DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 04/23/2026.
4. Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-21 are currently pending.
5. Claims 11-12 have been withdrawn.
6. Claims 15, 18, and 21 have been amended.
7. Claims 9 and 13 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-8, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al (US 2004/0194709) in view of Sorensen et al (US 2010/0206483) and Wei (US 8,547,021).
Regarding claim 1:
Yamagishi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (apparatus depicted in figure 5) [fig 5 & 0060], comprising: a reaction chamber (reaction chamber, 2) [fig 5 & 0060]; a susceptor (susceptor, 3) positioned within the reaction chamber (2) to be constructed and arranged to support a substrate (9) [fig 5 & 0060]; a shower plate (bottom plate of 4) to be constructed and arranged to face the susceptor (3), wherein the shower plate (4) has a larger diameter than the susceptor (3) in a horizontal plane (see fig 5), wherein the susceptor (3) and the shower plate (bottom plate of 4) form a parallel plate structure (see fig 5) [fig 5 & 0060]; and an RF generator (radio-frequency power source, 8) electrically coupled to the shower plate (bottom plate of 4) via an RF transmission unit (22) and configured to apply RF power to the shower plate (bottom plate of 4), with the susceptor (3) electrically grounded (see fig 2) [fig 2, 5 & 0045]; wherein the RF transmission unit (22) is provided with a plurality of supply terminals (74-77) connected in parallel (see fig 2) such that each of the plurality of supply terminals (74-77) connects the RF generator (8) to a relay ring (flange of 4), wherein the plurality of supply terminals (74-77) and the relay ring (flange of 4) are disposed radially outward to the susceptor (3) in the horizontal plane (see fig 5), and wherein the relay ring (flange of 4) transmits the RF power to the shower plate (bottom plate of 4) [fig 2, 4-5 & 0045, 0060].
Yamagishi does not specifically teach the RF transmission unit provided with a plurality of supply terminals being an RF plate provided with a plurality of impedance adjusters.
Sorensen teaches an RF plate (43) is provided with a plurality of impedance adjusters (71/72) [fig 6-7 & 0029, 0032, 0036, 0063].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the RF transmission unit and plurality of supply terminals of Yamigishi with an RF ring and plurality of impedance adjusters, as in Sorensen, to reduce the inductance of the electrical connection between the RF input and the plasma chamber electrode [Sorensen – 0011] while providing an equal supply of RF power or producing a desired ratio of RF power supplied to the connection points [Sorensen – 0063]. Reduced inductance advantageously reduces the peak voltages within the RF circuitry. This helps reduce the risk of atmospheric arcing (i.e., electrical discharge) in the portions of the RF circuitry that are exposed to atmosphere, and it helps reduce the risk of failure of the capacitors within the RF circuitry [Sorensen – 0011].
Yamagishi modified by Sorensen does not specifically teach each of the plurality of impedance adjusters comprises an inductor, and wherein the plurality of impedance adjusters are resonance circuits.
Wei teaches each of the plurality of impedance adjusters (L1/L2) comprises an inductor (inductor) [fig 4-5 & col 6-7, lines 60-27], and wherein the plurality of impedance adjusters are resonance circuits (the distribution units could include both a capacitor and an inductor) [col 7, lines 18-22].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify each of the plurality of impedance adjusters of modified Yamagishi to comprise resonance circuits, as in Wei, because such a configuration allows the density and the intensity of plasma generated to be adjusted to increase the uniformity of plasma obtained [Wei - col 6-7, lines 60-27].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Yamigishi teaches the RF plate (43) is a ring-shaped structure (single continuous conductor) [Sorensen - fig 6 & 0061].
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Yamagishi teaches the plurality of impedance adjusters (71/72 of Sorensen are provided on supply terminals 45/46) are provided every 90 degrees on the RF plate (74-77 are combined in rotationally symmetrical positions) [Sorensen - fig 7 & 0063 and Yamagishi - fig 4 & 0033, 0060].
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Yamagishi teaches at least one of the plurality of impedance adjusters (71/72) comprises a capacitor (first and second capacitors) comprising an adjustable capacitance (the capacitors can be adjustable) [Sorensen - fig 2, 6-7 & 0036, 0063, 0080].
Regarding claim 5:
Yamagishi teaches the shower plate (bottom plate of 4) comprises a plurality of portions (see fig 5) [fig 5].
Although taught by the prior art, the claim limitations “wherein the plurality of impedance adjusters are configured such that each impedance adjuster is configured to adjust an electric field around a corresponding portion of the plurality of portions” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Yamagishi teaches each of the impedance adjusters (71/72) comprises a capacitor comprising an adjustable capacitance (the capacitors can be adjustable) [Sorensen - fig 2, 6-7 & 0036, 0063, 0080].
Regarding claim 7:
Yamagishi teaches the shower plate (4) is provided with a plurality of holes (80) for supplying gas to the substrate [fig 5 & 0060].
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Yamagishi teaches a matching box (10 of Yamagishi / 34 of Sorensen) disposed between the RF generator (8 of Yamagishi / 32 of Sorensen) and the RF plate (22 of Yamagishi / 43 of Sorensen) [Yamagishi – fig 2 & 0045 and Sorensen - fig 2 & 0033].
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Yamagishi teaches the plurality of impedance adjusters (71/72 of Sorensen are provided on supply terminals 45/46) are provided every 60 degrees on the RF plate (six transmission systems may be uniformly branched out) [Sorensen - fig 7 & 0063 and Yamagishi - fig 4 & 0033].
Regarding claims 15-16:
The claim limitations “wherein the RF generator is configured to supply a high frequency power with a frequency of 13.56 MHz” and “the apparatus is configured to adjust an electrical field around the shower plate by adjusting an impedance of an impedance adjuster” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Yamagishi teaches each impedance adjustor (L1/L2) comprises an adjustable inductor (L1 and L2 are adjustable inductors), wherein an impedance of each impedance adjuster is independently adjustable (L1 and L2 are adjustable inductors) [Wei - fig 4-5 & col 6-7, lines 60-27].
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Yamagishi teaches each impedance adjustor (respective distributing units) comprises an adjustable capacitor (C1 and C2 are adjustable capacitors) and an adjustable inductor (L1 and L2 are adjustable inductors), wherein an impedance of each impedance adjuster is independently adjustable (C1/L1 and C2/L2 are adjustable) [Wei - fig 4-5 & col 6-7, lines 60-27].
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Yamagishi teaches each impedance adjustor comprises an inductor and a capacitor in series (distribution units could include both a capacitor and an inductor) [Wei - fig 4-5 & col 6-7, lines 60-27].
10. Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al (US 2017/0029947) in view of Yamagishi et al (US 2004/0194709), Sorensen et al (US 2010/0206483), and Wei (US 8,547,021).
Regarding claim 10:
Kawahara teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: one or more reaction chamber modules process module, 300), each reaction chamber module (300) comprising two or more reaction stations (310/311) [fig 16 & 0112]; a susceptor (320/321) positioned within each reaction station (310/311) to be constructed and arranged to support a substrate (substrate) [fig 16 & 0112]; a shower plate (330/331) positioned within each station (310/311) to be constructed and arranged to face each susceptor (320/321), respectively, wherein the shower plate (330/331) has a larger diameter than the susceptor (320/321) in a horizontal plane (see fig 16) [fig 16 & 0112]; wherein the susceptor (320/321) and the shower plate (330/331) form a parallel plate structure (see fig 16) [fig 16 & 0112].
Kawahara does not specifically teach an RF generator electrically coupled in RF power providing communication to each shower plate via an RF transmission unit, with the susceptor electrically grounded; wherein the RF transmission unit is provided with a plurality of supply terminals connected in parallel such that each of the plurality of supply terminals connects the RF generator to a relay ring, wherein the relay ring is disposed radially outward to the susceptor in the horizontal plane, and wherein the relay ring transmits the RF power to the shower plate.
Yamagishi teaches an RF generator (radio-frequency power source, 8) electrically coupled in RF power providing communication to each shower plate (bottom plate of 4) via an RF transmission unit (22), with the susceptor (3) electrically grounded (see fig 2) [fig 2, 5 & 0045]; wherein the RF transmission unit (22) is provided with a plurality of supply terminals (74-77) connected in parallel such that each of the plurality of supply terminals (74-77) connects the RF generator (8) to a relay ring (flange of 4), wherein the relay ring (flange of 4) is disposed radially outward to the susceptor (3) in the horizontal plane (see fig 5), and wherein the relay ring (flange of 4) transmits the RF power to the shower plate (bottom plate of 4) [fig 2, 4-5 & 0045, 0060].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify each shower plate of Kawahara to be supplied RF power with an RF generator electrically coupled to an RF transmission unit provided with a plurality of supply terminals, as in Yamagishi, to achieve a substantially equal impedance characteristic to decrease processing non-uniformity [Yamagishi – 0051, 0083].
Kawahara modified by Yamagishi does not specifically teach the RF transmission unit provided with a plurality of supply terminals being an RF plate provided with a plurality of impedance adjusters.
Sorensen teaches an RF plate (43) is provided with a plurality of impedance adjusters (71/72) [fig 6-7 & 0029, 0032, 0036, 0063].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the RF transmission unit and plurality of supply terminals of Yamigishi with an RF ring and plurality of impedance adjusters, as in Sorensen, to reduce the inductance of the electrical connection between the RF input and the plasma chamber electrode [Sorensen – 0011] while providing an equal supply of RF power or producing a desired ratio of RF power supplied to the connection points [Sorensen – 0063]. Reduced inductance advantageously reduces the peak voltages within the RF circuitry. This helps reduce the risk of atmospheric arcing (i.e., electrical discharge) in the portions of the RF circuitry that are exposed to atmosphere, and it helps reduce the risk of failure of the capacitors within the RF circuitry [Sorensen – 0011].
Kawahara modified by Yamagishi and Sorensen does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of impedance adjusters comprises an inductor, and wherein the plurality of impedance adjusters are resonance circuits.
Wei teaches each of the plurality of impedance adjusters (L1/L2) comprises an inductor (inductor) [fig 4-5 & col 6-7, lines 60-27], and wherein the plurality of impedance adjusters are resonance circuits (the distribution units could include both a capacitor and an inductor) [col 7, lines 18-22].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify each of the plurality of impedance adjusters of modified Kawahara to comprise resonance circuits, as in Wei, because such a configuration allows the density and the intensity of plasma generated to be adjusted to increase the uniformity of plasma obtained [Wei - col 6-7, lines 60-27].
Regarding claim 18:
The claim limitations “wherein the RF power has a RF frequency of 13.56 MHz” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
11. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al (US 2010/0206483) in view of Wei (US 8,547,021).
Regarding claim 21:
Sorensen teaches a substrate processing apparatus (apparatus depicted in figure 2) [fig 2, 6-7 & 0025-0026], comprising: a reaction chamber (plasma chamber) [fig 2, 6-7 & 0025-0026]; a susceptor (susceptor, 12) positioned within the reaction chamber (plasma chamber) to be constructed and arranged to support a substrate (workpiece 10) [fig 2, 6-7 & 0026]; a shower plate (showerhead, 22) to be constructed and arranged to face the susceptor (12) [fig 2, 6-7 & 0028]; and an RF generator (RF power supply, 32) electrically coupled to the shower plate (22) via an RF plate (RF bus conductor, 43) and configured to apply RF power to the shower plate (22), with the susceptor electrically grounded (see fig 2) [fig 2, 6-7 & 0032-0033, 0038]; wherein the RF plate (43) is provided with a plurality of impedance adjusters (71/72) connected in parallel (see fig 7) such that the plurality of impedance adjusters (71/72) electrically connects the RF generator (32) to a relay ring (manifold back wall, 20), and wherein the relay ring (20) transmits the RF power to the shower plate (22) [fig 2, 6-7 & 0029, 0032, 0036, 0063].
Sorensen does not specifically teach each of the plurality of impedance adjusters (L1/L2) consists of an adjustable inductor (L1 and L2 are adjustable inductors) [fig 5 & col 6-7, lines 60-10].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify each of the plurality of impedance adjusters of Sorensen to consist of an adjustable inductor, as in Wei, because such a configuration allows the density and the intensity of plasma generated to be adjusted to increase the uniformity of plasma obtained [Wei - col 6-7, lines 60-27].
The claim limitations “wherein the RF power has a RF frequency of 13.56 MHz” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that applying RF power at a RF frequency of 13.56 MHz is common knowledge in the art. Specifically, 13.56 MHz is the industry standard frequency used for generating plasma [MPEP 2144.03].
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8, 10, and 14-21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that page 13 of the previous Office Action writes that applicant’s assertion that Wei does not teach resonance circuits connected to a parallel plate structure is a blatant mischaracterization of Wei (page 7 of the instant Remarks).
As an initial matter, consistent with the Mirriam-Webster definition, “blatant” was meant to mean completely obvious. The previous Office Action was in no way meant to imply open misbehaviour on the part of the Applicant.
Secondly, it is noted that applicant is once again engaging in completely obvious mischaracterization. The previous Office Action characterized applicant’s assertion that “Wei teaches away from the use of a parallel plate structure and teaches away from the parallel plate structure of claim 1” as a blatant mischaracterization of Wei. Nowhere did the previous Office Action characterize the assertion that “Wei does not teach resonance circuits connected to a parallel plate structure” as a blatant mischaracterization.
Applicant argues “a person with ordinary skill in the art would not simply take the resonance circuits of Wei and put them into a chamber with a parallel plate structure”.
In response, it is noted that figure 2 of Wei is absolutely a parallel plate structure. Wei teaches 3 being the first electrode plate and 4 being the second electrode plate [fig 2 & col 4, lines 57-64].
To the extent that applicant may be attempting to argue “a person with ordinary skill in the art would not simply take the resonance circuits of Wei and feed insulated sub-electrodes of an upper electrode rather than a single upper electrode”, it is noted that this is an assertion without evidence. The fact that the inductors feed insulated sub-electrodes in Wei rather than a single electrode is irrelevant to the power distribution structure itself. Specifically, Sorensen et al (US 2010/0206483) teaches that either a single electrode or an electrode divided into segments may be used [0078]. As further evidentiary support, applicant may refer to fig 4A-4B vs fig 4C-4D of Mitrovic et al (US 7,164,236). Therefore, applicant's assertion is incorrect. Applicant's assertions are mere attorney arguments that lack any evidentiary support. Obviousness does NOT require absolute predictability, only a reasonable expectation of success. See, e.g., In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, the obviousness rejection is maintained because it is supported by the evidence, and applicant presents NO evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues that Sorensen and Wei do not teach an RF frequency of the RF power.
In response, it is noted that this is an apparatus claim and must be differentiated from the prior art in terms of structure. The claim limitations “wherein the RF power has a RF frequency of 13.56 MHz” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that applying RF power at a RF frequency of 13.56 MHz is common knowledge in the art. Specifically, 13.56 MHz is the industry standard frequency used for generating plasma [MPEP 2144.03].
Conclusion
16. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights