DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on July 15, 2026. In view of the agreement reached during the interview convened on July 1, 2026, the outstanding 112(a) and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. Subsequent further search and consideration, new prior art rejections have been applied below.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 19 invokes “a second layer,” defined as a “portion exposed to the plasma and comprising the conductive silicon-containing material.” However, this definition also applies to the liner of claim 1. As such, it seems that the “second layer” and the “liner” denote the same feature, thereby overdetermining the invention. Clarification as to the relationship between the second layer and liner is required. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will provisionally interpret the prior art disclosure of a liner as satisfying those limitations directed to the second layer.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 19, 21-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura et al., US 2016/0064247, in view of Kennedy et al., US 6,227,140.
Claims 1, 21, 24, 27: Tomura discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
A chamber (12) [0019];
A substrate support (14) disposed in the chamber (Fig. 2);
A gas distributor (36b) embedded inside the body of the chamber and connected to a gas supply source (40) [0029];
A high-frequency RF power supply (62) configured to form a plasma from a reaction gas supplied to the chamber [0033];
An upper electrode (30) facing the substrate support (14) and disposed on an inner surface of the chamber [0027];
Wherein a portion (34) of the chamber body is exposed to the plasma and comprises a conductive silicon-containing material [0027];
A liner (46) exposed to the plasma [0043].
Those limitations drawn to the type of gas supplied constitute intended use, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce any functional recitations in order to satisfy the threshold for rejection – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647). Tomura’s gas source container is capable of accommodating the gases enumerated by this claim.
Lastly, Tomura’s liner is formed of aluminum rather than a “silicon-containing material,” as the final paragraph of claim 1 requires [0043]. Kennedy, however, observes that chamber components formed of aluminum may degrade in view of plasma exposure, resulting in “Al contamination” of the substrate (2, 41-67). As an alternative, Kennedy suggests a chamber liner formed of silicon carbide due to its “high resistance to the corrosive conditions found in…plasma etching chambers” (2, 50-54). Since Tomura’s aluminum liner is disposed within a plasma etching chamber, it would have been obvious to, instead, form the component of silicon carbide to obviate an outcome of heavy metal contamination.
Claim 2: An operator can achieve the claimed volumetric flow rate by strategically manipulating the valves and flow rate controllers – it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)).
Claim 5: Tomura’s upper electrode (30) comprises a top plate (34) having a plurality of gas discharge holes (34a) for supplying a reaction gas to the chamber [0028]. The top plate contains silicon which, being a metalloid, is inherently conductive [0027].
Claims 6-7: Tomura teaches a power source (70) for supplying a negative DC voltage [0037].
Claim 19: The chamber wall may be taken as the “first layer,” and the SiC liner may be taken as the “second layer.”
Claim 22: The prior art apparatus is capable of applying a layer of carbon to the SiC liner as an in-situ process.
Claim 23: The type of fluid accommodated by the gas source is a matter of intended use, as the operator can simply charge the source with the claimed fluid – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647).
Claim 26: Tomura locates a baffle plate (48) between a support (PD) and a side wall of the chamber [0032]. For the same reasons elaborated by the rejection of claim 1, above, it would have been obvious to configure the aluminum baffle plate as a silicon carbide structure.
Claims 20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura in view of Kennedy, and in further view of Allen et al., US 2011/0226739.
Tomura is silent regarding the liner’s thickness, but Allen discloses an analogous ceramic liner (202) for use within a plasma chamber that is ¼” thick, i.e., 6.35 millimeters [0025, 0028]. Given this demonstration of suitability, it would have been obvious to establish the thickness of the liner at this threshold, since applying a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura in view of Kennedy, and in further view of Kleshock et al., US 2005/0039679.
Tomura does not disclose a “shield” in addition to the already disclosed liner (46). Remedying the deficiency is Kleshock, who discloses a plasma etching chamber comprising a series of liners and shields (41-43) provided along each facet of the inner wall (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to supplement Tomura’s single liner (46) with additional liners to cover any portion of Tomura’s aluminum chamber wall that remains exposed, whereby any of the additional liners can be named as a “shield,” thereby satisfying the diction of claim 25.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Kudo et al., US 2017/0372916. Kudo discloses a processing apparatus comprising a chamber (10), a substrate support (20), a gas supply (15), and a plasma-generator (32) (Fig. 1; [0024]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights