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 1-3 and 6-26 are pending
Claim 4-5 has been cancelled
Claims 9, 11-19, 21-24, and 26 have been withdrawn
Claims 1 and 21 have been amended
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 6857387) in view of Gurary et al. (US 20120027936), Shan et al. (US 5891350), Komiya et al. (US 20030094135), Kim et al. (US 20140034240), and Sato et al. (US 20050103440), with Tian et al. (US 20080035058) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Sun teaches plasma processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (process chamber of Fig. 1) including processing space (space where substrate 14 is disposed) provided therein in which a substrate is processed; an introducer (dielectric spacer 26) [Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 48-59];
Sun does not specifically disclose a choke structure installed on a wall of the chamber, a first portion having a shape of a slit formed in the wall of the chamber, a second portion disposed in a radially outward position from the first portion and formed in the wall of the chamber so as to define a space separate from the processing space wherein the first portion and the second portion are in communication with each other; and a second portion extending from the first portion in the wall of the chamber, and wherein a length of the second portion along the downward direction in the second portion is longer than a length of the first portion along the downward direction in the first portion.
Gurary teaches and a choke structure (baffle 283; any number of baffles can be used to obtain a desired flow restriction) installed on a wall of the chamber [Fig. 5A & 0071], a first portion having a shape of a slit formed in the wall of the chamber, a second portion (channel 278) disposed in a radially outward position (as evidenced by Fig. 5A, at least a portion of channel 278 is disposed radially outward of a baffle 283 from the first portion (baffles 283) and formed in the wall (outer liner 28) of the chamber so as to define a space separate from the processing space, wherein the first portion and the second portion are in communication with each other (as evidenced by Fig 5A, the channel 278 is in communication with baffles 283; arbitrary first and second portions of baffles 283 and channel 278 can be set so that there exists a slit shaped portion that is longer than first portion extending from the wall of the chamber) [Fig. 1, 5A & 0034, 0062].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the of exhaust of Sun to utilize a choke structure, as in Gurary, to provide increased flow uniformity [Gurary - 0009, 0038, 0062].
Komiya is used to disclose wherein a length of the second portion along the downward direction in the second portion is longer than a length of the first portion along the downward direction in the first portion.
While Komiya does not specifically disclose "wherein a length of the second portion along the downward direction in the second portion is longer than a length of the first portion along the downward direction in the first portion," Komiya does disclose that baffle thickness is a result effective variable. Specifically, that the thickness of a baffle plate can be adjusted to obtained a desired conductance [Komiya - 0019, 0055, 0156]. 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 length in the downward direction (or thickness) for a baffle to obtain a desired conductance [Komiya - 0019, 0055, 0156]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Kim is used to disclose wherein the choke structure includes: a first portion having a slit shape and connected to a space within the chamber;
and a second portion extending from the first portion in the wall of the chamber.
While Kim does not specifically disclose "wherein the choke structure includes: a first portion having a slit shape and connected to a space within the chamber; and a second portion extending from the first portion in the wall of the chamber, wherein the length of the second portion is longer than a length of the first portion" Kim does disclose that the shape of a baffle is a result effective variable. Specifically, flow of a gas may be controlled according to a a shape of a baffle and its through-holes [Kim - 0070]. 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 shape for a baffle, as in Kim, to obtain a desired flow profile [Kim - 0070]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Sun does not specifically disclose a dielectric portion installed in the first portion and the second portion.
Shan teaches a dielectric portion (annular protrusion 14m which can be made from a dielectric material) installed in the first portion (protrusion 14) and the second portion (cavity 54) [Fig. 1 & Col. 2 lines 65-67, Col. 14 lines 6-13].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the baffle of Modified Sun to comprise of a dielectric since Shan discloses that dielectrics are suitable materials for a baffle [Shan - Fig. 1 & Col. 2 lines 65-67, Col. 14 lines 6-13]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Modified Sun does not specifically disclose wherein the first portion is connected to a space within the chamber.
Sato teaches wherein the first portion is connected to a space within the chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 6, the baffle plate has a portion 10c is extends through the cutout portion 1d that it’s disposed in) [Fig. 6 & 0043].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Sun to have at least a portion of the choke structure be sandwiched between walls, as in Sato, to help secure a baffle [Sato - 0043-0044]. It’s also noted that the combination of references would disclose the first portion connecting to a space within the chamber because the mounting portion 10c of Sato goes through the wall it is disposed in. If choke of Modified Sun was modified to include this mounting portion of Sato, it would be connected to the space within the chamber.
Furthermore, the limitations “such that electromagnetic waves are introduced into the chamber from the introducer; and configured to suppress propagation of the electromagnetic waves in a downward direction along an inner wall surface of the chamber from a location at which the choke structure is installed,” 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 noted that exhaust baffle 14 of Shan is comprised of a dielectric, and is therefore capable of suppressing the propagation of electromagnetic waves [Shan - Fig. 1 & Col. 14 lines 54-55]. It’s also noted that the dielectric spacers 26 of Sun would be capable of introducing electromagnetic waves as they are dielectric disposed around an upper electrode [Sun - Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 48-59]. Tian et al. (US 20080035058) also discloses a dielectric member that reflects waves (top plate 40) [Tian – Fig. 1 & 0055].
Regarding Claim 2:
Sun does not specifically disclose wherein a length of the second portion along an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the second portion is longer than a length of the first portion along an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the first portion.
Gurary teaches wherein a length of the second portion along an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the second portion is longer than a length of the first portion along an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the first portion (arbitrary first and second portions of baffles 283 and channel 278 can be set so that the second portion is longer than the first portion) [Fig. 1, 5A & 0034, 0062].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the of exhaust of Sun to utilize a choke structure, as in Gurary, to provide increased flow uniformity [Gurary - 0009, 0038, 0062].
Komiya is used to disclose wherein a length of the second portion along an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the second portion is longer than a length of the first portion along an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the first portion.
While Komiya does not specifically disclose "wherein a length of the second portion along the downward direction in the second portion is longer than a length of the first portion along the downward direction in the first portion," Komiya does disclose that baffle conduit size is a result effective variable. Specifically, that hole size can be changed to obtained a desired conductance [Komiya - 0145]. 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 size for an exhaust conduit to obtained a desired conductance [Komiya - 0145]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 3:
Sun does not specifically disclose wherein an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the first portion and an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the second portion are identical to each other.
Gurary teaches wherein an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the first portion and an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the downward direction in the second portion are identical to each other (arbitrary first and second portions of baffles 283 and channel 278 can be set can be set so that directions are identical) [Fig. 1, 5A & 0034, 0062].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the of exhaust of Sun to utilize a choke structure, as in Gurary, to provide increased flow uniformity [Gurary - 0009, 0038, 0062].
Regarding Claim 6:
Sun teaches wherein the wall of the chamber is a side wall of the chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the wall of the chamber is a side wall), wherein the side wall includes an annular exhaust duct (plenum 38) that extends in a circumferential direction with respect to a central axis of the side wall and provides an annular exhaust passage that communicates with the space within the chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 1, plenum 38 extends in a circumferential direction around the space within the chamber) [Fig. 1 & Col. 4 lines 55-60].
Sun does not specifically disclose wherein the first portion is formed on a wall that partitions and defines the annular exhaust duct, and extends in the circumferential direction with respect to the central axis, and wherein the second portion is the annular exhaust passage.
Gurary teaches wherein the first portion is formed on a wall that partitions and defines the annular exhaust duct, and extends in the circumferential direction with respect to the central axis (as evidenced by Fig. 5a, at least a portion of baffles 283 is disposed on a sidewall that defines channel 278), and wherein the second portion is the annular exhaust passage (channel 278 is an exhaust channel) [Fig. 1, 5A & 0034, 0062].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the of exhaust of Sun to utilize a choke structure, as in Gurary, to provide increased flow uniformity [Gurary - 0009, 0038, 0062].
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Sun (Sun modified by Shan and Kim) does not specifically disclose wherein the side wall of the chamber further includes: a first wall member that extends above the first portion; and a second wall member that is separable from the first wall member and extends under the first portion, and wherein the first wall member and the second wall member elastically sandwich the dielectric portion disposed between the first wall member and the second wall member.
Sato teaches a first wall member (first wall member, as shown in the annotated drawings below) that extends above the first portion; and a second wall member (second wall member, as shown in the annotated drawings below) that is separable from the first wall member and extends under the first portion, and wherein the first wall member and the second wall member elastically sandwich the dielectric portion disposed between the first wall member and the second wall member (as evidenced by the annotated drawings below, the first and second wall member sandwich the first portion) [Fig. 6 & 0012, 0044, 0063].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Sun to have at least a portion of the choke structure be sandwiched between walls, as in Sato, to help secure a baffle [Sato - 0043-0044].
PNG
media_image1.png
651
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8:
Shan teaches a third wall member that is separable from the first wall member and the second wall member and constitutes the annular exhaust duct together with the first wall member and the second wall member; wherein the first wall member is installed on the second wall member and the third wall member, and partitions and defines the annular exhaust passage from an upper side (as evidenced by the annotated drawings below, the first, second, third, and fourth wall members define an exhaust plenum 38) [Fig. 1 & Col. 4 lines 55-60].
PNG
media_image2.png
472
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sun does not specifically disclose wherein the second wall member extends inward with respect to the third wall member and partitions and defines the annular exhaust passage from a lower side together with the third wall member.
Gurary teaches wherein the second wall member (body of top surface 277 and edge 286) extends inward with respect to the third wall member (shutter 234) and partitions and defines the annular exhaust passage from a lower side together with the third wall member (as evidenced by the annotated drawings below, the second and third wall members extend inward and define an exhaust passage) [Fig. 5A & 0061].
PNG
media_image3.png
434
489
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the of exhaust of Sun to utilize a choke structure, as in Gurary, to provide increased flow uniformity [Gurary - 0009, 0038, 0062].
Modified Sun does not specifically disclose and wherein the second wall member presses the dielectric portion by a reaction force from at least one of an O-ring and a spiral spring gasket.
Shan teaches wherein the second wall member presses the dielectric portion by a reaction force from at least one of an O-ring and a spiral spring gasket (the shield 10 on which baffle 14 is disposed, is in contact with an O-ring 15) [Fig. 1 & Col. 4 lines 34-46].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Sun to utilize an O-ring, to provide vacuum sealing and improve heat transfer [Shan - Col. 3 lines 62-67, Col. 4 lines 34-46].
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Sun (Sun modified by Gurary) does not specifically disclose wherein the dielectric portion extends into the annular exhaust passage.
Shan teaches wherein the dielectric portion extends into the annular exhaust passage (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the baffle 14 extends into the into cavity 54) [Fig. 1 & Col. 13 lines 57-67].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the baffle of Modified Sun to comprise of a dielectric since Shan discloses that dielectrics are suitable materials for a baffle [Shan - Fig. 1 & Col. 2 lines 65-67, Col. 14 lines 6-13]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding Claim 25:
Sun teaches wherein the wall of the chamber is a side wall of the chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the wall of the chamber is a side wall).
Sun does not specifically disclose wherein the first portion and the second portion extend in a circumferential direction with respect to a central axis of the side wall.
Gurary teaches and wherein the first portion and the second portion extend in a circumferential direction with respect to a central axis of the side wall (at least a portion of baffles 283 and channel 278 extend circumferentially) [Fig. 1, 5A & 0034, 0062].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the of exhaust of Sun to utilize a choke structure, as in Gurary, to provide increased flow uniformity [Gurary - 0009, 0038, 0062].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 6857387) in view of Sun et al. (US 6857387) in view of Gurary et al. (US 20120027936), Shan et al. (US 5891350), Komiya et al. (US 20030094135), Kim et al. (US 20140034240), and Sato et al. (US 20050103440), with Tian et al. (US 20080035058) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 25 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 5846332).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 25 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Sun does not specifically disclose wherein the annular exhaust duct includes an outer peripheral wall that provides an opening, wherein another exhaust duct is connected to the annular exhaust duct such that an exhaust passage of the another exhaust duct is connected to the annular exhaust passage through the opening, and wherein a short-circuit portion that electrically connects a pair of edge portions, which partition and define the opening, to each other is formed within the opening.
Zhao teaches wherein the annular exhaust duct includes an outer peripheral wall (the outer peripheral wall where exhaust aperture 74 is disposed) that provides an opening (exhaust aperture 74), wherein another exhaust duct (pumping plenum 76) is connected to the annular exhaust duct such that an exhaust passage of the another exhaust duct is connected to the annular exhaust passage through the opening (aperture 74 connects plenum 76 and channel 60), and wherein a short-circuit portion that electrically connects a pair of edge portions, which partition and define the opening, to each other is formed within the opening (as evidenced by Figs. 1 and 2, the exhaust aperture 74 is defined by the walls of the channel 60, as such, there is at least a portion of the walls that connect the edges of the channel 60, and define the exhaust aperture 74) [Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 2 lines 42-63].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the exhaust duct of Modified Sun to utilize a peripheral wall with an opening, as in Zhao, to help maintain a constant pressure in the exhaust duct [Zhao - Fig. 1, 2 & Col. 2 lines 42-63].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 20, and 25 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a second portion disposed in a radially outward position from the first position and formed in the wall of the chamber so as to define a space separate from the processing space, and a dielectric portion installed in the first portion and the second portion, wherein the first portion and second portion are in communication with each other.”
In response, the examiner has utilized the teachings of Gurary et al. (US 20120027936) in independent claim 1. Gurary discloses a second portion (channel 278) disposed in a radially outward position (as evidenced by Fig. 5A, at least a portion of channel 278 is disposed radially outward of a baffle 283 from the first portion (baffles 283) and formed in the wall (outer liner 28) of the chamber so as to define a space separate from the processing space, wherein the first portion and the second portion are in communication with each other (as evidenced by Fig 5A, the channel 278 is in communication with baffles 283) [Fig. 1, 5A & 0034, 0062].
Gurary doesn’t disclose a dielectric portion installed in the first portion and the second portion, however Shan et al. (US 5891350) discloses a dielectric portion (annular protrusion 14m which can be made from a dielectric material) installed in the first portion (protrusion 14) and the second portion (cavity 54) [Fig. 1 & Col. 2 lines 65-67, Col. 14 lines 6-13]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the baffle of Modified Sun et al. (US 6857387) to comprise of a dielectric since Shan discloses that dielectrics are suitable materials for a baffle [Shan - Fig. 1 & Col. 2 lines 65-67, Col. 14 lines 6-13]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
As such, even if the previous rejection of claim 1 under Sun and Shan is persuasive, the applicant has not specifically argued how Gurary would not disclose the aforementioned limitation. Furthermore, the examiner would like to note that “in communication with” currently leads to many reasonable interpretations by one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the channel 278 and at least a portion baffles 283 of Gurary are in communication with each other via the structure of the baffles 283. The applicant would need to provide further descriptors such as “fluidly connected” to narrow down this limitation.
The examiner would further like to note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the baffles 283 of Gurary are disposed on outer liner 28, which separates the exhaust passage from the reaction space of chamber 12 [Gurary – Fig. 1, 5A & 0034, 0059]. One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that the channels 278 of Gurary are disposed radially outward of the baffles 283. Furthermore, since Gurary is being used to modify Sun, adding baffles to the exhaust plenum 38 of Sun would result in the baffles being placed on the walls of the exhaust plenum 38. The exhaust plenum 38 is separated from the processing space of Sun via slit 36, and as such, placing baffles on the walls of the planum 38 would result in the first and second portions being disposed in the wall of the chamber so as to define a space separate from the processing space [Sun – Col. 4 lines 55-60]. As such, the combination of references would readily disclose the aforementioned limitation.
PNG
media_image4.png
872
812
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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