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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1, 3-12, and 18) in the reply filed on December 13, 2023 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species V (claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, and 18) in the reply filed on March 26, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: radio frequency generating and matching device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Page 8, lines 3-9 of the specification indicates that the radio frequency generating and matching device 104 may include a low-frequency radio frequency source, a high-frequency radio frequency source, or a combination of both, and the radio frequency matcher in the radio frequency generating and matching device 104 may include a low- frequency dedicated matching network, a high-frequency dedicated matching network, or a combination of both.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 3, 8, 10, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bera et al. (U.S. 2009/0230089) in view of and Jennings et al. ((U.S. 2012/0164834) or Kajihara (U.S. 2014/0231019)), Dornfest et al. (U.S. 5,779,807), Kosakai et al. (U.S. 2020/0266088), Yang et al. (U.S. 213/0372307), and French et al. (U.S. 2020/0043703).
Referring to Figure 2 and paragraphs [0027]-[0036], Bera et al. disclose a plate for a semiconductor processing apparatus, the plate comprising: a first electrode 206 (par.[0033]); a second electrode 236 (par.[0034]), and a carrying surface for carrying a wafer, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are located below the carrying surface, the first electrode is selectively coupled to a first ground terminal via a first switch 228, the second electrode is selectively coupled to a second ground terminal via a second switch 228, the first electrode and the second electrode are electrically isolated 234 from each other (Fig. 2, par.[0034]), the first electrode 206 is a circular electrode formed in one piece (Fig. 2), and the second electrode is an annular electrode 236 (Fig. 2).
Bera et al. is silent on the first electrode and the second electrode are completely covered by the carrying surface, the first electrode and the second electrode are separated from the carrying surface, and the first electrode and the second electrode are located in different planes.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraphs [0038]-[0040], Jennings et al. teach a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein the first electrode 112 and the second electrode 114 are completely covered by the carrying surface 140, the first electrode and the second electrode are separated from the carrying surface, and the first electrode and the second electrode are located in different planes as an alternate and suitable electrode arrangement that would protect the electrodes from the corrosive plasma environment and prevent the substrate from being in direct electrical connection with the electrodes. Referring to Figure 8 and paragraphs [0002], Kajihara teach a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein the first electrode 131 and the second electrode 132 are completely covered by the carrying surface 120, the first electrode and the second electrode are separated from the carrying surface, and the first electrode and the second electrode are located in different planes as an alternate and suitable electrode arrangement that would protect the electrodes from the corrosive plasma environment and prevent the substrate from being in direct electrical connection with the electrodes. Therefore, i it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Bera et al. with the first electrode and the second electrode are completely covered by the carrying surface, the first electrode and the second electrode are separated from the carrying surface, and the first electrode and the second electrode are located in different planes as taught by Jennings et al. or Kajihara since it is an alternate and suitable electrode arrangement that would protect the electrodes from the corrosive plasma environment and prevent the substrate from being in direct electrical connection with the electrodes. Additionally, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)).
Bera et al. is silent on the first electrode is selectively coupled to a first ground terminal via a first feedback/control apparatus, the second electrode is selectively coupled to a second ground terminal via a second feedback/control apparatus.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 3, lines 11-33, Dornfest et al. teach a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein the electrode 16 is selectively coupled to a first ground terminal via a first feedback/control apparatus 24, 30 in order to control the desired parameters for plasma processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Bera et al. such that the first electrode is selectively coupled to a first ground terminal via a first feedback/control apparatus, the second electrode is selectively coupled to a second ground terminal via a second feedback/control apparatus as taught by Dornfest et al. in order to control the desired parameters for plasma processing.
Bera et al. fail to teach an inner edge of the second electrode is disposed adjacent to a periphery of the first electrode and partially covered by the periphery of the first electrode.
Referring to Figure 12 and paragraph [0267], Kosakai et al. teach that it is conventionally known for an inner edge of the second electrode 72a is disposed adjacent to a periphery of the first electrode 23 and partially covered by the periphery of the first electrode in order to increase control of plasma adjacent edges of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the plate of Bera et al. such that inner edge of the second electrode is disposed adjacent to a periphery of the first electrode and partially covered by the periphery of the first electrode as taught Kosakai et al. in order to increase control of plasma adjacent edges of a substrate.
Bera et al. is silent on the first feedback/control apparatus is coupled to a radio frequency generating and matching device via a first feedback path, and the second feedback/control apparatus is coupled to the radio frequency generating and matching device via a second feedback path.
Referring to Figure 3 and paragraphs [0035]-[0039], Yang et al. teach a semiconductor processing apparatus wherein the first feedback/control apparatus 220, 345 is coupled to a radio frequency generating and matching device 142, 330 via a first feedback path, and the second feedback/control apparatus 225, 345 is coupled to the radio frequency generating and matching device 142, 330 via a second feedback path in order to change the power distribution and achieve the desired plasma distribution to the match the substrate of the plasma process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Bera et al. the first feedback/control apparatus is coupled to a radio frequency generating and matching device via a first feedback path, and the second feedback/control apparatus is coupled to the radio frequency generating and matching device via a second feedback path as taught by Yang et al. as a means to change the power distribution and achieve the desired plasma distribution to the match the substrate of the plasma process.
Bera in view of Yang et al. fail to teach that the radio frequency generating and matching device is coupled to a third electrode disposed on that opposes the first electrode and the second electrode, and the third electrode is configured to receive a radio frequency source from the radio frequency generating and matching device.
Referring to Figures 1 and 4 and paragraphs [0070]-[0071], French et al. teach it is conventionally known in the semiconductor processing art for the radio frequency generating and matching device 120 is coupled to a third electrode 105 disposed on that opposes the first electrode 102 and the second electrode 103, and the third electrode is configured to receive a radio frequency source from the radio frequency generating and matching device in order to provide power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Bera et al. in view of Yang et al. the radio frequency generating and matching device is coupled to a third electrode disposed on that opposes the first electrode and the second electrode, and the third electrode is configured to receive a radio frequency source from the radio frequency generating and matching device as taught by French et al. since it is a conventionally known arrangement that would provide power to an electrode.
With respect to claim 3, the plate of Bera et al. in view of Jennings et al. or Kajihara and Kosakai et al. further include wherein the first electrode 206 is defined by a first radius, the second electrode 236 is defined by a second radius (i.e. inner radius) and a third radius (i.e. outer radius), and the third radius is greater than the first radius and the second radius (Bera et al.-Fig. 2, Jennings et al.-Fig. 1, Kajihara-Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 8, the plate of Bera et al. in view of Jennings et al. or Kajihara and Kosakai et al. further includes wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are arranged concentrically (Bera et al.-Fig. 2, Jennings et al.-Fig. 1, Kajihara-Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 10, the plate of Bera et al. in view of Jennings et al. or Kajihara and Kosakai et al. further includes wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode comprises a mesh structure (Jennings et al.-par.[0052], Kajihara-pars.[0023]-[0024]).
With respect to claim 19, the plate of Bera et al. in view of Jennings et al. or Kajihara, Dornfest et al., Kosakai et al., and Yang et al. further includes wherein the first feedback path is a low-frequency feedback path and the second feedback path is a high-frequency feedback path (Yang et al. – i.e. the RF frequencies can be varied and tuned. (Fig. 3, par.[0034]).
With respect to claim 20, the plate of Bera et al. in view of Jennings et al. or Kajihara, Dornfest et al., Kosakai et al., Yang et al., and French et al. further includes wherein the radio frequency generating and matching device 142, 330 includes a low-frequency control part connected to the first feedback path and a high-frequency control part connected to the second feedback path (Yang et al. – i.e. the RF frequencies can be varied and tuned. (Fig. 3, pars.[0034]-[0039]).
With respect to claim 21, a semiconductor processing apparatus, comprising: the plate according to Bera et al; and a second plate 208 comprising a third electrode, wherein the third electrode is electrically coupled to the radio frequency generating and matching device (Fig. 2- par.[0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Kosakai's electrode 72a horizontally extends from a periphery of the electrode 23 to a periphery of the insulator 44/48, rather than to a periphery of the surface 21b. Accordingly, Kosakai also fails to disclose an inner edge of the second electrode is disposed adjacent to a periphery of the first electrode and partially covered by the periphery of the first electrode, and the second electrode horizontally extends from the periphery of the first electrode to a periphery of the carrying surface, as claimed in amended independent claim 1.
However, 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). In the instant case, primary reference Bera et al. discloses first and second electrodes 206, 236 selectively coupled to ground terminals via switches 228 (Fig. 2, pars. [0027]-[0036]). Kosakai et al. teach an inner edge of the second electrode 72a is disposed adjacent to a periphery of the first electrode 23 and partially covered by the periphery of the first electrode (Fig. 12, par. [0267]). Jennings et al. teach that the second electrode 114 horizontally extends from the periphery of the first electrode 112 to a periphery of the carrying surface (Fig. 1). Therefore, the apparatus of Bera et al. in view of and Jennings et al. or Kajihara, Dornfest et al., Kosakai et al., Yang et al., and French et al. satisfies the claimed requirements.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because new reference French et al. teach the radio frequency generating and matching device is coupled to a third electrode disposed on that opposes the first electrode and the second electrode, and the third electrode is configured to receive a radio frequency source from the radio frequency generating and matching device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al.’877 teach a feedback/control apparatus.
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 Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights