit. Nevertheless, in consideration of amendments and expediting examination, prior art reference Kim et al. is relied upon above as it provides a more straight-forward teaching and rejection with respect to the claimed invention.
Applicant has also argued various limitations have been improperly interpreted as intended use. Examiner notes that Applicant’s claimed invention is an apparatus and the relied upon prior art has been shown to include the claimed structures and have the relevant capabilities. Further, additional sections of Park et al. and Barnes et al. have been pointed out that indicate the features of the matcher/current distributor can be controlled and varied as desired to produce desired plasma characteristics. If Applicant intends the apparatus to perform a specific method, an invention drawn to a method of using the apparatus may be more appropriate. Alternatively, if Applicant’s disclosed invention includes a programmed controller, CPU, or similar, this could potentially be another path for incorporating method steps into the claimed apparatus. Note: Examiner scanned the original disclosure, but did not find any such disclosure of a programmed controller, CPU or similar. The courts have ruled that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Pub. Nos. 2011/0097901 and 2013/0278142 disclose use of a programmed controller, CPU or similar for specifically controlling a plasma generation apparatus to match an intended use.
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 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