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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 1, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Species A in the reply filed on May 13, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 10-11 are withdrawn since they are directed towards nonelected Species II-IV.
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:
Support unit 200 in claims 1, 15, 20, which has been interpreted as an electrostatic chuck and equivalents thereof (i.e. mechanical clamping, vacuum clamping), as set forth, e.g., in the specification at paragraph [0048].
Heating unit 500 in claims 13 and 20, which have been interpreted as a flash lamp generating a flash light, a microwave unit generating a microwave, and a laser unit generating and transmitting a laser or the like and equivalents thereof, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at paragraph [0061].
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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other”. Merriam Webster indicates that the definition of “interleaved” is to arrange in or as if in alternate layers. Additionally, paragraph [0069] of the specification indicates the semi-circular portions of the first electrode pattern and the semi-circular portions of the second electrode pattern are alternatively arrange. The first electrode pattern 422-1 and the second electrode pattern 422-2 are alternately disposed without overlapping each other. Therefore, the limitation “a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other” is interpreted to mean that a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern are alternatively arranged with each other.
Claim3 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, 4-5, 9, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima (U.S. 5,685,949) in view of Kim et al. (K.R.1020210017300A) and Lee et al. (WO 2020/219408A1).
Referring to Figure 1 and column 6, line 52-column 9, line 40, Yashima discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a chamber 10 having a treating space therein (col. 6, lines 52-55); a substrate support 30 within the treating space and configured to support a substrate (col. 7, lines 34-41); and a plasma generation unit 20, 30, 40 configured to generate a plasma from a process gas supplied to the treating space (col. 6, lines 56-65, col. 7, lines 27-33), wherein the plasma generation unit comprises, a bottom electrode member 30 (col. 7, lines 34-41); a top electrode member 20 opposite the bottom electrode member (col. 6, lines 56-65), and a high frequency power source 40 configured to apply for applying a high frequency power to the top electrode member (col. 7, lines 27-33), and wherein the top electrode member comprises, a first plate 21; and an electrode pattern 20 on an upper surface the first plate 21, the electrode pattern facing away from the treating space and at least partly defining an uppermost surface of the top electrode member, (Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 27-33).
Yashima is silent on a support unit comprising an electrostatic chuck and equivalents thereof (i.e. mechanical clamping, vacuum clamping).
Referring to Figure 1 and page 3, lines 26-29, Kim et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a support unit comprising an electrostatic chuck used to electrostatically hold the substrate. 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 support unit of Yashima to comprise an electrostatic chuck as taught by Kim et al. in order to electrostatically hold the substrate. The resulting apparatus of Yashima in view of Hashiguchi et al. would yield a support unit comprising an electrostatic chuck.
Yashima is silent on the electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other.
Referring to Figure 2, abstract, and page 5, lines 1-15, Kim et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus having an electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other as an alternate and suitable arrangement to generate plasma. 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 Yashima with the electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other Kim et al. in order to generate plasma with increased electron density and uniformity.
Yashima is silent on a protective layer of an etching-resistant material on a surface of the first plate, the protective layer facing the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member.
Referring to paragraph [0084], Lee et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a protective layer of an etching-resistant material is provided on a lower surface of a plate, the protective layer faces the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member for purposes of etch resistance. 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 Yashima with a protective layer of an etching-resistant material is provided on a lower surface of a plate, the protective layer faces the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member as taught by Lee et al. for purposes of etch resistance.
The resulting apparatus of Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. would yield a top electrode member comprises an electrode pattern on an upper surface of the first plate, the electrode pattern facing away from the treating space and at least partly defining an uppermost surface of the top electrode member, the electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other; and a protective layer including an etching-resistant material on a lower surface of the first plate, the protective layer facing the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member.
With respect to claim 4, the substrate treating apparatus of Yashima further includes wherein the electrode pattern 20 is made of and/or comprises a transparent electrode (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 8).
With respect to claim 5, the substrate treating apparatus of Yashima further includes wherein the transparent electrode 20 is formed of any one of an ITO, an MnSnO, a CNT, a ZnO, an IZO, an ATO, an SnO2, IrO2, RuO2, a graphene, a carbon nanotube (CNT), an AZO, an FTO, a GZO, an In2O3, an MgO, a conductive polymer, a metal nanowire, mixtures thereof, or multiple layers thereof (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 8).
With respect to claim 9, the substrate treating apparatus of Yashima includes further wherein the first plate 21 is made of and/or comprises a transparent material (col. 9, lines 36-40).
With respect to claim 13, the substrate treating apparatus of Yashima further comprising a heating unit 60 above the top electrode member and configured to irradiate irradiating an energy through the top electrode member to the substrate to heat the substrate (Fig. 1, col. 7, line 60-col. 8, line 6).
With respect to claim 14, the substrate treating apparatus of Yashima further includes wherein the heating unit 60 is any one of a flash lamp, a microwave unit, or a laser unit (col. 7, line 60-col. 8, line 6).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima (U.S. 5,685,949) in view of Kim et al. (K.R.1020210017300A) and Lee et al. (WO 2020/219408A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 13-14 above, and further in view of Collins et al. (U.S. 2018/0308667).
The teachings of Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. have been discussed above.
Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. fails to teach wherein the high frequency power source is configured to supply a same frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern with a predetermined time interval.
Referring to Figure 5B and paragraph [0100], Collins et teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein the high frequency power source is configured to supply a same frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern with a predetermined time interval as a conventional frequency range used to generate plasma. 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 high frequency power source of Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. with wherein the high frequency power source is configured to supply a same frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern with a predetermined time interval as taught by Collins et al. since it is a conventional frequency range used to generate plasma.
Thus, the resulting apparatus of Yashima in view of Kim et al., Lee et al. and Collins et al. would yield wherein the high frequency power source is configured to supply a same frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern with a predetermined time interval.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima (U.S. 5,685,949) in view of Kim et al. (K.R.1020210017300A) and Lee et al. (WO 2020/219408A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 13-14 above, and further in view of (Manabe (J.P.09-312271A).
The teachings of Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. have been discussed above.
Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. is silent on the high frequency power source comprises a first high frequency power source and a second high frequency power source which are configured to supply a different frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern.
Referring to Figure. 4 and paragraphs [0043]-[0044], Manabe teaches a substrate treating apparatus wherein the high frequency power source comprises a first high frequency power source 8 and a second high frequency power source 9 which are configured to supply a different frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern since it is a conventional frequency range used to generate plasma. 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 high frequency power source of Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. with the high frequency power source comprises a first high frequency power source and a second high frequency power source which are configured to supply a different frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern as taught by Manabe. since it is a conventional frequency range used to generate plasma.
Thus, the resulting apparatus of Yashima in view of Kim et al., Lee et al. and Manabe would yield wherein the high frequency power source comprises a first high frequency power source and a second high frequency power source which are configured to supply a different frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima (U.S. 5,685,949) in view of Kim et al. (K.R.1020210017300A) and Lee et al. (WO 2020/219408A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 13-14 above, and further in view of (Takebayashi et al. (U.S. 2022/0246451) or Hosokawa (J.P. 2013134814A)).
The teachings of Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. have been discussed above.
Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern comprises a bar-shaped connection portion and a plurality of pairs of semi-circular portions, respectively, adjacent pairs of the semi-circular portions being spaced apart from each other, two semi-circular potions in a given pair of the semi- circular portions extending from opposite sidewalls of the bar-shaped connection portion toward each other to define a gap therebetween, the bar-shaped connection portion of the first electrode pattern and the bar-shaped connection portion of the second electrode pattern being disposed in line such that the semi-circular portions of the first electrode pattern and the semi-circular portions of the second electrode pattern are alternatively arranged.
Referring to Figure 7 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], Takebayashi et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern comprises a bar-shaped connection portion and a plurality of pairs of semi-circular portions, respectively, adjacent pairs of the semi-circular portions being spaced apart from each other, two semi-circular potions in a given pair of the semi- circular portions extending from opposite sidewalls of the bar-shaped connection portion toward each other to define a gap therebetween, the bar-shaped connection portion of the first electrode pattern and the bar-shaped connection portion of the second electrode pattern being disposed in line such that the semi-circular portions of the first electrode pattern and the semi-circular portions of the second electrode pattern are alternatively arranged as a conventionally known shape used to control the plasma in different regions. Referring to Figure 2 and abstract, Hosokawa teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern comprises a bar-shaped connection portion and a plurality of pairs of semi-circular portions, respectively, adjacent pairs of the semi-circular portions being spaced apart from each other, two semi-circular potions in a given pair of the semi- circular portions extending from opposite sidewalls of the bar-shaped connection portion toward each other to define a gap therebetween, the bar-shaped connection portion of the first electrode pattern and the bar-shaped connection portion of the second electrode pattern being disposed in line such that the semi-circular portions of the first electrode pattern and the semi-circular portions of the second electrode pattern are alternatively arranged as a conventionally known shape used to control the plasma in different regions.
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 electrode pattern of Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. with wherein the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern comprises a bar-shaped connection portion and a plurality of pairs of semi-circular portions, respectively, adjacent pairs of the semi-circular portions being spaced apart from each other, two semi-circular potions in a given pair of the semi- circular portions extending from opposite sidewalls of the bar-shaped connection portion toward each other to define a gap therebetween, the bar-shaped connection portion of the first electrode pattern and the bar-shaped connection portion of the second electrode pattern being disposed in line such that the semi-circular portions of the first electrode pattern and the semi-circular portions of the second electrode pattern are alternatively arranged as taught by Takebayashi et al. or Hosokawa since it is a conventionally known shape used to control the plasma in different regions.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima (U.S. 5,685,949) in view of Kim et al. (K.R.1020210017300A), Lee et al. (WO 2020/219408A1) and (Manabe (J.P.09-312271A).
Referring to Figure 1 and column 6, line 52-column 9, line 40, Yashima discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a chamber 10 having a treating space therein (col. 6, lines 52-55); a substrate support 30 within the treating space and configured to support a substrate (col. 7, lines 34-41); and a plasma generation unit 20, 30, 40 configured to generate a plasma from a process gas supplied to the treating space (col. 6, lines 56-65, col. 7, lines 27-33), wherein the plasma generation unit comprises, a bottom electrode member 30 (col. 7, lines 34-41); a top electrode member 20 opposite the bottom electrode member (col. 6, lines 56-65), and a high frequency power source 40 configured to apply for applying a high frequency power to the top electrode member (col. 7, lines 27-33), and wherein the top electrode member comprises, a first plate 21; and a plurality of electrode patterns 20 on an upper surface the first plate 21, the electrode pattern facing away from the treating space and at least partly defining an uppermost surface of the top electrode member, (Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 27-33).
Yashima is silent on a support unit comprising an electrostatic chuck and equivalents thereof (i.e. mechanical clamping, vacuum clamping).
Referring to Figure 1 and page 3, lines 26-29, Kim et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a support unit comprising an electrostatic chuck used to electrostatically hold the substrate. 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 support unit of Yashima to comprise an electrostatic chuck as taught by Kim et al. in order to electrostatically hold the substrate. The resulting apparatus of Yashima in view of Hashiguchi et al. would yield a support unit comprising an electrostatic chuck.
Yashima is silent on the plurality of electrode patterns are interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other.
Referring to Figure 2, abstract, and page 5, lines 1-15, Kim et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus having a plurality of electrode patterns interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other as an alternate and suitable arrangement to generate plasma. 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 Yashima with the plurality of electrode patterns interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other Kim et al. in order to generate plasma with increased electron density and uniformity.
Yashima is silent on a protective layer of an etching-resistant material on a surface of the first plate, the protective layer facing the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member.
Referring to paragraph [0084], Lee et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a protective layer of an etching-resistant material is provided on a lower surface of a plate, the protective layer faces the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member for purposes of etch resistance. 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 Yashima with a protective layer of an etching-resistant material is provided on a lower surface of a plate, the protective layer faces the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member as taught by Lee et al. for purposes of etch resistance.
Yashima in view of Kim et al. is silent on the high frequency power source includes a plurality of high frequency power sources configured to apply for applying the high frequency power to at least one electrode pattern of the plurality of electrode patterns.
Referring to Figure 4 and paragraphs [0042]-[0053], Manabe teaches a substrate treating apparatus wherein the high frequency power source includes a plurality of high frequency power sources 8, 9 configured to apply for applying the high frequency power to at least one of the electrode pattern of the plurality of electrode patterns in order to generate plasma with increased electron density and uniformity (pars.[0043],[0050]). 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 Yashima in view of Kim et al. with the high frequency power source includes a plurality of high frequency power sources configured to apply for applying the high frequency power to at least one electrode pattern of the plurality of electrode patterns as taught by Manabe in order to generate plasma with increased electron density and uniformity.
The resulting apparatus of Yashima in view of Kim et al., Lee et al., and Manabe would yield a top electrode member comprises an electrode pattern on an upper surface of the first plate, the electrode pattern facing away from the treating space and at least partly defining an uppermost surface of the top electrode member, the electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other; a protective layer including an etching-resistant material on a lower surface of the first plate, the protective layer facing the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member, and wherein the high frequency power source includes a plurality of high frequency power sources configured to apply for applying the high frequency power to at least one electrode pattern of the plurality of electrode patterns.
With respect to claim 17, the substrate treating apparatus of Yashima in view of Manabe and Kim et al. further includes wherein the plurality of high frequency power sources 8, 9 are configured to supply a different frequency of high frequency power (Manabe-pars. [0043]-[0044]).
With respect to claim 18, the substrate treating apparatus of Yashima further includes wherein one or more electrode patterns of the plurality of electrode patterns 20 is made of and/or comprises a transparent electrode (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 8).
With respect to claim 19, the substrate treating apparatus of Yashima further includes wherein the transparent electrode 20 is formed of any one of an ITO, an MnSnO, a CNT, a ZnO, an IZO, an ATO, an SnO2, IrO2, RuO2, a graphene, a carbon nanotube (CNT), an AZO, an FTO, a GZO, an In2O3, an MgO, a conductive polymer, a metal nanowire, mixtures thereof, or multiple layers thereof (col. 8, line 23-col. 9, line 8).
With respect to claim 20, referring to Figure 1 and column 6, line 52-column 9, line 40, Yashima discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a chamber 10 having a treating space therein (col. 6, lines 52-55); a substrate support 30 within the treating space and configured to support a substrate (col. 7, lines 34-41); and a plasma generation unit 20, 30, 40 configured to generate a plasma from a process gas supplied to the treating space (col. 6, lines 56-65, col. 7, lines 27-33), wherein the plasma generation unit comprises, a bottom electrode member 30 (col. 7, lines 34-41); a top electrode member 20 opposite the bottom electrode member (col. 6, lines 56-65), and a high frequency power source 40 configured to apply for applying a high frequency power to the top electrode member (col. 7, lines 27-33); and a heating unit 60 above the top electrode member and configured to irradiate an energy to heat the substrate, the energy being transmitted through the top electrode member (Fig. 1, col. 7, line 60-col. 8, line 6), and wherein the top electrode member comprises, a first plate 21; and an electrode pattern 20 on an upper surface the first plate 21, the electrode pattern facing away from the treating space and at least partly defining an uppermost surface of the top electrode member, (Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 27-33).
Yashima is silent on a support unit comprising an electrostatic chuck and equivalents thereof (i.e. mechanical clamping, vacuum clamping).
Referring to Figure 1 and page 3, lines 26-29, Kim et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a support unit comprising an electrostatic chuck used to electrostatically hold the substrate. 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 support unit of Yashima to comprise an electrostatic chuck as taught by Kim et al. in order to electrostatically hold the substrate. The resulting apparatus of Yashima in view of Kim et al. would yield a support unit comprising an electrostatic chuck.
Yashima is silent on the electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other.
Referring to Figure 2, abstract, and page 5, lines 1-15, Kim et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus having an electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other as an alternate and suitable arrangement to generate plasma. 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 Yashima with the electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other Kim et al. in order to generate plasma with increased electron density and uniformity.
Yashima is silent on a protective layer of an etching-resistant material on a surface of the first plate, the protective layer facing the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member.
Referring to paragraph [0084], Lee et al. teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein a protective layer of an etching-resistant material is provided on a lower surface of a plate, the protective layer faces the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member for purposes of etch resistance. 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 Yashima with a protective layer of an etching-resistant material is provided on a lower surface of a plate, the protective layer faces the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member as taught by Lee et al. for purposes of etch resistance.
Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. is silent on wherein the high frequency power source includes a first high frequency power source and a second high frequency power source and wherein the high frequency power source comprises a first high frequency power source and a second high frequency power source which are configured to supply a different frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern.
Referring to Figure 4 and paragraphs [0043]-[0044], Manabe teaches a substrate treating apparatus wherein the high frequency power source comprises a first high frequency power source 8 and a second high frequency power source 9 which are configured to supply a different frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern since it is a conventional frequency range used to generate plasma. 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 high frequency power source of Yashima in view of Kim et al. and Lee et al. with the high frequency power source comprises a first high frequency power source and a second high frequency power source which are configured to supply a different frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern as taught by Manabe. since it is a conventional frequency range used to generate plasma.
The resulting apparatus of Yashima in view of Kim et al., Lee et al., and Manabe would yield a top electrode member comprises an electrode pattern on an upper surface of the first plate, the electrode pattern facing away from the treating space and at least partly defining an uppermost surface of the top electrode member, the electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other and electrically insulated from each other; a protective layer including an etching-resistant material on a lower surface of the first plate, the protective layer facing the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member, and wherein the high frequency power source includes a first high frequency power source and a second high frequency power source and wherein the high frequency power source comprises a first high frequency power source and a second high frequency power source which are configured to supply a different frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima (U.S. 5,685,949) in view of Kim et al. (K.R.1020210017300A), Lee et al. (WO 2020/219408A1), and (Manabe (J.P.09-312271A) as applied to claims 15 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Collins et al. (U.S. 2018/0308667).
The teachings of Yashima in view of Kim et al., Lee et al., and Manabe have been discussed above.
Yashima in view of Kim et al., Lee et al., and Manabe fails to teach wherein the high frequency power source is configured to supply a same frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern with a predetermined time interval.
Referring to Figure 5B and paragraph [0100], Collins et teach a substrate treating apparatus wherein the high frequency power source is configured to supply a same frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern with a predetermined time interval as a conventional frequency range used to generate plasma. 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 high frequency power source of Yashima in view of Kim et al., Lee et al., and Manabe with wherein the high frequency power source is configured to supply a same frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern with a predetermined time interval as taught by Collins et al. since it is a conventional frequency range used to generate plasma.
Thus, the resulting apparatus of Yashima in view of Kim et al., Lee et al., Manabe, and Collins et al. would yield wherein the high frequency power source is configured to supply a same frequency of high frequency power to the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern with a predetermined time interval.
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, 4-5, 9, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 18-19 of copending Application No. 17/895540 in view of Manabe (J.P.09-312271A).
Referring to claims 1 and 4-14, copending Application No. 17/895540 discloses a substrate treating apparatus comprising: a chamber having a treating space therein; a support unit within the treating space and configured to support a substrate; and a plasma generation unit configured to generate a plasma from a process gas supplied to the treating space, wherein the plasma generation unit comprises, a bottom electrode member; a top electrode member opposite the bottom electrode member, and a high frequency power source configured to apply for applying a high frequency power to the top electrode member, and wherein the top electrode member comprises: a first plate; an electrode pattern on an upper surface of the first plate, the electrode pattern facing away from the treating space and at least partly defining an uppermost surface of the top electrode member, the electrode pattern including a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other; and a protective layer including an etching-resistant material on a lower surface of the first plate, the protective layer facing the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member.
copending Application No. 17/895540 is silent on an electrically insulated first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern.
Referring to Figure 4 and paragraphs [0042]-[0053], Manabe teaches a substrate treating apparatus wherein a top electrode member comprises an electrode pattern on the first plate, the electrode pattern facing away from the treating space and including electrically insulated a first electrode pattern 6 and a second electrode pattern 6 in order to generate plasma with increased electron density and uniformity (pars.[0043],[0050]). 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 top electrode member of copending Application No. 17/895540 to include an electrode pattern on the first plate and including electrically insulated a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern as taught by Manabe in order to generate plasma with increased electron density and uniformity. The resulting apparatus of copending Application No. 17/895540 in view of Manabe would yield a top electrode member including an electrode pattern on the first plate and including electrically insulated a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern.
With respect to claim 4, the substrate treating apparatus of copending Application No. 17/895540 further includes wherein the electrode pattern is made of and/or comprises a transparent electrode (claim 2).
With respect to claim 5, the substrate treating apparatus of copending Application No. 17/895540 further includes wherein the transparent electrode is formed of an ITO, an MnSnO, a CNT, a ZnO, an IZO, an ATO, an SnO2, IrO2, RuO2, a graphene, a carbon nanotube (CNT), an AZO, an FTO, a GZO, an In2O3, an MgO, a conductive polymer, a metal nanowire, mixtures thereof, or multiple layers thereof (claim 3).
With respect to claim 9, the substrate treating apparatus of copending Application No. 17/895540 further includes wherein the first plate is made of and/or comprises a transparent material (claim 15).
With respect to claim 13, the substrate treating apparatus of copending Application No. 17/895540 further comprising a heating unit 18 positioned above the top electrode member and configured to irradiate irradiating an energy through the top electrode member to the substrate to heat the substrate (claims 19-20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new references Yashida’949 and Lee et al.’408 teach an electrode pattern on an upper surface of the first plate, the electrode pattern facing away from the treating space and at least partly defining an uppermost surface of the top electrode member; and a protective layer including an etching-resistant material on a lower surface of the first plate, the protective layer facing the treating space and being a bottommost surface of the top electrode member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Imaeda et al.’942 teach a plasma apparatus that uses an upper electrode support with transparent electrode and a heater over the upper electrode support. Ohkuni’208 teach an electrode arranged above the electrode plate. Kobayashi et al.’300 and Tanaka et al.’749 teach a first electrode pattern and a second electrode pattern interleaved with each other.
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