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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee; Jun-soo et al. (US 20170330734 A1) in view of, if necessary, Funakubo; Takao et al. (US 20190218663 A1) and Ramamurthy; Sundar et al. (US 20140003800 A1). Lee teaches a film forming apparatus, comprising: a stage (130; Figure 1) on which a substrate (W; Figure 1) is mounted; a first container (101; Figure 1) configured to accommodate the stage (130; Figure 1); a gas supply (120,121,125; Figure 1) configured to supply gases containing two types of monomers into the first container (101; Figure 1) to form a polymer film (“polymer”; [0036],[0045]-[0046], throughout) on the substrate (W; Figure 1) mounted on the stage (130; Figure 1); a porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) arranged radially outward from a processing space (above W; Figure 1), which is a space above the substrate (W; Figure 1), and configured to draw in polymers formed by the gases containing two types of monomers exhausted from the first container (101; Figure 1); and a heater (170,180; Figure 1; [0046]) configured to heat the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) to a first temperature ([0046]) when the polymer film (“polymer”; [0036],[0045]-[0046], throughout) is formed on the substrate (W; Figure 1), wherein the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) includes a plurality of pores, and the polymers (“polymer”; [0036],[0045]-[0046], throughout) are introduced into the plurality of pores, and wherein the polymers (“polymer”; [0036],[0045]-[0046], throughout) reach the plurality of pores inside the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) by heating (170,180; Figure 1; [0046]) the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) to the first temperature ([0046]), and wherein the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) is spaced apart from the substrate (W; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 1. With respect to Applicant’s claimed “…configured to supply gases containing two types of monomers into the first container to form a polymer film on the substrate ..”, “…configured to draw in polymers formed by the gases containing two types of monomers…”, “porous”, it is noted that throughout Lee’s specification Lee discusses “polymer deposit”. It is also a chemical fact that polymers are derived from monomers which have to be the gas sources (120,125) that Lee is supplying. Further, that Lee discusses Lee’s focus ring as receiving polymer deposits is evidenced by Lee teaching the use of Lee’s focus ring/porous member to mask/shield polymer deposits to Lee’s lower electrode 130 – “The focus ring 150 may cover at least a part of an edge of the lower electrode 130 so as to prevent penetration of a polymer compound, which may be generated in a process, into the lower electrode 130.” ([0036]). As a result, Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Further, the Examiner believes that the claimed limitations of “wherein the polymers reach the plurality of pores inside the porous member by heating the porous member to the first temperature” and “wherein the porous member is spaced apart from the substrate” are considered intended use claim limitations that depend, respectfully, on the physical properties of the polymers used in the pending apparatus claims and the size/diameter of the claimed substrate. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Lee further teaches:
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) is provided between the stage (130; Figure 1) in the first container (101; Figure 1) and an exhaust port (102; Figure 1) formed in the first container (101; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 2
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds of anticipation are not accepted then Funakubo also teaches a capacitive plasma polymerization using monomers of amine and isocyanate ([0058], abstract), further, Ramamurthy also demonstrates a “porous” edge ring member (20; Figure 3; [0052]) also made from SiC ([0052]) as is Lee’s edge ring member ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to use Tabata’s precursor gases as taught by Tabata and Ramamurthy’s “porous” sintered SiC.
Motivation for Lee to use Tabata’s precursor gases as taught by Funakubo is for forming Funakubo’s polymerized film ([0058]).
Motivation for Lee to use Ramamurthy’s “porous” sintered SiC is for “more uniform heat transfer” as taught by Ramamurthy ([0052]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3-8, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee; Jun-soo et al. (US 20170330734 A1) in view of Funakubo; Takao et al. (US 20190218663 A1) and Ramamurthy; Sundar et al. (US 20140003800 A1). Lee, Funakubo, and Ramamurthy are discussed above.
Lee further teaches:
an RF power source (115; Figure 1) configured to, when the substrate (W; Figure 1) is not mounted on the stage (130; Figure 1), supply RF (Radio Frequency) power into the first container (101; Figure 1) to turn the cleaning gas into plasma and remove the polymer film (“polymer”; [0036],[0045]-[0046], throughout) drawn into the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) by active species contained in the plasma – claim 3. The above and below italicized text is considered intended use claim recitations for the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
The apparatus of Claim 4, wherein the heater (170,180; Figure 1; [0046]) is configured to heat the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) to a second temperature ([0042], [0046]) higher than the first temperature ([0042], [0046]) while the cleaning gas is being supplied, as claimed by claim 5
The apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the heater (170,180; Figure 1; [0046]) is configured to heat the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) to a second temperature ([0046]) higher than the first temperature ([0046]) while the cleaning gas is being supplied, as claimed by claim 11
Lee does not teach:
The apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the gas supply (120,121,125; Figure 1) is configured to supply a cleaning gas into the first container (101; Figure 1) when the substrate (W; Figure 1) is not mounted on the stage (130; Figure 1) – claim 3
The apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the cleaning gas is a gas having molecules containing oxygen atoms or fluorine atoms, as claimed by claim 4
The apparatus of Claim 5, wherein the first temperature ([0046]) is a temperature ([0046]) at which an adsorption time of the monomers is in a range of 0.00001 ms or more and 0.01 ms or less, as claimed by claim 6
The apparatus of Claim 6, wherein the surface area of the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) is 50,000,000 cm2 or more, as claimed by claim 7
The apparatus of Claim 7, wherein the gas supply (120,121,125; Figure 1) is configured to supply an amine gas and an isocyanate gas as the gases containing two types of monomers into the first container (101; Figure 1) to thereby form the polymer film (“polymer”; [0036],[0045]-[0046], throughout) having a urea bond on the substrate (W; Figure 1) mounted on the stage (130; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 8
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the first temperature ([0046]) is a temperature ([0046]) at which an adsorption time of the monomers is in a range of 0.00001 ms or more and 0.01 ms or less, as claimed by claim 12
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the first temperature ([0046]) is a temperature ([0046]) in a range of 130 degrees C to 170 degrees C, as claimed by claim 13
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein a surface area of the porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1) is 50,000,000 cm2 or more, as claimed by claim 14
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the gas supply (120,121,125; Figure 1) is configured to supply an amine gas and an isocyanate gas as the gases containing two types of monomers into the first container (101; Figure 1) to thereby form the polymer film (“polymer”; [0036],[0045]-[0046], throughout) having a urea bond on the substrate (W; Figure 1) mounted on the stage (130; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 15
Funakubo further teaches:
The apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the gas supply (40s,42s; Figure 1) is configured to supply a cleaning gas into the first container (12; Figure 1) when the substrate (W; Figure 1) is not mounted on the stage (16; Figure 1) – claim 3. See [0006]
The apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the cleaning gas is a gas having molecules containing oxygen atoms ([0072]) or fluorine atoms, as claimed by claim 4
wherein the gas supply (40s,42s; Figure 1) is configured to supply an amine gas ([0058]) and an isocyanate gas ([0058]) as the gases containing two types of monomers into the first container (101; Figure 1) to thereby form the polymer film (“polymer”; [0036],[0045]-[0046], throughout) having a urea bond on the substrate (W; Figure 1) mounted on the stage (130; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 8, 15
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to use Funakubo’s gas sources and for Lee to optimize Lee’s processing temperature and apparatus dimensions.
Motivation for Lee to use Funakubo’s gas sources is for forming Funakubo’s polymerized film ([0058]).
Motivation for Lee to optimize Lee’s processing temperature is for meeting the polymerization temperatures for the specific monomers used as taught by Funakubo ([0058]).
Motivation for Lee to Lee’s apparatus dimensions is for scaling large area substrates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Specifically, Lee discloses a focus ring 150 disposed on the lower electrode 130 to surround the edge of the wafer W. Especially, a portion of the focus ring 150 of Lee is configured to substantially support the edge of the wafer W (see paragraph [0034] and enlarged view of part in FIG. 1 of Lee). In other words, the focus ring 150 of Lee is premised on being in physical contact with the edge of the substrate to control the electric field and plasma distribution, thereby improving etching distribution faults. Therefore, Lee does not disclose or suggest a "porous member spaced apart from the substrate" as recited in Claim 1. The structural and functional differences between the claimed trap- like porous member and the focus ring of Lee are clear.
“
In response, and as addressed above in the Examiner’s grounds of rejection, the newly claimed limitation of “wherein the porous member is spaced apart from the substrate” is considered an intended use claim limitation that depends on the size/diameter of the claimed substrate. Because the cited prior art is capable of processing a wafer with a smaller diameter, Lee demonstrates that the Lee’s apparatus is capable of performing the intended use. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Applicant states:
“
Further, Lee teaches that by locally varying the temperature of the focus ring 150 surrounding the edge of the wafer W, polymers are transferred between the focus ring 150 and the wafer W in contact therewith, thereby improving the distribution faults at the edge of the wafer W (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046] of Lee). Given this teaching, where the technical effect of Lee is fundamentally premised on the physical contact between the focus ring 150 and the substrate W, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to arrange the focus ring 150 to be spaced apart from the substrate W even when referencing Lee. Therefore, Lee does not disclose or suggest the Feature of amended Claim 1.
“
In response, the Examiner’s reading of Lee’s [0045]-[0046] does not place any criticality to Lee’s wafer diameter as Applicant suggests above. Specifically, Lee only discusses the criticality of Lee’s heaters 170 for avoiding “distribution faults” resulting from a cooling porous member (150; Figure 1; [0035]-SiC, [0046]-Applicant’s 250; Figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Capacitive plasma apparatus with focus ring temperature control includes:
US 20080261074 A1
US 20060207502 A1
US 20080006207 A1
US 20210082713 A1
US 20190198350 A1
US 20240282613 A1
US 20190326104 A1
US 6464794 B1
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights