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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending
Claim 7 has been withdrawn
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is
eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama (WO 2018101065, using US 20190295828 as the official English translation) in view of Ishibashi et al. (US 20120160809), with Steinwandel et al. (US 5397555), Ishii et al. (US 20060124244), and Srivastava et al. (US 20110114115) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Hirayama teaches a plasma processing apparatus (plasma treatment device 10a) for processing an object (workpiece W) to be processed with plasma, comprising: a stage (stage 20) on which the object to be processed is placed; a shower head electrode (upper electrode 30; the upper electrode 30 includes through-holes 34h) arranged at a position facing the stage and to which high-frequency power having a frequency of 30 MHz or more is supplied (a high-frequency power supply configured to generate a first high-frequency wave having a frequency ranging from 100 MHz to 1,000 MHz); and a waveguide (waveguide 42) configured to propagate electromagnetic waves generated based on the high-frequency power to a plasma processing space formed between the stage and the shower head electrode (the waveguide 42b propagates electromagnetic waves generated around the inner conductor 42a to the space S on the basis of the first high-frequency waves provided from the high-frequency power supply 46), wherein the waveguide is formed in an annular shape in a plan view so that an end portion (the portion of waveguide 42b defined by lid portion 12c) of the waveguide near the plasma processing space surrounds an outer periphery of the shower head electrode (the electrode 30 and sidewall 12 are annular in shape; the waveguide surrounds an outer periphery of upper electrode 30, as evidenced by Fig. 1) [Fig. 1 & 0008, 0024, 0036-0037].
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein a plurality of pins are provided to protrude into the end portion of the waveguide, so as to protrude horizontally toward an outer peripheral surface of the shower head electrode, and wherein the plurality of pins are arranged at respective positions separated from one another along a circumferential direction in the plan view.
Ishibashi teaches wherein a plurality of pins (stub members 51) are provided, and wherein the plurality of pins are arranged at respective positions separated from one another along a circumferential direction in the plan view (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the stub members 51 are arranged at respective positions separated from one another along a circumferential direction in the plan view) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0066-0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the waveguide of Nogami to include a plurality of pins, as in Ishibashi, to provide greater control over electric field density [Ishibashi - 0016, 0081].
Furthermore, while Ishibashi does not specifically disclose “wherein a plurality of pins are provided to protrude into the end portion of the waveguide, so as to protrude horizontally toward an outer peripheral surface of the shower head electrode,” Ishibashi does disclose that the distance of the pins from a lower dielectric is a result effective variable. Specifically, the density of an electric field under the waveguide (in where the pins are disposed) greatly depends on the distance between the pins and a lower wave propagator [Ishibashi - 0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum vertical distance of pins from a lower wave propagator in order to obtain a desired electric field density (such as placing pins a short distance away from the insulating ring 40 of Hirayama, thereby placing the pins around the main body 32) [Ishibashi – 0081].
It is further noted that it would be reasonable to place the pins of Ishibashi around the showerhead electrode of Hirayama since the showerhead electrode of Hirayama is still a conductor, and because the second portion 43b of Hirayama is still part of the waveguide 42b [Hirayama - 0028, 0037]. Steinwandel et al. (US 5397555), Ishii et al. (US 20060124244), and Srivastava et al. (US 20110114115) also disclose waveguides with pins that are not around a central conductor [Steinwandel - Fig. 1; Ishii - Fig. 2; Srivastava - Fig. 4].
Furthermore, although taught by the cited prior art, the limitations “to which high-frequency power having a frequency of 30 MHz or more is supplied,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
It’s also noted that although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitation “configured to propagate electromagnetic waves generated based on the high-frequency power to a plasma processing space formed between the stage and the electrode,” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 2:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of pins are arranged at equal intervals along the circumferential direction in the plan view.
Ishibashi teaches wherein the plurality of pins are arranged at equal intervals along the circumferential direction in the plan view (the stubs members 51 are arranged in equal intervals) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the waveguide of Nogami to include a plurality of pins, as in Ishibashi, to provide greater control over electric field density [Ishibashi - 0016, 0081].
Regarding Claim 4:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of pins is formed of a conductive material.
Ishibashi teaches wherein each of the plurality of pins is formed of a conductive material (each stub member 41 may be made out of a metal) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0080, 0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the waveguide of Nogami to include a plurality of pins, as in Ishibashi, to provide greater control over electric field density [Ishibashi - 0016, 0081].
Regarding Claim 5:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of pins is eight or more.
Ishibashi teaches wherein a number of the plurality of pins is eight or more (the total number of the stub members may not be limited to six, but can be four, eight, or any number as necessary) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the waveguide of Nogami to include a plurality of pins, as in Ishibashi, to provide greater control over electric field density [Ishibashi - 0016, 0081].
Regarding Claim 9:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of pins is formed of a conductive material.
Ishibashi teaches wherein each of the plurality of pins is formed of a conductive material (each stub member 41 may be made out of a metal) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0080, 0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the waveguide of Nogami to include a plurality of pins, as in Ishibashi, to provide greater control over electric field density [Ishibashi - 0016, 0081].
Regarding Claim 10:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of pins is eight or more.
Ishibashi teaches wherein a number of the plurality of pins is eight or more (the total number of the stub members may not be limited to six, but can be four, eight, or any number as necessary) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the waveguide of Nogami to include a plurality of pins, as in Ishibashi, to provide greater control over electric field density [Ishibashi - 0016, 0081].
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama (WO 2018101065, using US 20190295828 as the official English translation) in view of Ishibashi et al. (US 20120160809), with Steinwandel et al. (US 5397555), Ishii et al. (US 20060124244), and Srivastava et al. (US 20110114115) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10 above, and further in view of Nogami et al. (US 20170372877).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein all of the plurality of pins have an equal protrusion amount.
While Nogami does not specifically disclose “wherein all of the plurality of pins have an equal protrusion amount,” Nogami does disclose that protrusion amount is a result effective variable. Specifically, adjusting the protrusion amount of a pin also adjusts the electric field intensity and plasma density [Nogami – 0004-0005, 0037-0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum protrusion amount for pins in a waveguide in order to obtain a desired electric field profile [Nogami – 0004-0005, 0037-0040].
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein all of the plurality of pins have an equal protrusion amount.
While Nogami does not specifically disclose “wherein all of the plurality of pins have an equal protrusion amount,” Nogami does disclose that protrusion amount is a result effective variable. Specifically, adjusting the protrusion amount of a pin also adjusts the electric field intensity and plasma density [Nogami – 0004-0005, 0037-0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum protrusion amount for pins in a waveguide in order to obtain a desired electric field profile [Nogami – 0004-0005, 0037-0040].
Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama (WO 2018101065, using US 20190295828 as the official English translation) in view of Ishibashi et al. (US 20120160809), with Steinwandel et al. (US 5397555), Ishii et al. (US 20060124244), and Srivastava et al. (US 20110114115) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10 above, and further in view of Yoshiki et al. (US 5843236).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein a path length from the plasma processing space to the plurality of pins is 50 mm or less.
While Ishibashi does not specifically disclose “wherein a path length from the plasma processing space to the plurality of pins is 50 mm or less,” Ishibashi does disclose that the distance of the pins from a lower dielectric is a result effective variable. Specifically, the density of an electric field under the waveguide (in where the pins are disposed) greatly depends on the distance between the pins and a lower wave propagator [Ishibashi - 0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum vertical distance of pins from a lower wave propagator in order to obtain a desired electric field density [Ishibashi - 0081]. It is noted that Hirayama has a lower wave propagator insulating ring 40 immediately preceding space S of chamber C [Hirayama - 0039].
Furthermore, Yoshiki discloses that the thickness of a wave propagator is a result effective variable. Specifically, the thickness can be adjusted to adjust a microwave transmittance coefficient, thereby changing electric field intensity [Yoshiki – Col. 12 lines 4-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum thickness for a wave propagator to obtain a desired electric field intensity in a chamber [Yoshiki – Col. 12 lines 4-23].
Regarding Claim 11:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein a path length from the plasma processing space to the plurality of pins is 50 mm or less.
While Ishibashi does not specifically disclose “wherein a path length from the plasma processing space to the plurality of pins is 50 mm or less,” Ishibashi does disclose that the distance of the pins from a lower dielectric is a result effective variable. Specifically, the density of an electric field under the waveguide (in where the pins are disposed) greatly depends on the distance between the pins and a lower wave propagator [Ishibashi - 0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum vertical distance of pins from a lower wave propagator in order to obtain a desired electric field density [Ishibashi - 0081]. It is noted that Hirayama has a lower wave propagator insulating ring 40 immediately preceding space S of chamber C [Hirayama - 0039].
Furthermore, Yoshiki discloses that the thickness of a wave propagator is a result effective variable. Specifically, the thickness can be adjusted to adjust a microwave transmittance coefficient, thereby changing electric field intensity [Yoshiki – Col. 12 lines 4-23]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum thickness for a wave propagator to obtain a desired electric field intensity in a chamber [Yoshiki – Col. 12 lines 4-23].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/09/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of references would not disclose “so as to protrude horizontally toward an outer peripheral surface of the shower head electrode,” because utilizing Ishibashi et al. (US 20120160809) to modify Hirayama (WO 2018101056) would merely disclose pins around the inner conductor 42a of Hirayama and not around the showerhead electrode (main body 32) of Hirayama.
In response, the examiner would like to note that although Ishibashi does not directly disclose placing pins around a showerhead specifically, Ishibashi does disclose that the distance of the pins from a lower dielectric is a result effective variable. Specifically, the density of an electric field under the waveguide (in where the pins are disposed) greatly depends on the distance between the pins and a lower wave propagator [Ishibashi - 0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum vertical distance of pins from a lower wave propagator in order to obtain a desired electric field density (such as placing pins a short distance away from the insulating ring 40 of Hirayama, thereby placing the pins around the main body 32) [Ishibashi – 0081].
Furthermore, it would be reasonable to place the pins of Ishibashi around the showerhead electrode of Hirayama since the showerhead electrode of Hirayama is still a conductor, and because the second portion 43b of Hirayama is still part of the waveguide 42b [Hirayama - 0028, 0037]. Steinwandel et al. (US 5397555), Ishii et al. (US 20060124244), and Srivastava et al. (US 20110114115) also disclose waveguides with pins that are not around a central conductor [Steinwandel - Fig. 1; Ishii - Fig. 2; Srivastava - Fig. 4]. As such, the combination of references could reasonably disclose “so as to protrude horizontally toward an outer peripheral surface of the shower head electrode.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718