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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 6-11, 13, 19 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15 is/are amended; claim(s) 20 is/are newly added.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding the 112 (b) rejection, that the specification may be cited to assist in construction of a claim, but cannot be the basis for contradicting the plain meaning of a claim.
Examiner disagrees and notes that Applicant has noted their own error (via amendment) despite their argument and remedied the claim to recite what actually is in the specification. Examiner was correct in that there was no embodiment with two RF filters and a variable passive element. The RF filters include the variable passive element(s), which Applicant has amended to now state.
Regarding Applicant’s remaining arguments, they are moot in light of the amended claims with change in scope. Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
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:
Driving device (lifter pin, driving source, para. [0080]) in at least claims 1-18.
Variable passive element (coil/inductor, condenser/capacitor, diode, para. [0079]) in claims 1-14.
Driving source (motor, para. [0082]) in claims 2-11.
Conductive membrane (metallic membrane, para. [0129]) in claim 12.
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.
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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190333785 to Tanikawa in view of US 20200194240 to Sasaki and further in view of KR 20200071009A to Koshimizu.
Claims 1, 15: Tanikawa discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a plasma processing chamber (10 [chamber], Fig. 1); a substrate support (12 [disc shaped stage]) disposed in the plasma processing chamber (10), and including a lower electrode (12, para. [0020]), an electrostatic chuck (36 [electrostatic chuck]), and an edge ring (38 [edge ring]) disposed to surround a substrate (w [wafer]) mounted on the electrostatic chuck (36, para. [0034]);
a driving device (200 [actuation mechanism]) configured to move the edge ring (38) in a vertical direction (para. [0036]); an upper electrode (51 [shower head]) disposed above the substrate support (12); a source RF power supply (57 [high frequency power source]) configured to supply source RF power to the upper electrode (51) or the lower electrode to generate plasma from gas in the plasma processing chamber (10, para. [0029]); a bias RF power supply (30 [ second high frequency power source]) configured to supply bias RF power to the lower electrode (12, para. [0023]); at least one conductor (37 [contacting member], Fig. 5A) contacting with the edge ring (38); and a controller (74 [control unit]) configured to control the driving device (para. [0057]).
However Tanikawa does not disclose a DC power supply configured to apply negative-polarity DC voltage to the edge ring via the at least one conductor; and an RF filter electrically connected between the at least one conductor and the DC power supply, and including a first variable passive element and a second variable passive element; and a controller configured to control the driving device and the first and second variable passive elements, and to adjust an incident angle of an ion in the plasma with respect to an edge area of the substrate mounted on the electrostatic chuck.
Sasaki discloses a DC power supply (99 [DC power source], Fig. 3) capable to be configured to apply negative-polarity DC voltage to the edge ring (FR [focus ring]) via the at least one conductor (59/27 [conductive member]/[connecting member]) for the purpose of applying a negative voltage to the focus ring to adjust the plasma sheath above the focus ring (para. [0087]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the power supply as taught by Sasaki with motivation to apply a negative voltage to the focus ring to adjust the plasma sheath above the focus ring.
Koshimizu discloses a DC power supply (61/62, para. [0009], Fig. 6) configured to apply negative-polarity DC voltage to the edge ring (FR [focus ring]); and an RF filter (82a, 82b, Fig. 3) electrically connected between the at least one electrode (73) and the DC power supply (61/62), and including a first variable passive element (82a [variable impedance circuit]) and a second variable passive element (82b [variable impedance circuit]); and a controller (MC [control unit]) configured to control the driving device and the first and second variable passive elements (para. [0056]), and to adjust an incident angle of an ion in the plasma with respect to an edge area of the substrate mounted on the electrostatic chuck (para. [0065], [0079]) for the purpose of becoming possible to reduce the difference between the etching rate at the edge of the substrate and the etching rate of the substrate inside the edge (para. [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the RF Filter having first and second variable passive elements as taught by Koshimizu with motivation to become possible to reduce the difference between the etching rate at the edge of the substrate and the etching rate of the substrate inside the edge.
Claim 14: The apparatus of Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu discloses wherein the edge ring (38, Fig. 5A, Tanikawa) is conductive (para. [0073, 0076]).
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu as applied to claims 1, 14-15 above, and further in view of US 20200219706 to Koshimizu’706.
Claims 2, 16: The apparatus of Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu discloses wherein the driving device (200, Fig. 1, Tanikawa) includes a lifter pin (102 [lift pin]) configured to support the edge ring (38), and a driving source (101 [piezo actuator]) configured to move the lifter pin (102) in the vertical direction (para. [0036]).
However the apparatus of Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu does not disclose the liter pin penetrates the electrostatic chuck.
Koshimizu’706 teaches (Fig. 5, 7) different options for a lifter pin (74b [shaft]) to penetrate either a chuck (20 [electrostatic chuck]) or an insulating region (27) for the purpose of having the option of adjusting the plasma sheath via one focus ring (FR1) or the other focus ring (FR2, para. [0072], [0079]).
It is noted that regarding the placement of the lifter pin, the courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the option of placements of the lifter pin as taught by Koshimizu’706 with motivation to have the option of adjusting the plasma sheath via one focus ring or the other focus ring.
Claims 3, 17: The apparatus of Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu discloses wherein the surface of the lifter pin (102, Fig. 1, Tanikawa) is at least made of an insulating material (para. [0045]).
Claims 4, 18: The apparatus of Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu discloses wherein the at least one conductor (37, Fig. 5A, Tanikawa) includes a conductive wire (37 [spring]) which at least partially extends in the vertical direction in the lifter pin (102), and one end of the conductive wire (37) is in contact with the edge ring (38, Fig. 5a, 8).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu discloses wherein the at least one conductor (37, Fig. 5A, Tanikawa) includes a conductive elastic member (37) which is in contact with the edge ring (38).
Claim 6: (Withdrawn).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu discloses wherein the conducive elastic member (37, Fig. 5A, Tanikawa) is disposed between the edge ring (38) and the electrostatic chuck (36).
Claims 8-11, 13, 19: (Withdrawn).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu as applied to claims 1, 14-15 above, and further in view of US 20170018411 to Sriraman.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu does not disclose wherein the edge ring has at least one conductive membrane contacting with the at least one conductor.
Sriraman discloses wherein the edge ring (210 [edge ring], Fig. 2D) has at least one conductive membrane (202 [annular electrode]) contacting with the at least one conductor (209/208 [connector]/[contact]) for the purpose of mating and providing suitable surface to surface contact between a power supply and annular electrode (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the conductive membrane as taught by Sriraman with motivation to mate and provide surface to surface contact between a power supply and annular electrode.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu as applied to claims 1, 14-15 above, and further in view of US 20160351404 to Aramaki.
Claim 20: The apparatus of Tanikawa in view of Sasaki, Koshimizu does not disclose wherein the at least one variable passive element is electrically connected to the at least one conductor.
Aramaki discloses wherein the at least one variable passive element (133/135/134 or 200, Fig. 7C, 3) is electrically connected to the at least one conductor (153 [conductor film]) for the purpose of being possible to enhance control robustness (para. [0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Aramaki with motivation to be possible to enhance control robustness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230091584 discloses a conductive structure (201, Fig. 22-25) and a conductive member (202, para. [0243]) under an edge ring (14). US 20210343503 discloses a conductive structure (201, Fig. 10-15) and a conductive member (202, para. [0133]) under an edge ring (14). US 20100000970 discloses the current-feeding portions (electrodes) of the focus ring (5, Fig. 7A, 7B1, 7B2); the electrode bar (32) is configured so that it can be inserted into and removed from the focus ring (5, para. [0069]).
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 Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718