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 Amendment
The amendment filed 10/10/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/22/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 7 and 17 are currently amended.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “a length of the waveguide” in claim 1 a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a length of the waveguide” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the claim limitation “wherein a length of the waveguide is set such that an inductance when the waveguide is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part and a capacitance when the plasma generation space is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves”. As written, “a length of the waveguide” is determined in a manner in order to “cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves”. The electromagnetic waves do not contribute structurally to the apparatus, and are highly dependent upon such variables as dimensions of the apparatus, frequency of the RF power, etc. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention in lieu of recitation of a structural parameter to which “a length of the waveguide” could be relationally determined.
Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama (WO 2020116255, as read via US 20220020569), in view of Lubomirsky (US 20180096818) and Perrin (US 20030178143 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hirayama teaches a plasma processing apparatus (FIG 1, [0029], plasma processing apparatus 1) comprising:
a chamber (FIG 1, [0038], processing container 10) configured to provide therein a substrate processing space (FIG 1, [0038], substrate stage 12 with space SP);
an upper shower head that is conductive (FIG 7, [0096], upper electrode 14D is made of a conductor), provides a plurality of gas holes (FIG 7, [0118], multiple gas holes 14h may be formed in upper electrode 14D), and is provided above the substrate processing space (FIG 7, [0096], upper electrode 14D is provided above space SP);
a lower shower plate (FIG 6, [0097], lower dielectric plate 18D) that provides a plurality of through holes connected to the substrate processing space (FIG 6, [0097], lower dielectric plate 18D has discharge holes 18h, which is located above space SP [0094]), and is provided below the upper shower head and above the substrate processing space (FIG 6, lower dielectric plate 18D is located above space SP and below upper electrode 14D [0098]) wherein the lower shower plate and the upper shower head define therebetween a plasma generation space (FIG 6, [0098], cavity 145D is defined to be between upper electrode 14D and lower dielectric plate 18D);
an electromagnetic wave introduction part that is formed of a dielectric material (FIG 5, [0042], inlet 16 introduces high-frequency waves, is ring shaped, and formed of a dielectric material), wherein the electromagnetic wave introduction part extends in a circumferential direction with respect to a central axis to surround the plasma generation space (FIG 5, inlet 16 is ring shaped and centered around central axis AX);
a waveguide (FIG 5, [0086], waveguide device 20C, which has inner waveguide 204) that extends in the circumferential direction with respect to the central axis (FIG 5, [0085], inner waveguide 204 has a central axis coinciding with chamber axis AX) to surround the upper shower head and the electromagnetic wave introduction part, and is connected to the electromagnetic wave introduction part (FIG 5, [0086], inner waveguide 204 surrounds the upper electrode 14B and the electromagnetic wave inlet 16, and is connected to inlet 16), wherein the waveguide and the plasma generation space constitute a resonator ([0086], waveguide device 20C constitutes a resonator 200B);
and a coaxial line that includes a central conductor and an outer conductor and is provided to supply electromagnetic waves to the waveguide (FIG 5, [0087], power supply 30 is connected to waveguide cylindrical portion member 24 via coaxial cable 31), wherein the coaxial line extends away from the central axis, and the central conductor is connected to a wall surface that defines the waveguide at a position away from the central axis (FIG 5, [0087], coaxial cable 31 is connected to waveguide cylindrical portion member 24 at an upper outer portion, where the central axis of member 24 coincides with chamber axis AX),
wherein the electromagnetic wave introduction part is configured to introduce the electromagnetic waves propagating from the waveguide into the plasma generation space (FIG 5, [0042], inlet 16 is ring shaped and centered around central axis AX and introduces high-frequency waves, inner waveguide 204 surrounds the upper electrode 14B and the electromagnetic wave inlet 16, and is connected to inlet 16, [0086]),
wherein a length of the waveguide is set such that an inductance when the waveguide is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part and a capacitance when the plasma generation space is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves (FIG 5, [0085]-[0086], waveguide device 20C, which has inner waveguide 204 has a central axis coinciding with chamber axis AX, inner waveguide 204 surrounds the upper electrode 14B and the electromagnetic wave inlet 16, and is connected to inlet 16, where waveguide device 20C constitutes a resonator 200B, and where inlet 16 introduces high-frequency waves, [0042]).
To clarify the record, the limitations “wherein the electromagnetic wave introduction part is configured to introduce the electromagnetic waves propagating from the waveguide into the plasma generation space” and “wherein a length of the waveguide is set such that an inductance when the waveguide is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part and a capacitance when the plasma generation space is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves “ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Hirayama has an inlet that is located within a waveguide structure that includes a resonator to which high-frequency waves are applied, and is located adjacent to the plasma generation space (Hirayama, [0085]-[0086]), thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Hirayama fails to teach that the lower shower plate is conductive and that a plasma is generated in the space defined between the upper shower head and lower shower plate, the dielectric electromagnetic wave introduction part is provided between the upper shower head and lower shower plate, a coaxial line that includes a central conductor and an outer conductor, and the central conductor is connected to a wall surface that defines the waveguide at a single position, the single position being positioned away from the central axis, and wherein the coaxial line is not coaxial with the central axis.
However, Lubomirsky teaches a lower shower plate that is conductive (FIG 2, [0046], shower head 225 corresponds to plate 410 which may be a conductive material), provides a plurality of through holes connected to the substrate processing space (FIG 2, lower shower head 225 has apertures 282 [0040], which are in communication with chamber region 284 [0038]), and is provided below the upper shower head and above the substrate processing space (FIG 2, lower shower head 225 is located below upper shower head 210 and above chamber region 284) wherein the lower shower plate and the upper shower head define therebetween a plasma generation space in which plasma of a gas supplied through the plurality of gas holes is generated (FIG 2, gas flows through shower head 225 via through hole apertures 280 into region 281, where region 281 is defined to be between upper shower head 210 and lower shower head 225, and a plasma 292 is formed in region 281 [0041]). Lubomirsky also teaches the dielectric material is provided between the upper shower head and the lower shower plate (FIG 2, [0041], dielectric ring 220 is disposed between upper electrode 205/ upper shower head 210, and lower shower head 225, through which RF power 208 coupled to upper electrode 205 generates plasma in space 292).
Lubomirsky is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of plasma processing of substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the upper shower head assembly of Hirayama with the upper shower head and dielectric ring assembly as taught by Lubomirsky. Doing so would be desirable because it would enable enhanced control of the flow of the plasma ion species generated in the upper/lower shower head gap space to the processing space via the lower shower head apertures (Lubomirsky, [0055]).
It should be noted that the instant specification details the “electromagnetic wave introduction part” as made of a dielectric, surrounds the plasma generation space, extends circumferentially with respect to the center chamber axis, is ring shaped, and introduces electromagnetic waves propagating from the waveguide into the plasma generation space. The examiner is interpreting the dielectric ring 220 of Lubomirsky to correspond to the claimed “electromagnetic wave introduction part” since it has the same structure and therefore is expected to function in the same manner as claimed.
Modified Hirayama fails to teach a coaxial line that includes a central conductor and an outer conductor, and the central conductor is connected to a wall surface that defines the waveguide at a single position, the single position being positioned away from the central axis, and wherein the coaxial line is not coaxial with the central axis.
However, Perrin teaches a coaxial line that includes a central conductor and an outer conductor (Perrin, Fig. 2, [0031]-[0032], wire radiator 183 is a conductor that passes concentrically through entry hole port 163c), and the central conductor is connected to a wall surface that defines the waveguide at a single position, the single position being positioned away from the central axis (Perrin, Fig. 2, [0031]-[0032], conducting wire radiator 183 connects to wall surface of waveguide 163 at a single position away from central axis, where the central axis is exemplified by the position of axial conductor 170), and wherein the coaxial line is not coaxial with the central axis (Perrin, Fig. 2, wire radiator 183 runs horizontally and connects to waveguide 163 horizontally, while the central axis is exemplified by the position of axial conductor 170, and runs vertically).
Perrin is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of plasma processing of substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hirayama to remove the conducting cylindrical member and variable capacitor and instead provide the coaxial power introduction at a horizontal orientation to the waveguide in the manner of Perrin as doing so would allow for optimization of the impedance matching between the wire radiator and the waveguide at a desired power source frequency by only changing the penetration distance of the wire radiator into the waveguide, thereby eliminating the need for the additional matching hardware of Hirayama (Perrin, [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Hirayama teaches a high-frequency power supply having a variable frequency and connected to the coaxial line (Hirayama, FIG 5, [0087], high-frequency power supply 30 is connected to coaxial cable 31, and variable capacitor 56 is used to tune frequency).
Hirayama does not teach a radio-frequency power supply.
However, Lubomirsky teaches an RF generator (FIG 2, [0037]). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the high-frequency power supply in Hirayama with radio-frequency power, as taught by Lubomirsky, for the benefit of obtaining power supplies that are readily available at industrially utilized frequencies (Lubomirsky, [0037]).
Regarding claim 18, Hirayama teaches wherein the upper shower head includes: an upper shower plate configured to provide a plurality of gas holes (Hirayama, FIGs 4 & 5, upper electrode second portion 142 [0071] has multiple slits 147/148 [0072]); and an upper wall provided on the upper shower plate, and wherein the upper wall and the upper shower plate define therebetween a gas diffusion space that communicates with the plurality of gas holes (Hirayama, FIG 5, central portion 222C is provided on upper electrode portion 142 and defines a space 225B therebetween [0086]), and the upper wall provides a gas introduction port connected to the gas diffusion space (Hirayama, FIG 5, central portion 222C has gas introduction to space 225B via tube 40), but fails to teach that the gas introduction port is connected to the gas diffusion space on the central axis.
However, Lubomirsky teaches a gas introduction port connected to the gas diffusion space on the central axis (FIG 2, [0040], gas inlet 276 is connected to distribution region 218 on the central chamber axis).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hirayama by incorporating the teachings of Lubomirsky to introduce gas to the diffusion space via the central axis of the chamber in Hirayama, since doing so would provide radial gas flow center-to-edge across the shower heads and benefit process uniformity due to the substrate is also centrally located within the chamber below the shower heads (Lubomirsky, FIG 2).
Regarding claim 19, Hirayama teaches wherein the lower shower plate has a ground potential (Hirayama, FIG 3, dielectric plate 18, is held between the peripheral edge portion of the central portion 222B and the upper end of the processing container 10 [0062], where the processing chamber 10 is grounded [0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Hirayama teaches a coaxial cable connected to a wall surface that defines the waveguide at a position away from the central axis (FIG 5, [0087], coaxial cable 31 is connected to waveguide cylindrical portion member 24 at an upper outer portion, where the central axis of member 24 coincides with chamber axis AX), but fails to teach that the wall surface is a side or top surface of the upper shower head.
However, Lubomirsky teaches the wall surface to which the central conductor is connected is a side surface or a top surface of the upper shower head (Lubomirsky, FIG 2, [0041], RF power supply 208 is coupled to a side surface of upper electrode 205 via relay 207, where the secondary electrode 205 may be electrically coupled with the shower head 210).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirayama and incorporate the teachings of Lubomirsky to power the upper shower head by directly connecting the coaxial cable to a top or side surface, since powering the upper shower head while grounding the lower shower head allows for a plasma to be generated in the intervening space and avoid significant RF bias potential on the chuck (Lubomirsky, [0041]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Lubomirsky and Perrin as applied in claims 1, 16, and 18-20, and further in view of Nakatsuka (US 6599367).
The limitations of claims 1, 16, and 18-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hirayama fails to teach that the plurality of through holes includes a lower portion on a side of the substrate processing space, and the lower portion of through holes among the plurality of through holes provided nearer a center of the lower shower plate than other through holes has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the lower portion of the other through holes.
However, Nakatsuka teaches the plurality of through holes includes a lower portion on a side of the substrate processing space, and the lower portion of through holes among the plurality of through holes provided nearer a center of the lower shower plate than other through holes has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the lower portion of the other through holes (FIG 2, [0015], shower head 74 has through holes 80 and 80A, where the diameter L1 of holes 80 near the center is smaller than the diameter L2 of holes 80A which are further from the center).
Nakatsuka is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of plasma processing of substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shower heads taught by the combination of Hirayama and Lubomirsky based on the teachings of Nakatsuka and vary the diameter of the through holes of the shower head such that the diameter of the through holes nearer to the center of the shower head are smaller than the diameter of the through holes further from the center of the shower head to more evenly distribute the process species per unit area and improve film thickness uniformity across the wafer (Nakatsuka, [0014]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hirayama fails to teach that a density of the plurality of through holes increases as a distance from the center of the lower shower plate increases.
However, Nakatsuka teaches that a density of the plurality of through holes increases as a distance from the center of the lower shower plate increases (FIG 10, [0048], shower head 74 has through holes 80 in a portion near the center of the shower head, and holes 80B in a portion further from the shower head, where the density of through holes of 80B is greater than the density of through holes 80).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shower heads taught by the combination of Hirayama and Lubomirsky based on the teachings of Nakatsuka and vary the density of the through holes of the shower head such that the density of the through holes increases as distance from the center of the lower shower plate increases to more evenly distribute the process species per unit area and improve film thickness uniformity across the wafer (Nakatsuka, [0014]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Lubomirsky, Perrin, and Nakatsuka as applied in claims 2 and 12, and further in view of Denpoh et al (US 20090218212).
The limitations of claims 2 and 12 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hirayama fails to teach that each of the plurality of through holes includes an upper portion on a side of the plasma generation space, and the upper portion of each of the plurality of through holes has a hollow cathode structure.
However, Denpoh teaches each of the plurality of through holes (FIG. 2A, gas passage 72 in gas distribution plate 70 [0029]) includes an upper portion on a side of the plasma generation space (FIG 2A, counter-bore hollow cathode region 76 [0029] where hollow cathode region has one or more plasma surfaces in contact with the hollow cathode plasma FIG. 2A, [0032]), and the upper portion of each of the plurality of through holes has a hollow cathode structure (a plasma discharge occurs in counter-bore 76 between side-walls 75 FIG. 2A, [0031]).
Denpoh is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of plasma processing of substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shower heads in the combination of Hirayama, Lubomirsky, and Nakatsuka based on the teachings of Denpoh to have a larger diameter through hole in the upper portion. This permits hollow cathode discharges to introduce electrons to the process plasma and enhance various plasma properties such as plasma density and electron temperature (Denpoh, [0030]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, and Denpoh as applied in claim 3, and further in view of Seo (US 20160168706).
The limitations of claim 3 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hirayama fails to teach wherein a distance between the upper shower head and the lower shower plate is 10 mm or less.
However, Seo teaches a distance between the upper shower head (FIG 12, shower head 310, [0094]) and the lower shower plate (FIG 12, ground plate 340, [0094]) is 10 mm or less (may be maintained at a size of 3mm or more to excite plasma [0094]).
Seo is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in in the same field of endeavor of plasma processing of substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirayama and Lubomirsky to incorporate the teachings of Seo to set the distance between the upper and lower shower heads to 10 mm or less, for the benefit of exciting the process gas in the reaction space, removed from the substrate, and reducing possible damage to the substrate (Seo, [0094]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hirayama, Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, Denpoh, and Seo teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, further comprising high-frequency power supply having a variable frequency and connected to the coaxial line (Hirayama, FIG 5, [0087], high-frequency power supply 30 is connected to coaxial cable 31, and variable capacitor 56 is used to tune frequency).
Hirayama does not teach a radio-frequency power supply. However, Lubomirsky teaches an RF generator (FIG 2, [0037]). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the high-frequency power supply in Hirayama with radio-frequency power, as taught by Lubomirsky, for the benefit of obtaining power supplies that are readily available at industrially utilized frequencies (Lubomirsky, [0037]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, Denpoh, and Seo, as applied in claims 4 and 5 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al (US 20180226230).
The limitations of claims 4 and 5 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hirayama, Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, Denpoh, and Seo teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 5, and also teaches wherein the coaxial line is connected to introduce the electromagnetic waves from the first region into the waveguide (Hirayama, FIG 5, [0087], power supply 30 is connected to waveguide cylindrical portion member 24 via coaxial cable 31), but fails to teach:
a first electric field antenna provided to receive electromagnetic waves in a first region of the waveguide;
a first wave detector configured to output a first signal representing a first electric field strength of the electromagnetic waves received by the first electric field antenna;
a second electric field antenna provided to receive electromagnetic waves in a second region of the waveguide;
a second wave detector configured to output a second signal representing a second electric field strength of the electromagnetic waves received by the second electric field antenna;
and a controller configured to adjust a frequency of the radio-frequency power according to the first signal and the second signal so as to reduce a difference between the first electric field strength and the second electric field strength,
and a direction in which the second region is located with respect to the central axis is opposite to a direction in which the first region is located with respect to the central axis.
However, Kobayashi teaches:
a first electric field antenna provided to receive electromagnetic waves in a first region of the waveguide (FIG 3, [0054], monitoring antenna 211(1) monitors electric fields in the waveguide 210);
a first wave detector configured to output a first signal representing a first electric field strength of the electromagnetic waves received by the first electric field antenna (FIG 3, [0049], signal controller 312 receives electric field measurements from antenna 211(1));
a second electric field antenna provided to receive electromagnetic waves in a second region of the waveguide (FIG 3, [0054], monitoring antenna 211(2) monitors electric fields in the waveguide 210);
a second wave detector configured to output a second signal representing a second electric field strength of the electromagnetic waves received by the second electric field antenna (FIG 3, [0049], signal controller 312 receives electric field measurements from antenna 211(2));
and a controller configured to adjust a frequency of the radio-frequency power according to the first signal and the second signal so as to reduce a difference between the first electric field strength and the second electric field strength (FIG 3, signal controller 312 receives electric field measurements from antennas 211(1) and 211(2) and utilizes measured phase offset and/or amplitudes to calculate and provide a corresponding digital correction signal 313 [0049] to signal generator 215 which may control frequency of the signals [0049]),
and a direction in which the second region is located with respect to the central axis (FIG 3, [0049], antennas 211(1) and 211(2) are disposed 180 degrees from the supplied RF power points P and Q into waveguide 210).
Kobayashi is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of plasma processing of substrates. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kobayashi in the apparatus of the previous art combination above and combine electric field detector antennas with the signal controller to adjust the radio frequency power. Doing so allows plasma corrections to difficult-to-control irregularities in waveguide and chamber dimensions, materials, and asymmetric chamber features (Kobayashi, 0049]).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, Denpoh, Seo, and Kobayashi as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Arnold et al (US 20130335165).
The limitations of claim 6 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hirayama, Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, Denpoh, Seo, and Kobayashi teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, but fails to teach a part connected to and driven by a driver, and that moves up and down in the waveguide to adjust the length of the waveguide to cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves in the resonator.
However, Arnold teaches a part connected to and driven by a driver, and that moves up and down in the waveguide configured to adjust the length of the waveguide to cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves in the resonator (Arnold, Fig. 3C, [0066], slide element 50 is connected to actuator 46 which moves up and down in hollow body 52 to alter resonant volume 32).
Arnold is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of improving waveguide resonance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Arnold in the apparatus of the prior art combination and utilize a movable part to alter the length of the waveguide to balance phase relations within the waveguide (Arnold, [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hirayama, Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, Denpoh, Seo, Kobayashi, and Arnold teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein the upper shower head includes: an upper shower plate configured to provide a plurality of gas holes (Hirayama, FIGs 4 & 5, upper electrode second portion 142 [0071] has multiple slits 147/148 [0072]); and an upper wall provided on the upper shower plate, and wherein the upper wall and the upper shower plate define therebetween a gas diffusion space that communicates with the plurality of gas holes (Hirayama, FIG 5, central portion 222C is provided on upper electrode portion 142 and defines a space 225B therebetween [0086]), and the upper wall provides a gas introduction port connected to the gas diffusion space (Hirayama, FIG 5, central portion 222C has gas introduction to space 225B via tube 40) but fails to teach that the gas introduction port is connected to the gas diffusion space on the central axis.
However, Lubomirsky teaches a gas introduction port connected to the gas diffusion space on the central axis (FIG 2, [0040], gas inlet 276 is connected to distribution region 218 on the central chamber axis).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hirayama by incorporating the teachings of Lubomirsky to introduce gas to the diffusion space via the central axis of the chamber in Hirayama, since doing so would provide radial gas flow center-to-edge across the shower heads and benefit process uniformity due to the substrate is also centrally located within the chamber below the shower heads (Lubomirsky, FIG 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hirayama, Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, Denpoh, Seo, Kobayashi, and Arnold teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 8.
Hirayama does not explicitly teach a gas source of a cleaning gas.
However, Lubomirsky teaches a gas source of a cleaning gas that is connected to the gas introduction port via a pipe extending on the central axis (Lubomirsky, FIG 2, [0042], nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) delivered from gas distribution system 290, and coupled with the gas inlet 276). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lubomirsky in the apparatus of the previous art combination above and utilize a gas such as NF3, for the benefit of plasma etch cleaning of deposition chamber (Lubomirsky, [0031], [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hirayama, Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, Denpoh, Seo, Kobayashi, and Arnold teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 9.
Hirayama does not explicitly teach a gas source of a film forming gas.
However, Lubomirsky teaches a gas source of a film forming gas that is connected to the gas introduction port via the pipe (Lubomirsky, FIG 2, [0045], chamber 200 can perform a deposition operation, where gas distribution system 290, coupled with gas inlet 276, can distribute an oxidizer feed gas source). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lubomirsky in the apparatus of the previous art combination above and utilize a film forming gas (such as oxygen), for the benefit of performing plasma deposition (Lubomirsky, [0031, 0045]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hirayama, Lubomirsky, Perrin, Nakatsuka, Denpoh, Seo, Kobayashi, and Arnold teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the lower shower plate has a ground potential (Hirayama, FIG 3, dielectric plate 18, is held between the peripheral edge portion of the central portion 222B and the upper end of the processing container 10 [0062], where the processing chamber 10 is grounded [0030]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Lubomirsky and Perrin as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Denpoh.
The limitations of claim 1 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hirayama fails to teach that each of the plurality of through holes includes an upper portion on a side of the plasma generation space, and the upper portion of each of the plurality of through holes has a hollow cathode structure.
However, Denpoh teaches each of the plurality of through holes (FIG. 2A, gas passage 72 in gas distribution plate 70 [0029]) includes an upper portion on a side of the plasma generation space (FIG 2A, counter-bore hollow cathode region 76 [0029] where hollow cathode region has one or more plasma surfaces in contact with the hollow cathode plasma FIG. 2A, [0032]), and the upper portion of each of the plurality of through holes has a hollow cathode structure (a plasma discharge occurs in counter-bore 76 between side-walls 75 FIG. 2A, [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shower heads in the combination of Hirayama, Lubomirsky, and Nakatsuka based on the teachings of Denpoh to have a larger diameter through hole in the upper portion. This permits hollow cathode discharges to introduce electrons to the process plasma and enhance various plasma properties such as plasma density and electron temperature (Denpoh, [0030]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Lubomirsky and Perrin as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo.
Regarding claim 14, modified Hirayama fails to teach that a distance between the upper shower head and the lower shower plate is 10 mm or less.
However, Seo teaches a distance between the upper shower head (FIG 12, shower head 310, [0094]) and the lower shower plate (FIG 12, ground plate 340, [0094]) is 10 mm or less (may be maintained at a size of 3mm or more to excite plasma [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirayama and Lubomirsky to incorporate the teachings of Seo to set the distance between the upper and lower shower heads to 10 mm or less, for the benefit of exciting the process gas in the reaction space, removed from the substrate, and reducing possible damage to the substrate (Seo, [0094]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hirayama fails to teach that a distance between the upper shower head and the lower shower plate is 5 mm or less.
However, Seo teaches a distance between the upper shower head (FIG 12, shower head 310, [0094]) and the lower shower plate (FIG 12, ground plate 340, [0094]) is 5 mm or less (may be maintained at a size of 3mm or more to excite plasma [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirayama and Lubomirsky to incorporate the teachings of Seo to set the distance between the upper and lower shower heads to 5 mm or less, for the benefit of exciting the process gas in the reaction space, removed from the substrate, and reducing possible damage to the substrate (Seo, [0094]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama in view of Lubomirsky and Perrin as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Arnold.
The limitations of claim 1 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Hirayama fails to teach a movable part configured to adjust the length of the waveguide to cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves in the resonator.
However, Arnold teaches a part connected to and driven by a driver, and that moves up and down in the waveguide configured to adjust the length of the waveguide to cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves in the resonator (Arnold, Fig. 3C, [0066], slide element 50 is connected to actuator 46 which moves up and down in hollow body 52 to alter resonant volume 32).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Arnold in the apparatus of the prior art combination and utilize a movable part to alter the length of the waveguide to balance phase relations within the waveguide (Arnold, [0021]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 10/10/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Hirayama, teach the claim limitations “wherein a length of the waveguide is set such that an inductance when the waveguide is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part and a capacitance when the plasma generation space is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but finds them unpersuasive. As mentioned in the rejections section for claim 1 above, the limitation “wherein a length of the waveguide is set such that an inductance when the waveguide is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part and a capacitance when the plasma generation space is viewed from the electromagnetic wave introduction part cause resonance of the electromagnetic waves “ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Hirayama has an inlet that is located within a waveguide structure that includes a resonator to which high-frequency waves are applied, and is located adjacent to the plasma generation space, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
In the Applicant’s response filed 10/10/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Lubomirsky, teach the claim limitations “wherein the electromagnetic wave introduction part is configured to introduce the electromagnetic waves propagating from the waveguide into the plasma generation space” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
The rejection of claim 1 depends upon the inlet 16 ([0085]-[0086]) of reference Hirayama in relation to the limitation “wherein the electromagnetic wave introduction part is configured to introduce the electromagnetic waves propagating from the waveguide into the plasma generation space”. Reference Lubomirsky is depended upon for teaching that the lower shower plate is conductive and that a plasma is generated in the space defined between the upper shower head and lower shower plate, and the dielectric electromagnetic wave introduction part is provided between the upper shower head and lower shower plate (Lubomirsky, [0038]-[0041]). It should be noted that the instant specification details the “electromagnetic wave introduction part” as made of a dielectric, surrounds the plasma generation space, extends circumferentially with respect to the center chamber axis, is ring shaped, and introduces electromagnetic waves propagating from the waveguide into the plasma generation space. In support of the combination of Lubomirsky and Hirayama, the examiner is interpreting the dielectric ring 220 of Lubomirsky to correspond to the claimed “electromagnetic wave introduction part” since it has the same structure and therefore is expected to function in the same manner as claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718