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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 February 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1-a, j, and m in the reply filed on 28 March 2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 6-12 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2 May 2025 fails to fully 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 lined through information referred to therein has not been considered.
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: claims 1 and 20 support unit, which has been interpreted as an electrostatic chuck and equivalents thereof, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 49; claim 19 heating unit and claim 20 heating source which have been interpreted as a lamp, a microwave unit, a laser or the like and equivalents thereof, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 62.
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 limitation(s) plasma generation unit in claims 1 and 20 are not interpreted under the statute because the claims also recite sufficient structure (i.e. electrodes), materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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.
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) 1-5, 13-15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,685,949 to Yashima et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0276928 to Okumura et al.
Regarding claim 1: Yashima discloses a substrate treating apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a chamber (Fig. 1, 22) having a treating space thereon; a plasma generation unit capable of generating a plasma from a process gas supplied to the treating space, and wherein the plasma generation unit comprises: a bottom electrode member (30); and a top electrode member (multiple structures) opposite the bottom electrode member, and wherein the top electrode member comprises a first plate (21) including a first side facing the bottom electrode, the first plate comprising a transparent, dielectric material/substance, such as quartz (SiO2) (see, e.g., column 9, rows 37-40); and an electrode layer (20) on as second side of the first plate, the second side opposite the first side and above and directly contacting the first plate, and wherein the electrode layer is arranged on the first plate in a pattern that is symmetrical in at least one direction (e.g., as viewed in cross-sectionally in Fig. 1).
However, Yashima et al. fail to disclose the apparatus also comprising a support unit/electrostatic chuck within the treating space and configured to support a substrate.
Okumura et al. disclose a support unit/electrostatic chuck (Figure 1, 40) within a treating space for the purpose of holding a substrate by an electrostatic attraction force (see, e.g., para. 93).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a support unit/electrostatic chuck within the treating space of Yashima et al. in order to hold a substrate by an electrostatic attraction force as taught by Okumura et al.
Yashima et al. also fail to disclose the electrode layer includes a plurality of electrode segments arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the first plate.
Okumura et al. disclose a top electrode member having an electrode layer that includes a plurality of electrode segments arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a direction parallel to an upper surface of comprises a plurality of ring-shaped concentric electrode segments, wherein the plurality of electrode segments are arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a direction parallel to top and bottom surfaces of features of the top electrode member.
Okumura et al. further teach the electrode comprises the plurality of electrode segments for the purpose of controlling a RF power application characteristic relative to a plasma as required. Additionally, Okumura et al. teach suitably selecting properties of the ring-shaped concentric electrodes (e.g., shape, size, density, and so forth) affects the RF power application characteristics (see, e.g., abstract, paras. 13-14, 17-18, 100, 105-106, 125-127, 130-131). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the electrode layer of Yashima et al. as a plurality electrode segments in order to control a RF power application characteristic relative to a plasma as required as taught by Okumura et al. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have selected properties of the electrode segments (e.g., shape, size, density, and so forth) in order to affect the RF power application characteristics as also taught by Okumura et al.
With respect to claims 2-3, in modified Yashima et al., Yashima et al. further teach the electrode layer comprises a transparent material such as ITO (i.e. indium tin oxide) (see, e.g., column 3, rows 12-20).
With respect to claim 4, in modified Yashima et al., Okumura et al. further disclose the plurality of electrode segments of the electrode layer comprise a plurality of ring-shaped concentric electrode segments. See aforementioned figures.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Yashima et al., Okumura et al. do not explicitly disclose the plurality of ring-shaped concentric electrode segments have a same spacing and different widths. However, Okumura et al. do teach suitably selecting properties of the ring-shaped concentric electrodes (e.g., shape, size, density, and so forth) affects the RF power application characteristics (see, e.g., abstract, paras. 13-14, 17-18, 100, 105-106, 125-127, 130-131). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have selected properties of the electrode segments (e.g., shape, size, density, and so forth to provide desired width and spacings) in order to affect the RF power application characteristics as also taught by Okumura et al.
With respect to claims 13-14, in modified Yashima et al., in order to provide plasma within the treating space, Okumura et al. teach the bottom electrode member, the top electrode member or both the top electrode member and the bottom electrode member are connected to a power source (32); and one of the bottom electrode member and the top electrode member is applied with a power source (32) and the other is grounded. See, e.g., paras. 92 and 101.
With respect to claims 15 and 17, in modified Yashima, Yashima further teaches the first plate comprises a transparent, material such as quartz (SiO2) (see, e.g., column 9, rows 37-40).
With respect to claim 19, in modified Yashima et al., Yashima et al. further teach the apparatus may further comprise a heating unit/lamp (60) above the top electrode member and configured to/capable of irradiating an energy through the top electrode member to the substate to heat the substrate.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Yashima as applied to claims 1-3, 13-15, 17 and 19 and further in view of WO Publication No. 2020/219408 to Lee et al.
Modified Yashima discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as set forth above.
However, modified Yashima fails to teach a protective layer of an etching-resistant material is further provided at a surface of the first plate facing the treating space.
Lee et al. teach providing a protective layer to an exposed surface for the purpose of providing etch resistance (see, e.g., para. 84).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a protective layer at a surface of the first plate facing the treating space in modified Yashima in order to provide etch resistance as taught by Lee et al.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,685,949 to Yashima in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0276928 to Okumura et al. and WO Publication No. 2020/219408 to Lee et al.
Regarding claim 20: Yashima discloses a substrate treating apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a chamber (Fig. 1, 22) having a treating space thereon; a plasma generation unit configured to/capable of generating a plasma from a process gas supplied to the treating space and including a bottom electrode member (30); and a top electrode member (multiple structures) opposite the bottom electrode member; a power source (40) configured to apply a power to the bottom electrode member, the top electrode member or both the top electrode member and the bottom electrode member; and a heating source (60) above the top electrode member, and the heating source configured to irradiate an energy through the top electrode member to the substrate for heating the substrate, wherein the top electrode member comprises a first plate (21) including a first side facing the bottom electrode, the first plate comprising a quartz material (see, e.g., column 9, rows 37-40), an electrode layer (20) included on a second side of the first plate, the second side opposite the first side, the electrode layer above and directly contacting the first plate, the electrode layer including a transparent material (see, e.g., column 3, rows 12-20), and wherein the electrode layer is arranged on the first plate in a pattern that is symmetrical in at least one direction (e.g., as viewed in cross-sectionally in Fig. 1).
However, Yashima et al. fail to disclose the apparatus also comprising a support unit/electrostatic chuck within the treating space and configured to support a substrate.
Okumura et al. disclose a support unit/electrostatic chuck (Figure 1, 40) within a treating space for the purpose of holding a substrate by an electrostatic attraction force (see, e.g., para. 93).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a support unit/electrostatic chuck within the treating space of Yashima et al. in order to hold a substrate by an electrostatic attraction force as taught by Okumura et al.
Yashima et al. also fail to disclose the electrode layer includes a plurality of electrode segments arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the first plate.
Okumura et al. disclose a top electrode member having an electrode layer that includes a plurality of electrode segments arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a direction parallel to an upper surface of comprises a plurality of ring-shaped concentric electrode segments, wherein the plurality of electrode segments are arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a direction parallel to top and bottom surfaces of features of the top electrode member.
Okumura et al. further teach the electrode comprises the plurality of electrode segments for the purpose of controlling a RF power application characteristic relative to a plasma as required. Additionally, Okumura et al. teach suitably selecting properties of the ring-shaped concentric electrodes (e.g., shape, size, density, and so forth) affects the RF power application characteristics (see, e.g., abstract, paras. 13-14, 17-18, 100, 105-106, 125-127, 130-131). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the electrode layer of Yashima et al. as a plurality electrode of segments in order to control a RF power application characteristic relative to a plasma as required as taught by Okumura et al. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have selected properties of the electrode segments (e.g., shape, size, density, and so forth) in order to affect the RF power application characteristics as also taught by Okumura et al.
Lee et al. teach providing a protective layer to an exposed surface for the purpose of providing etch resistance (see, e.g., para. 84).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a protective layer at a surface of the first plate facing the treating space in modified Yashima in order to provide etch resistance as taught by Lee et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 13-15 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, except for those addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments appear to be based on the overall arrangement of Okumura alone. However, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Yashima and Okumura, wherein the courts have ruled in response to applicant's arguments against references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, in the combination applied in the above rejections, Yashima discloses the relative layout of the first plate and the electrode layer, and Okumura discloses a modified configuration of the electrode layer having a plurality of electrode segments. Furthermore, the protrusions 70 are arranged in a layer such that they are readable on an electrode layer as claimed. Furthermore, Okumura further teach that the protrusions function as electrodes as recited in Applicant’s claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 6042686; US Patent Pub. 20120206033; U.S. Patent Pub. 20180374685; and U.S. Patent Pub. 20220199379 disclose plasma processing apparatus with top electrodes of various shapes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights