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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15,19-26,31 and 35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to make an inside inner peripheral surface being perpendicular to the upper electrode, the outer inner peripheral surface facing the inside inner peripheral surface and being parallel to the inside inner peripheral surface, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent No. 6427621 to Ikegawa et al in view of United States Patent No. 6808759 to Okumura et al is presented below, with clarification of the scope of the claims and the prior art of record is clarified below, as a sidewall is broadly interpreted as the sidewall of 1a of Okumura.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 15 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6427621 to Ikegawa et al in view of United States Patent No. 6808759 to Okumura et al.
In regards to Claim 15, Ikegawa teaches a plasma processing apparatus Fig. 15 (Fig. 1 is referred to as generic to the specific embodiment of Fig. 15) comprising: an upper electrode 2 and configured to eject a processing gas (through gas holes 2a) into a processing container; a lower electrode 3 configured to hold a workpiece 4 in the processing container; and an electromagnetic wave emission port (in the form of dielectric ring 12) provided at a height position between a height position of the upper electrode and a height position of the lower electrode (as 12 is slightly lower than 2), wherein the electromagnetic wave emission port is open toward a center of the processing container (as it helps direct more plasma to the center, see Fig. 6-20, Col. 4 line 30-Col. 10 line 60), the electromagnetic waves of Fig. 15 are regulated by a metal member 14 such that the electromagnetic waves which are emitted from the emission port 12 are propagated in a horizontal direction (as shown in the condensed formation of 15a that is formed horizontally adjacent to 12 vs. downward towards 4 in Fig. 15) and thus propagate in a horizontal direction between the upper electrodes and the lower electrodes (Col. 4 line 30-Col. 10 line 60)
Ikegawa does not expressly teach a groove for electromagnetic wave reflection, wherein the groove is formed on a lower surface of an outer peripheral portion of the upper electrode.
Okumura teaches a plasma processing apparatus Fig. 1A-30 with an upper electrode 5 and made of metal in a processing container 1, a lower electrode 6 configured to hold a workpiece in the processing container 1, and a dielectric ring 11, wherein the upper electrode 5 has a groove 9, the groove intensifying (reflecting, Col. 13 lines 35-39), such the groove is for electromagnetic wave reflection, as it concentrates the plasma as it is a plasma trap that reflects plasma in that area by increasing the plasma there, wherein the groove is formed on a lower surface of an outer peripheral portion of the upper electrode 5, electromagnetic waves from the electrode such that is implicitly an electromagnetic wave reflector which is formed on a lower surface of an outer peripheral portion of the upper electrode 5; the groove includes: an inside inner peripheral surface being perpendicular to the upper electrode; an outside inner peripheral surface facing the inside inner peripheral surface and being parallel to the inside inner peripheral surface; and a bottom surface located in a deep portion of the groove and connecting the inside inner peripheral surface and the outside inner peripheral surface; the outside inner peripheral surface is flush with an inner peripheral surface of a side wall 1a of the processing container (Col. 12 line 45-Col. 23 line 3), as broadly recited for a side surface (as it is off to the side and a surface of the chamber) and as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1A below:
PNG
media_image1.png
576
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okumura teaches the groove has a width of 10 mm and a depth of 15mm (Col. 13 lines 9-15) and that the uniformity of plasma is improved when there is the groove (Col. 13 lines 35-47).
Okumura teaches the groove includes an inside inner peripheral surface; an outside inner peripheral surface facing the inside inner peripheral surface; and a bottom surface located in a deep portion of the groove and connecting the inside inner peripheral surface and the outside inner peripheral surface, as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1A below:
PNG
media_image2.png
686
946
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ikegawa, by replacing the upper electrode of Ikegawa and adding a groove as per the teachings of Okumura with a flush surface with the upper side wall of the chamber. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of improving plasma uniformity. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 35, Ikegawa in view of Okumura teach the upper electrode includes a lower metallic member having a plurality of gas holes which extends from a top surface of the lower metallic member to a lower surface of the lower metallic member, as per the showerhead teachings of Ikegawa in view of Okumura above.
Claim(s) 19-26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6427621 to Ikegawa et al in view of United States Patent No. 6808759 to Okumura et al, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2012/0067845 Monden et al.
The teachings of Ikegawa in view of Okumura are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 19, Ikegawa in view of Okumura teaches a first corner portion is formed between the inside inner peripheral surface of the groove and a lower open end surface of the groove, as per the annotated Fig. 1A of Okumura et al above, but does not expressly teach the first corner portion has a roundness in a vertical cross section along a radial direction of the processing container.
Monden teaches that there are protrusions and depressions in the plasma processing apparatus [0108, 0109] can be rounded such that all angled portions are all rounded, thus preventing an abnormal electric discharge or particles on the surface of the protrusion towards the plasma generation space [0046-0167].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ikegawa in view of Okumura, and made the corners of the groove as per the teachings of Monden. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing an abnormal electric discharge or particles on the surface of the protrusion towards the plasma generation space. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would make the first corner portion also rounded as the corner is in the plasma generation space and is angled, such that it would be obvious to rounding for the express purpose of preventing abnormal electric discharge or particles on the surface of the corner, and thus fulfill the limitations of claim.
In regards to Claim 20, Ikegawa in view of Okumura and Monden teaches the groove is disposed above a region outward of a workpiece placement region in the lower electrode, as shown in the overlap of the groove and the substrate/lower electrode in Okumura in the annotated copy of Fig. 1A above.
In regards to Claim 21, Ikegawa in view of Okumura and Monden teaches a depth L and a width D of the groove satisfy 0.3 L/D 1.0, as Okumura teaches that the width is 10 mm and the depth is 15 mm, such that L/D = 10/15 = 0.66, as per the rejection of Claims 16-18 above.
In regards to Claim 22, Ikegawa in view of Okumura does not expressly teach a gas introduction port on an inner surface of the groove.
Monden teaches a groove S1 Fig. 1-2A formed in the second/upper electrode 27 [0055] with a gas introduction port 15a that is on an innermost surface of the groove or space of S1, the groove with gas generates stable plasma in the plasma generation space and prevents abnormal discharge [0098; 0047-0098].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ikegawa in view of Okumura by adding a gas introduction port on an inner surface of the groove, as per the teachings of Monden. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of generating a stable plasma and preventing abnormal discharge. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 23, Ikegawa teaches a dielectric ring 12 Fig. 8, which includes a cylindrical upper dielectric 12a and a ring-shaped lower dielectric 12b continuous to a lower portion of the upper dielectric (as they are connected together), wherein the electromagnetic wave emission port is configured by an inner surface of the ring-shaped lower dielectric (as the lower inner surface of 12b is exposed to the chamber, as shown in Fig. 1, 8).
In regards to Claim 24, Ikegawa teaches a dimension obtained by subtracting a radial width of the upper dielectric of the dielectric ring from a radial width of the lower dielectric of the dielectric ring is 5 mm to 30 mm, as Ikegawa teaches a gap G of 13.5 mm between the chamber wall and the conductor ring 14, such that when looking at Fig. 6, the upper ring has a width from an inner periphery to a conductive member outer periphery minus the entire width of the bottom of 12, that results in 12.5 mm, which results in the radial width as broadly claimed.
In regards to Claim 25, Ikegawa in view of Okumura teaches a second corner portion is formed between an outer surface and a lower surface of the lower dielectric of the dielectric ring, but does not expressly teach the second corner portion has a roundness in a vertical cross section along the radial direction of the processing container.
Monden teaches that there are protrusions and depressions in the plasma processing apparatus [0108, 0109] can be rounded such that all angled portions are all rounded, thus preventing an abnormal electric discharge or particles on the surface of the protrusion towards the plasma generation space [0046-0167].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ikegawa in view of Okumura, and made the corners of the groove (and thus first and second corners) as per the teachings of Monden. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing an abnormal electric discharge or particles on the surface of the protrusion towards the plasma generation space. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would make the second corner portion also rounded as the corner is in the plasma generation space and is angled, such that it would be obvious to rounding for the express purpose of preventing abnormal electric discharge or particles on the surface of the corner, and thus fulfill the limitations of claim.
In regards to Claim 26, Ikegawa in view of Okumura teaches a lower surface of the upper electrode and a top surface of the lower dielectric of the dielectric ring have the same height, as per the teachings of Okumura in Fig. 8 wherein the top of 12b is the same height as the bottom of 2.
In regards to Claim 27, Ikegawa in view of Okumura teaches a second corner portion is formed between an outer surface and a lower surface of the lower dielectric of the dielectric ring, but does not expressly teach the second corner portion has a roundness in a vertical cross section along the radial direction of the processing container.
Monden teaches that there are protrusions and depressions in the plasma processing apparatus [0108, 0109] can be rounded such that all angled portions are all rounded, thus preventing an abnormal electric discharge or particles on the surface of the protrusion towards the plasma generation space [0046-0167].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Ikegawa in view of Okumura, and made the corners of the groove (and thus first and second corners) as per the teachings of Monden. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing an abnormal electric discharge or particles on the surface of the protrusion towards the plasma generation space. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus would make the second corner portion also rounded as the corner is in the plasma generation space and is angled, such that it would be obvious to rounding for the express purpose of preventing abnormal electric discharge or particles on the surface of the corner, and thus fulfill the limitations of claim.
In regards to Claims 31, Ikegawa in view of Okumura and Monden teaches a depth L and a width D of the groove satisfy 0.3 L/D 1.0, as Okumura teaches that the width is 10 mm and the depth is 15 mm, such that L/D = 10/15 = 0.66, as per the rejection of Claims 16-18 above.
Conclusion
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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 at (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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights