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Claim 7 has been withdrawn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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Iwao et al. (US 20170350014) and 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 processing container (chamber body 12), a stage (stage 20) on which the object to be processed is placed in the processing container; 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 in the processing container (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 a plurality of pins fixed to the processing container, wherein the plurality of pins are provided to protrude into the end portion of the waveguide, and wherein the plurality of pins are arranged at respective positions separated from one another along a circumferential direction in the plan view.
Iwao teaches a plurality of pins (stub members 51) fixed to the processing container (stub members 51 are coupled to the cooling plate 43), wherein the plurality of pins are provided to protrude into the end portion of the waveguide (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the stub members 51 protrude into the end portion of waveguide 31), 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, 4 & 0036, 0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hirayama to include pins, as in Iwao, to provide control over plasma distribution [Iwao - 0058].
Modified Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of pins protrude horizontally toward an outer peripheral surface of the shower head electrode,
While Ishibashi does not specifically disclose "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 [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]. It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art can find an optimum location for the stubs such that they protruding towards the showerhead 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).
The limitation “wherein the plurality of pins are configured to increase a number of occurrences of high plasma density regions and low plasma density regions in the circumferential direction in a vicinity of the outer peripheral surface of the shower head electrode so as to eliminate a circumferential bias of a plasma density distribution,” is also an intended use. It is noted that the stubs 51 of Iwao are used specifically to control plasma density, and as such, the pins would be capable of controlling plasma distribution so as to reduce circumferential bias [Iwao - 0058-0059].
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.
Iwao 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, 4 & 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hirayama to include pins, as in Iwao, to provide control over plasma distribution [Iwao - 0058].
Regarding Claim 4:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of pins is formed of a conductive material.
Iwao teaches wherein each of the plurality of pins is formed of a conductive material (each stub member 51 may be made out of a metal) [Fig. 1, 4 & 0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hirayama to include pins, as in Iwao, to provide control over plasma distribution [Iwao - 0058].
Regarding Claim 5:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of pins is eight or more.
Iwao 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, 4 & 0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hirayama to include pins, as in Iwao, to provide control over plasma distribution [Iwao - 0058].
Regarding Claim 9:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of pins is formed of a conductive material.
Iwao teaches wherein each of the plurality of pins is formed of a conductive material (each stub member 51 may be made out of a metal) [Fig. 1, 4 & 0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hirayama to include pins, as in Iwao, to provide control over plasma distribution [Iwao - 0058].
Regarding Claim 10:
Hirayama does not specifically disclose wherein a number of the plurality of pins is eight or more.
Iwao 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, 4 & 0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Hirayama to include pins, as in Iwao, to provide control over plasma distribution [Iwao - 0058].
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 Iwao et al. (US 20170350014) and 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 Iwao et al. (US 20170350014) and 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 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a plurality of pins fixed to the processing container,” because the pins of Ishibashi et al. (US 20120160809) are moveable and controllable, and are thus not “fixed.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as even if the pins were moveable/adjustable, they are still fixed to the processing container. As an example, if the chamber were to be moved, the pins would still stay attached to the processing container. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pins would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art as being “fixed” to the processing container.
Applicant argues that the combination of Ishibashi with Hirayama (US 20190295828) is improper because they directed to entirely different control mechanisms, and therefore Hirayama already discloses a way to adjust plasma density. In response, the examiner would like to note that a reference having its own way to control plasma density does not necessarily mean that it would still not benefit from further ways to control plasma density. Having multiple ways to control plasma density would provide redundancy and even finer control over plasma density. Furthermore, controlling plasma density through bias voltage and controlling density through pins are not mutually exclusive and can coexist within the same system. As such, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that Hirayama already disclosing a way to control plasma density would mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason whatsoever to include further controls.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the plurality of pins are configured to increase a number of occurrences of high plasma density regions and low plasma density regions in the circumferential direction in a vicinity of the outer peripheral surface of the shower head electrode so as to eliminate a circumferential bias of a plasma density distribution.” This argument has been fully considered but is moot because the argument does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Iwao et al. (US 20170350014) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
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 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
Prosecution Insights