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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-18, 20, 23, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato; Akihiro et al. (US 20190157049 A11) in view of Ishimaru; Nobuo (US 20100130009 A1). Sato teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7), comprising: a substrate support (217; Figure 1) configured to support a plurality of substrates (200; Figure 1) to be arranged vertically; a process container (203; Figure 1) including a process chamber (203; Figure 1) configured to load the substrate support (217; Figure 1) therein and process the plurality of substrates (200; Figure 1) supported by the substrate support (217; Figure 1); a gas supplier (232a-d,241a-d,243a-d; Figure 1) configured to supply a gas into the process chamber (203; Figure 1); a first plasma electrode unit (369-371; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 377-1; Figure 9; [0118]-[0119]) configured to plasma-excite the gas and including; a first reference electrode (370; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 370; Figure 9) applied with a first reference potential (ground; Figure 7), the first reference electrode (370; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 370; Figure 9) extending in a vertical direction in which the substate support (217; Figure 1) supports the plurality of substrates (200; Figure 1) to be arranged vertically and being installed on a lateral side at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1); and at least one of a first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) and a second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]) applied with high-frequency power (273,373; Figure 7), the first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) extending in the vertical direction and being installed on a lateral side of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1), and the second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]) extending in the vertical direction and being installed on a lateral side of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1); and a second plasma electrode unit (269-271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 277; Figure 9) configured to plasma-excite the gas and including; a second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9) applied with a second reference potential (ground; Figure 7), the second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9) extending in the vertical direction and being installed on a lateral side of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1); and a third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) applied with high-frequency power (273,373; Figure 7), the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) extending in the vertical direction and being installed on a lateral side of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1) – claim 1.
Sato further teaches:
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 1, wherein the second plasma electrode unit (269-271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 277; Figure 9) further includes a fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) applied with high-frequency power (273; Figure 7), the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) extending in the vertical direction and being installed on a lateral side of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1) – claim 2
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 1, wherein the first plasma electrode unit (369-371; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 377-1; Figure 9; [0118]-[0119]) includes the first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) and the second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]), as claimed by claim 9
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 1, further comprising: a first high-frequency power source (373; Figure 7) configured to supply high-frequency power (273,373; Figure 7) to the at least one of the first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) and the second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]), and a second high-frequency power source (273; Figure 7), which is different from the first high-frequency power source (373; Figure 7), configured to supply high-frequency power (273,373; Figure 7) to the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9), as claimed by claim 15
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 1, further comprising: a first high-frequency power source (373; Figure 7) configured to supply high-frequency power (273,373; Figure 7) to the first plasma electrode unit (369-371; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 377-1; Figure 9; [0118]-[0119]), a second high-frequency power source (273; Figure 7), which is different from the first high-frequency power source (373; Figure 7), configured to supply high-frequency power (273,373; Figure 7) to the second plasma electrode unit (269-271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 277; Figure 9), as claimed by claim 16
A plasma generating device, comprising: a first plasma electrode unit (369-371; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 377-1; Figure 9; [0118]-[0119]) configured to plasma-excite a gas and including; a first reference electrode (370; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 370; Figure 9) applied with a first reference potential (ground; Figure 7), the first reference electrode (370; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 370; Figure 9) extending in a vertical direction in which a substrate support (217; Figure 1), which is configured to support a plurality of substrates (200; Figure 1) to be arranged vertically and is loaded in a process chamber (203; Figure 1) included in a process container (203; Figure 1), supports the plurality of substrates (200; Figure 1) and being installed on a lateral side of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1), and at least one selected from the group of a first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) and a second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]) applied with high-frequency power (273,373; Figure 7), the first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) extending in the vertical direction and being installed on a lateral side of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1), and the second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]) extending in the vertical direction and being installed on a lateral side of a peripheral edge portion of each of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1); the first plasma electrode unit (369-371; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 377-1; Figure 9; [0118]-[0119]) configured to plasma-excite a gas; and a second plasma electrode unit (269-271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 277; Figure 9) configured to plasma-excite the gas and including; a second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9) applied with a second reference potential (ground; Figure 7), the second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9) extending in the vertical direction and being installed on a lateral side of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1); and a third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) applied with high-frequency power (273,373; Figure 7), the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) extending in the vertical direction and being installed on a lateral side of at least a portion of the substrate support (217; Figure 1) loaded in the process chamber (203; Figure 1) – claim 20
The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the substrate support (217; Figure 1) is configured to support the plurality of substrates (200; Figure 1) in a horizontal posture and in multiple stages by vertically arranging the plurality of substrates (200; Figure 1) with centers thereof aligned with each other, as claimed by claim 23
The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 24, wherein a region in the vertical direction along the second plasma electrode unit (269-271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 277; Figure 9) in the process chamber (203; Figure 1) includes: a bottom part of the region where the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9), a bottom part of the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) and a bottom part of the second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9) are arranged in parallel with each other – claim 25
The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 24, wherein the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) and the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) are arranged asymmetrically with the second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9) interposed therebetween – claim 26
Sato does not teach Sato’s relative lengths of Sato’s electrodes. As a result, Sato does not teach:
the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) being set to have a length shorter than a length of the first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) or the second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]) – claim 1
the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) being set to have a length different from the length of the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) - claim 2
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 2, wherein the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) is set to have the same length as the second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9), as claimed by claim 3
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 2, wherein the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) is set to be shorter than the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) (4th-110; Figure 1,7; “power electrode” [0104]), as claimed by claim 5
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 1, wherein the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) is set to be shorter than the second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9), as claimed by claim 6
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 1, wherein the first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) is set to have the same length as the first reference electrode (370; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 370; Figure 9), as claimed by claim 8
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 1, wherein the second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]) is set to be shorter than the first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]), as claimed by claim 11
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 2, wherein the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) is set to have the length different from the length of the first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) or the second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]), as claimed by claim 12
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 16, further comprising: a controller (121; Figure 1,4) configured to be capable of controlling the first high-frequency power source (373; Figure 7) and the second high-frequency power source (273; Figure 7) so that a total distribution including a distribution of electric power applied to the first plasma electrode unit (369-371; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 377-1; Figure 9; [0118]-[0119]) and a distribution of electric power applied to the second plasma electrode unit (269-271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 277; Figure 9) in an extension direction of the first plasma electrode unit (369-371; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 377-1; Figure 9; [0118]-[0119]) and the second plasma electrode unit (269-271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 277; Figure 9) becomes uniform, as claimed by claim 17
The substrate processing apparatus (Figure 1,7) of Claim 16, further comprising: a controller (121; Figure 1,4) configured to be capable of controlling the first high-frequency power source (373; Figure 7) and the second high-frequency power source (273; Figure 7) so that a distribution of an amount of active species generated by plasma-exciting the gas by the first plasma electrode unit (369-371; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 377-1; Figure 9; [0118]-[0119]) and the second plasma electrode unit (269-271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 277; Figure 9) becomes uniform in an extension direction of the first plasma electrode unit (369-371; Figure 1,7-Applicant’s 377-1; Figure 9; [0118]-[0119]) and the second plasma electrode unit (269-271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 277; Figure 9), as claimed by claim 18
the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) is set to have a length shorter than a length of the first application electrode (369; Figure 7-Applicant’s 369; Figure 9; [0056]) or the second application electrode (371; Figure 7-Applicant’s 371; Figure 9; [0056]) – claim 20
The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) is set to be shorter than the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) and the second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9), as claimed by claim 27
an upper part of the region where an upper part of the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) and an upper part of the second reference electrode (270; Figure 7-Applicant’s 270; Figure 9) are arranged in parallel with each other, and the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) does not exist – claim 25. The claimed “does not exist” is understood to mean, as shown in Figure 9, that the claimed lengths are different.
a height of a top end of the third application electrode (269; Figure 7-Applicant’s 271; Figure 9) is set to be lower than a height of a top end of the fourth application electrode (271; Figure 7-Applicant’s 269; [0053]) – claim 26
Ishimaru also teaches a plasma reactor (202; Figure 1,3) with application electrodes (270,269; Figure 3) at optimized lengths (LO, L1; Figure 9A,B) powered by plural power sources (273, 281; Figure 3) under a process controller (280; Figure 3; [0036]) configured to be capable of controlling the first high-frequency power source (273; Figure 3) and the second high-frequency power source (281; Figure 3). Ishimaru also teaches a direct correlation between plasma electrode length (“shape variation”), as measured by the absorption frequency, and plasma uniformity/non-uniformity:
“
That is, when the length of an electrode reduces, the absorption frequency increases, and thus the shape variation of the electrode can be indirectly detected by monitoring the absorption frequency (resonance frequency) at which a local minimum exists. Therefore, the absorption frequency can be used as a reference for determining whether plasma is uniformly generated in the buffer chamber 237, and thus, it can be prevented that films having non-uniform thicknesses are formed on substrates.
“ ([0094])
The Examiner believes this is synonymous to Applicant’s motivation of controlling the “supply amount of active species generated” by changing the lengths of Applicant’s rod-shaped electrodes in order to influence the distribution of the active species and thus processing uniformity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Sato to optimize Ishimaru’s controller (280; Figure 3; [0036]) and optimize Sato’s electrode lengths as taught by Ishimaru.
Motivation for Sato to optimize Ishimaru’s controller (280; Figure 3; [0036]) is for process uniformity as taught by Ishimaru ([0036],[0054]). Motivation to optimize Sato’s electrode geometries, as a result-effective variable, is for process uniformity as taught by Sato ([0089]-[0094]). Only result-effective variables, such as Ishimaru’s electrode “shape”, can be optimized (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
If the electrodes of the first plasma electrode unit 377 and the second plasma electrode unit 277 are arranged to have the same length, the lower portion of the process chamber will have a lower plasma density compared to the upper portion. As a result, the amount of active species generated by the plasma becomes non-uniform in the vertical direction in which the substrate support supports the plurality of substrates to be arranged vertically, preventing the uniform supply of active species to the plurality of substrates (see [0063]-[0065] of the specification and FIG. 5 of the present application). In contrast, by intentionally setting the third application electrode 271 of the second plasma electrode unit 277 to have a length shorter than lengths of the first and second application electrodes 369, 371 of the first plasma electrode unit 377, the plasma density distribution between the upper portion and the lower portion of the process chamber can be balanced along the vertical direction.
“
And…
“
As a result, the active species generated by the plasma can be uniformly supplied to the plurality of substrates supported by the substrate support in the vertical direction. While the above description is provided to support the claimed invention and to facilitate understanding thereof, it is respectfully submitted that the claimed invention should not be interpreted as being limited to these descriptions in the specification or the drawings.
“
In response, Applicant’s stated correlation between electrode shape/length and plasma density distribution identically parallels Ishimaru’s correlation as stated above. The Examiner’s grounds for motivation are supported by the prior art and Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant states:
“
As the Office Action itself acknowledges, Sato does not disclose or suggest "the third application electrode having a length different from a length of the first application electrode or the second application electrode." In fact, Sato depicts all electrodes 269, 270, 271 as having the same length (see FIG. 3b of Sato) and is silent on any technical problem relating to vertical plasma non-uniformity that the claimed invention addresses. Thus, Sato provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify its electrodes to have intentionally different lengths, let alone to set the third application electrode to have a length shorter than a length of the first application electrode or the second application electrode.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Applicant states:
“
Further, Nam also fails to teach or suggest the above feature of the claimed invention. The teachings of Nam are non-analogous as they address a different problem with a different solution. Nam is concerned with achieving areal uniformity across the surface of a single substrate (see annotated version of Nam's FIG. 1 below), whereas the claimed invention is directed to achieving uniformity in the vertical direction across multiple substrates (see annotated version of Applicant's FIG. 1 below; annotated for exemplary purposes only). Thus, Nam provides no motivation to physically alter electrode lengths to solve the vertical uniformity problem.
“
In response, the Examiner’s rejections DO NOT cite a “Nam” reference in this or the prior office action.
Applicant states:
“
Ishimaru is directed to a technique for detecting changes in electrode length caused by unintentional wear during repeated processing cycles. See Ishimaru at [0007] and [0090] and FIGS. 9a and 9b. Specifically, Ishimaru discloses that the lengths of the electrodes 269 and 270 are shortened after repeated film forming processes due to thermal effects and plasma exposure. See Ishimaru at [0090].
In contrast, the claimed invention requires that the third application electrode is "set to have" a length shorter than a length of the first application electrode or the second application electrode. That is, the shorter length is an intentional structural design aimed at achieving uniform plasma density distribution, not a result of incidental wear or degradation during processing.
Ishimaru is limited to a scenario where a pair of electrodes 269, 270 change their lengths simultaneously and identically from an initial length L0 to a new length L1 (see annotated FIGS. 9a and 9b of Ishimaru, placed below). The reason for this identical change is that the length variation in Ishimaru is caused by thermal effects and plasma exposure within the same process chamber. See Ishimaru at [0007]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that multiple electrodes exposed to the same thermal environment and plasma conditions within the same process chamber would undergo similar, if not identical, deformation. Thus, Ishimaru does not teach or suggest that the electrodes would ever come to possess lengths that are intentionally different from one another.
Ishimaru merely discloses a means for detecting that electrode length has changed by monitoring changes in resonance frequency (see paragraphs [0088]-[0090] of Ishimaru). Ishimaru does not disclose or suggest how to modify electrode lengths to improve film thickness uniformity, and more specifically, Ishimaru provides no disclosure or suggestion regarding how to modify electrode lengths to improve inter- wafer uniformity (i.e., uniformity among a plurality of substrates arranged in the vertical direction). In other words, Ishimaru merely discloses a means for detecting that electrode length has changed, but provides no teaching or suggestion as to what measures can be taken in response to such electrode length changes to improve film thickness uniformity. Ishimaru is silent on what specific electrode length configuration would achieve improved uniformity in the vertical direction across a plurality of substrates.
“
In response, the Examiner acknowledges that Ishimaru is recording and quantifying the shape deterioration of Ishimaru’s electrodes as Ishimaru’s plasma corrodes said electrodes. For this specific reason, Sato, with identical reactor and electrode design, would be motivated by Ishimaru to optimize Sato’s electrode shapes/lengths because of Ishimaru’s correlation between Ishimaru’s electrode shapes/lengths influences plasma distribution and processing uniformity.
Applicant states:
“
Ishimaru discloses that the shortening (shrinkage) of electrodes due to wear results in non-uniform film thickness (see paragraph [0007] of Ishimaru). In other words, Ishimaru only suggests that making electrodes shorter leads to degradation of film thickness uniformity, not improvement thereof. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Ishimaru would be motivated to either (i) keep the electrode lengths unchanged, or (ii) adjust the electrode lengths to be longer, in order to improve film thickness uniformity. That is, Ishimaru teaches that providing an electrode having a length shorter than the other electrodes, as in the claimed invention, would rather lead away from improving film thickness uniformity. In contrast, the claimed invention achieves uniform plasma density distribution along the vertical direction in which the plurality of substrates are arranged by intentionally setting the third application electrode to have a length shorter than a length of the first application electrode or the second application electrode. Therefore, Ishimaru teaches away from the claimed invention. Additionally, the combination of Sato and Ishimaru fails to teach each feature of amended claim 1. Even assuming, in arguendo, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sato and Ishimaru, the combination still fails to arrive at the claimed invention for at least the following reasons.
“
As stated above, the Examiner acknowledges that Ishimaru is recording and quantifying the shape deterioration of Ishimaru’s electrodes as Ishimaru’s plasma corrodes said electrodes. Further, Applicant’s position that “Ishimaru only suggests that making electrodes shorter leads to degradation of film thickness uniformity, not improvement thereof” is contradictory on its face. Applicant’s statement implies that “film thickness uniformity” is contrary to “film improvement”? Ishimaru’s disclosure is replete with objectives for improving processing by improving “film thickness uniformity”.
Applicant states:
“
However, Applicant respectfully notes that the component 281 in Ishimaru is an "absorption frequency meter," which is a measuring instrument for detecting the resonance frequency between electrodes 269 and 270 (see paragraph [0088] and FIG. 6 of Ishimaru). The absorption frequency meter 281 does not supply any power to the electrodes; it merely measures frequency changes to detect electrode length variations. Therefore, no matter how the controller 280 in Ishimaru controls the absorption frequency meter 281, it cannot adjust the power supplied to the electrodes, and consequently cannot improve plasma uniformity through power control. Furthermore, Ishimaru provides no disclosure or suggestion of optimizing the control of the power source 273 to improve uniformity.
“
In response, Applicant is mistaken. The Examiner makes no reference to Ishimaru’s element “281” in Ishimaru’s Figures 9A,B. The Examiner does make reference to Ishimaru’s element “281” in Ishimaru’s Figure 3 as one of Ishimaru’s plural power sources (273, 281; Figure 3). The Examiner has not made any assertions to the incorrect position that Ishimaru’s absorption frequency meter 281 of Figures 9A,B supplies power to Ishimaru’s electrodes. Further, Ishimaru’s controller (280; Figure 2,3) is clearly taught to control all features of processing including power control and application:
“
The controller 280, which is a control unit, is connected to the first and second mass flow controllers 241a and 241b, the first to fourth valves 243a, 243b, 243c, and 243d, the heater 207, the vacuum pump 246, the boat rotating mechanism 267, the boat elevating mechanism (not shown), the high-frequency power source 273, the matching device 272, and the absorption frequency meter 281, so as to control flowrate adjusting operations of the first and second mass flow controllers 241a and 241b… power supply controlling operations of the high-frequency power source 273 and the absorption frequency meter 281; and an impedance adjusting operation of the matching device 272.
“ ([0054], emphasis added)
Applicant states:
“
The Office Action asserted that Sato provides motivation to optimize electrode shape for achieving uniformity (see page 9 of the Office Action). However, Applicant respectfully notes that the "uniformity" mentioned in Sato refers to in-plane uniformity (i.e., uniformity of processing across the surface of a single substrate), not inter-wafer uniformity (i.e., uniformity of processing among a plurality of substrates arranged in the vertical direction). The claimed invention addresses the technical problem of achieving uniform plasma density distribution along the vertical direction in which the substrate support supports the plurality of substrates to be arranged vertically. This inter- wafer uniformity problem is different from the in-plane uniformity addressed in Sato. Since Sato's teaching regarding uniformity is directed to a different technical problem (in-plane uniformity), Sato does not provide motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify electrode lengths to solve the inter-wafer uniformity problem addressed by the claimed invention. As discussed above, Ishimaru does not disclose or suggest achieving uniformity by controlling a power source that supplies power to the application electrodes, and the "uniformity" mentioned in Sato refers to in-plane uniformity, which is different from the inter-wafer uniformity along the vertical direction addressed by the claimed invention. Accordingly, even if Sato and Ishimaru were combined, the combination cannot arrive at the claimed invention because neither reference discloses or suggests the means of achieving uniform plasma density distribution along the vertical direction, particularly by "the third application electrode being set to have a length shorter than a length of the first application electrode or the second application electrode." Therefore, neither Sato, nor Nam, nor their combinations teach each feature of claim 1.
“
In response, Applicant’s distinction between “in-plane uniformity” and “inter-wafer uniformity” is not reflected in either Sato or Ishimaru. Both Sato and Ishimaru are batch reactors, and, as a result, any uniformity discussions in both Sato and Ishimaru are construed to encompass both “in-plane uniformity” and “inter-wafer uniformity”. Why would either Sato or Ishimaru desire only “in-plane uniformity” or “inter-wafer uniformity” in batch reactors?
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plural electrode plasma reactors include US 20180182601 A1, US 20200083067 A1, US 20150303037 A1, US 20210090861 A1.
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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
1 102(a)(1)