DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Concerning the restriction requirement issued on November 28, 2025, Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on December 30, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Previously, in the request for reconsideration filed on August 15, 2025, Applicant argued that the cited prior art failed to disclose the claimed control step of supplying a heat transfer gas for a period at a pressure lower than that of plasma processing. Specifically, the Office relies upon Figures 8A-B of Endoh to address the aforementioned limitation, but these are timing diagrams which do not indicate the magnitude of the pressure applied by the heat transfer gas. That is, these diagrams refer to pressure states of “Step-2 F/R” and “Step-1 F/R,” for instance, but Endoh does not provide a quantitative description of these terms. Thus, it cannot be established which pressure condition is higher than the other (p. 9).
In response, the examiner disagrees with this characterization, as one of ordinary skill would understand that the seven pressure conditions within the category of “He PRESSURE,” as shown by Figures 8, are rendered in decreasing order of magnitude, from top to bottom. At least three of the conditions can be quantitatively hierarchized by virtue of their titles alone: F/R Leakage Checking Pressure, Off, and Evacuate. “Evacuate,” of course, yields a negative pressure and is, predictably, the lowermost condition. “Off” generates zero pressure and is therefore located above “Evacuate” and below the five conditions where flowing gas to the heat transfer gas introduction groove (44) yields positive pressures. Lastly, leakage assays are necessarily performed under the highest pressure conditions and, intuitively, “F/R Leakage Checking Pressure” occupies the topmost position.
But even more can be said: paragraph [0159] of Endoh refers to a state where “the APC is closed, raising the APC-controlled pressure to a processing pressure, which is a pressure inside the chamber 10 required for the dry etching.” This statement establishes that, within the related category of “APC-CONTROLLED PRESSURE,” that the “Processing Pressure” is the highest-pressure condition and “Open” is the lowest-pressure condition. Predictably, the former condition is topmost and the latter is bottommost, as shown by Figure 8A. Similarly, within the category of “N2 Purge,” the “On” condition, yielding higher pressures, is above the “Off” condition. Regardless of the category, it is clear that the conditions enumerated therein are listed in decreasing order of magnitude.
Ultimately, the preceding evidence, though dispositive, is not required to satisfy the contested limitation. Critically, claim 1 constrains the “period before applying plasma processing to the substrate” only by the condition of having “at least one of the substrate and the ring assembly mounted on the mounting stage.” Endoh’s ring, of course, is mounted to the stage for the entirety of the duration represented by Figures 8A-B, meaning that any or all of the “PCV Zero Point Adjusting Sequence,” the “Leakage Checking Sequence,” and the “Conveying-In Sequence” qualify as the claimed “period before applying plasma processing.” (The examiner understands Endoh’s “Processing Sequence” segment as the equivalent of the claimed “period of applying the plasma processing to the substrate.”) At points during the “PCV Zero Point Adjusting Sequence” and the “Leakage Checking Sequence,” the pressure generated by the heat transfer gas supply is either zero or negative. At points during the “Processing Sequence,” the pressure is above zero. In this way, irrespective of the quantitative ordering of “Step-1” or “Step-2,” Endoh clearly satisfies the terms of the final paragraph of claim 1. The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endoh et al., US 2004/0261946, in view of Ogasawara et al., US 5,997,962.
Claims 1-2, 7, 11, 13: Endoh discloses a plasma processing apparatus, comprising:
A chamber (10) in which plasma processing is performed (Fig. 1);
A mounting stage for mounting a substrate (W), and a ring assembly (30) on a periphery of the substrate [0100];
An electrostatic chuck, i.e., the “fixation portion,” provided in the mounting stage [0099];
A heat transfer gas supply (35) for supplying a gas between the mounting stage and both the substrate and ring assembly [0137];
A heat transfer gas exhauster (18) for exhausting the gas between the mounting stage and substrate [0155];
A controller (43) controlling the heat transfer gas supply so that the pressure of the heat transfer gas during a period prior to plasma processing is less than a pressure during plasma processing ([0159]; Figs. 8A-B).
Endoh, however, avails a DC power supply rather than the claimed RF power supply. In supplementation, Ogasawara discloses an analogous plasma processing apparatus which employs RF power supplies (63, 66) to induce plasma generation (6, 25-53; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to either supplement or substitute Endoh’s DC power supply with an RF power supply given the art-recognized equivalency of these two means for the purpose of plasma generation, as the selection of either alternative is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claims 3, 9: As shown by Figure 8B, Endoh performs an exhaust and supply sequence in between two processing sequences.
Claim 4: As shown by Figure 8B, Endoh provides a low-voltage signal prior to processing before increasing said signal during plasma processing.
Claim 5: Given that Endoh begins with an evacuation sequence, the pressure will necessarily be lower than 15 Torr (Fig. 8A).
Claims 6, 10: As shown by Figures 8A-B, Endoh performs multiple exhaust and supply sequences.
Claim 8: Endoh provides helium [0134].
Claim 12: Figures 8A-B of Endoh depict each of introducing a processing gas, supplying a ramped power signal, electrostatically adsorbing the substrate, supplying and exhausting the heat transfer gas, and supplying the processing gas and electrical power during plasma generation.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Hirayama et al., US 2017/0076956. Hirayama discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising a chamber (1), a mounting stage (4), a fixation portion (6), a heat transfer gas supply (30), a heat transfer gas exhauster (73), and a power supply (52) for generating plasma ([0050-56]; Fig. 1).
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights