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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I-Figure 4 in the reply filed on May 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13, 15-18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note. Claim 16 was withdrawn because it depends on withdrawn claim 15.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 28, 2023 & April 2, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, Japanese Office Action for Japanese Application No. 222-114181 and Korean Office Action for Korean Application No. 10-2021-0096242.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to claims 4, 6, 19, the 112f claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
bottom power module in claims 3 and 14;
top power module in claims 3 and 14;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0061] of the specification indicates that a bottom power module includes a bottom power source 242 and bottom power switch 244.
Paragraph [0069] of the specification indicates that a top power module includes a top power source 602 and top power switch.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An et al. (U.S. 2021/0098232).
Referring to Figure 6C and paragraphs [0021]-[0023], [0051], and [0079]-[0080], An et al. disclose a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing 110 defining a treating space (par.[0021]); a chuck 119 configured to support a substrate at the treating space, the chuck including a bottom electrode 119E configured to generate a plasma at the treating space (par.[0051]); a top electrode 113 (par.[0023]); and an ion blocker 115 positioned between the top electrode and the treating space (par.[0023]); and at least one gas supply 120, 130 configured to supply a process gas for exciting to a plasma state by the bottom electrode or the top electrode, the at least one gas supply including a first gas supply 120 configured to supply the process gas via the gas distribution region GDR to the plasma space PGR that is between the ion blocker 115 and the top electrode 113 (The GDR is simple used to store the process gas and uniformly distribute the gas to the PGR (Fig. 6, pars. [0025], [0030]).
With respect to claim 2, the substrate treating apparatus of An et al. fail to teach wherein the ion blocker 115 is grounded, the ion blocker is configured to remove an ion from the plasma generated at a plasma space which is a space between the top electrode and the ion blocker (pars.[0023], [0035]).
With respect to claim 19, referring to Figure 6C and paragraphs [0021]-[0023], [0051], and [0079]-[0080], An et al. disclose a substrate treating apparatus for treating a substrate having a pattern formed thereon comprising: a housing 110 defining a treating space (par.[0021]); an electrostatic chuck 119 configured to support the substrate at the treating space, the electrostatic chuck including a bottom electrode 119E configured to generate a plasma at the treating space (par.[0051]); a shower head 117 positioned on top of the housing, the shower head at least partially defining the treating space (par.[0023]); an ion blocker 115 positioned above the housing, the shower head at least partially defining the mixing space GMR (par.[0023]); a top electrode 113 positioned above the ion blocker, the top electrode at least partially defining the plasma space PGR together with the ion blocker, the top electrode being configured to generate a plasma at the plasma space (par.[0023]); a first gas supply 130, 132, 134 configured to supply a process gas to the mixing space (par.[0040]); and a second gas supply unit 120, 122, 124 configured to supply a process gas to the plasma space (par.[0025]).
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) 3-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (U.S. 2021/0098232) in view of Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
The teachings of An et al. have been discussed above. Specifically, An et al. disclose a top power source 140 configured to apply power to the top electrode and a bottom power source 150 configured to apply power to the bottom electrode (Fig. 6C and par.[0021]). Additionally,
An et al. is silent on a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of An et al. with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of An et al. in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module configured to apply a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module configured to apply a power to the top electrode.
With respect to claim 4, the substrate treating apparatus of An et al. further includes wherein the at least one gas supply further comprises: a second gas supply 130 configured to supply the process gas to the treating space PR via mixing region GMR (Fig. 6C, par.[0040]).
With respect to claim 5, the substrate treating apparatus of An et al. further comprising a shower head 117 positioned between the ion blocker 115 and the treating space (par.[0023]).
With respect to claim 6, the substrate treating apparatus of An et al further includes wherein the first gas supply 120 is configured to supply the process gas to a mixing space which is a space between the shower head 117 and the ion blocker 115 (par.[0040]).
With respect to claim 7, the substrate treating apparatus of An et al. further includes wherein the first gas supply 120 further comprises: a first gas line 132, 134 connected to a gas supply port IDR2 formed at the ion blocker; and a second gas line 132, 134 connected to a gas inlet IDR1 formed at the shower head (Fig. 6C).
With respect to claim 8, the substrate treating apparatus of An et al. further includes wherein the gas supply port IDR2 and the gas inlet IDR1 are configured to supply the process gas to the mixing space GMR (Fig. 6C).
With respect to claim 9, the substrate treating apparatus of An et al. further includes wherein the gas supply port IDR2 and the gas inlet IDR1 are configured to supply the process gas to different regions Zone A, Zone B of the mixing space (Fig. 6C, pars.[0040]-[0042]).
With respect to claim 10, the substrate treating apparatus of An et al. further includes wherein the gas supply port IDR2 is configured to supply the process gas to a central region of the mixing space, and the gas inlet IDR1is configured to supply the process gas to an edge region of the mixing space (pars.[0040]-[0042]).
With respect to claim 11, the substrate treating apparatus of wherein An et al. further includes the gas inlet IDR1 is connected to the mixing space, and not connected to the treating space (Fig. 6C, par.[0079]).
With respect to claim 12, the substrate treating apparatus of An et al. further includes wherein the gas supply port IDR2 is connected to the mixing space, and not connected to the plasma space (Fig. 6, par.[0079]).
With respect to claim 14, referring to Figure 6C and paragraphs [0021]-[0023], [0051], and [0079]-[0080], An et al. disclose a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing 110 defining a treating space (par.[0021]); an electrostatic chuck 119 configured to support a substrate at the treating space (par.[0051]); a bottom electrode 119E configured to generate a plasma at the treating space (par.[0051]); an ion blocker 115 positioned above the housing (par.[0023]); a top electrode 113 positioned to face the ion blocker, the top electrode being configured to generate a plasma at a plasma space which is a space between the ion blocker and the top electrode, the plasma space being fluidly connected to the treating space (par.[0023]); at least one gas supply 120, 130 configured to supply a process gas for exciting to a plasma state by the bottom electrode or the top electrode, the at least one gas supply including a first gas supply 120 configured to supply the process gas via the gas distribution region GDR to the plasma space PGR that is between the ion blocker 115 and the top electrode 113 (The GDR is simple used to store the process gas and uniformly distribute the gas to the PGR (Fig. 6, pars. [0025], [0030]).
The teachings of An et al. have been discussed above. Specifically, An et al. disclose a top power source 140 configured to apply power to the top electrode and a bottom power source 150 configured to apply power to the bottom electrode (Fig. 6C and par.[0021]).
An et al. is silent on a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of An et al. with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of An et al. in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module configured to apply a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module configured to apply a power to the top electrode.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,176,185 in view of An et al. (U.S. 2021/0098232) and Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
Referring to claims 1-4 and 15-18, U.S. Patent No. 12,176,185 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
U.S. Patent No. 12,176,185 is silent on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0051], An et al. teach a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12,176,185 to include a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode as taught by An et al. in order to support the substrate.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, U.S. Patent No. 12,176,185 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12,176,185 with a top power module and a bottom power module as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12,176,185 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,219 in view of An et al. (U.S. 2021/0098232) and Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
Referring to claims 1-6, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,219 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
U.S. Patent No. 12,308,219 is silent on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0051], An et al. teach a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,219 to include a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode as taught by An et al. in order to support the substrate.
U.S. Patent No. 12,308,219 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,219 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,219 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18,394,198 in view of Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claims 1-13, copending Application No. 18,394,198 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, copending Application No. 18,394,198 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 18,394,198 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 18,394,198 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 15-17 of copending Application No. 18,469,755 in view of An et al. (U.S. 2021/0098232) and Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claims 1, 7, and 15-17, copending Application No. 18,469,755 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
copending Application No. 18,469,755 is silent on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0051], An et al. teach a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 18,469,755 to include a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode as taught by An et al. in order to support the substrate.
copending Application No. 18,469,755 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 18,469,755 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 18,469,755 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 12 of copending Application No. 18,119,882 in view of An et al. (U.S. 2021/0098232) and Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claims 1, 9, 12, copending Application No. 18,119,882 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
copending Application No. 18,119,882 is silent on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0051], An et al. teach a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 18,119,882 to include a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode as taught by An et al. in order to support the substrate.
copending Application No. 18,119,882 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 18,119,882 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 18,119,882 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 10-11 of copending Application No. 17,712,044 in view of Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claims 1, 7, and 10-11, copending Application No. 17,712,044 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, copending Application No. 17,712,044 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,712,044 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 17,712,044 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9-11 of copending Application No. 17,973,985 in view of Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claims 1 and 9-11, copending Application No. 17,973,985 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, copending Application No. 17,973,985 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,973,985 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 17,973,985 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application No. 17,885,543 in view of An et al. (U.S. 2021/0098232) and Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claims 1 and 13, copending Application No. 17,885,543 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
copending Application No. 17,885,543 is silent on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0051], An et al. teach a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,885,543 to include a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode as taught by An et al. in order to support the substrate.
copending Application No. 17,885,543 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,885,543 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 17,885,543 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 17,902,110 in view of Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claim 17, copending Application No. 17,902,110 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, copending Application No. 17,902,110 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,902,110 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 17,902,110 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 and 20 of copending Application No. 17,868,067 in view of Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claims 17 and 20, copending Application No. 17,868,067 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, copending Application No. 17,868,067 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,868,067 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 17,868,067 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 17,393,601 in view of Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claim 11, copending Application No. 17,393,601 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, copending Application No. 17,393,601 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,393,601 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 17,393,601 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 12 of copending Application No. 17,392,586 in view of An et al. (U.S. 2021/0098232) and Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claims 1, 4, 12 of copending Application No. 17,392,586 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
copending Application No. 17,392,586 is silent on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0051], An et al. teach a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,392,586 to include a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode as taught by An et al. in order to support the substrate.
copending Application No. 17,392,586 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,392,586 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 17,392,586 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 9, 12 of copending Application No. 17,202,244 in view of An et al. (U.S. 2021/0098232) and Nowak et al. (U.S. 5,865,896).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Referring to claims 1, 6, 9, 12 of copending Application No. 17,202,244 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a housing defining a treating space; a top electrode; and an ion blocker positioned between the top electrode and the treating space.
copending Application No. 17,202,244 is silent on a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode.
Referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0051], An et al. teach a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,202,244 to include a chuck supporting a substrate at the treating space and providing a bottom electrode for generating a plasma at the treating space; a top electrode as taught by An et al. in order to support the substrate.
copending Application No. 17,202,244 is silent on a top power module and a bottom power module.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 7, lines 19-42, Nowak et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top power module having a top power source 36 and a top power switch 38 and a bottom power module having a bottom power source 50 and a bottom power switch 52 is used in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending Application No. 17,202,244 with a top power module having a top power switch and a bottom power module having a bottom power switch as taught by Nowak et al. in order to selectively create the desired plasma processing conditions. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 17,202,244 in view of Nowak et al. would yield a bottom power module applying a power to the bottom electrode; and a top power module applying a power to the top electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that An does not teach at least "the at least one gas supply including a first gas supply configured to supply the process gas to the plasma space that is between the ion blocker and the top electrode," recited in claim 1. Rather, the gas supply of An introduces process gas into a gas distribution region (GDR), which is not between the ground plate 115a (Examiner's asserted "ion blocker," recited in claim 1) and the top electrode 113. For at least this reason, claim 1 is patentable over An.
However, claim 1 uses the term “comprises” and simply recites “at least one gas supply including a first gas supply configured to supply the process gas to the plasma space that is between the ion blocker and the top electrode” and does not recite that a first gas supply configured to supply the process gas directly to the plasma space. In other words, claim 1 fails to preclude providing the process gas to the plasma space via a gas distribution region (i.e. plenum). Thus, as broadly claimed, referring to Fig. 6 and paragraph [0025] below, An discloses that the at least one gas supply including a first gas supply 120 is configured to supply the process gas via the gas distribution region GDR to the plasma space PGR that is between the ion blocker 115 and the top electrode 113. Additionally, the GDR is simple used to store the process gas and uniformly distribute the gas to the PGR (par.[0030]). Therefore, the apparatus of An satisfies the claimed requirements.
The quote from paragraph [0025] of An. “The gas distribution region GDR may be arranged over the upper electrode plate 113. That is, as shown in FIG. 1, the gas distribution region GDR may be defined by an upper portion of the body 111 and an upper surface of the upper electrode plate 113. As illustrated with dashed arrows, the gas distribution region GDR may receive at least one first process gas G1 from the first gas supply unit 120 and supply the at least one first process gas G1 to the plasma generation region PGR. Here, the at least one first process gas G1 may be a source gas for generating plasma in the plasma generation region PGR.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al.’694 and Li et al.’245 teach a substrate treating apparatus having a housing; a chuck; a top electrode; and ion blocker.
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 Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights