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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/24/26 has been entered.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 16, 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20170069466) in view of Tsuji (US 20160237559).
Regarding claim 16. Tran teaches in fig. 1-3 a plasma processing apparatus (plasma process chamber 100 [19-24]) that introduces electromagnetic waves having a frequency of the very high frequency (VHF) band or higher (supplies 40, 60 MHz to modulate the plasma density/energy [42], which is consistent w/ the VHF band 30-300MHz, applicant pgpub [39]) into a processing container (supplied into chamber module 110 to generate plasma in the process space 112 via RF source 124 [24 40 42 60]) and processes a substrate by using plasma generated from a gas ([42 43]), the plasma processing apparatus comprising: a stage (substrate supp assembly 118 [37] forming a stage fig. 1) which is provided inside the processing container (inside 110 fig. 1) and on which the substrate is placed (fig. 1, 118 has wafer 116 on top); an electromagnetic wave introducer (RF electrode/plate stack 101 [40] which emits the CCP EM field/waves into the process chamber from 124, fig. 1, 2) formed to face an inner wall of the processing container (101 faces down towards the inner/inward facing grounded lift plate 390, fig. 2, which is an inner wall of the chamber container 110 portion/section of the apparatus, based on fig. 1, the area of 112 located in the parenthesis/section of 110, since 390 bounds the sides of 112 and is the equivalent of 140 since it seals the sides of 112, fig. 2, similar to 140 in fig. 1; 390 only lifts during assembly or maintenance of the reactor/chamber and not during processing [59] suggesting it is a detachable chamber wall that can allow access to inside the chamber for cleaning, etc) and configured to introduce the electromagnetic waves into the processing container (as discussed);
and a dielectric member (ceramic pump liner 370 [60] made of dielectric such as alumina, SiN [58]) provided on the inner wall (fig. 3, 370 on 390) through which the electromagnetic waves propagate (this does not structurally further limit the apparatus, MPEP 2114 and relates to an intended operation. The EM waves are capable of passing dielectrics since they are VHF, commensurate w/applicant pgpub [39]), wherein a first portion of the dielectric member protrudes from the inner wall toward the stage (an outer part of 370 w/downward flange protruding towards 118 fig. 3), and wherein a second portion of the dielectric member is inserted into a recess or step portion of the inner wall (the inner flange part of 370 inserted into the recessed step alcove of 390 fig. 3).
Regarding wherein the inner wall includes the recess or step portion, wherein the recess or the step portion is recessed in a direction opposite to the stage (as discussed, 390 includes said recessed alcove into which said flange/horizontal part of 370 is inserted, the alcove is recessed outwards/towards right, fig. 3, which is away from/opposite direction of stage 118, also see response below for more details/annotations), wherein the dielectric member is inclined with respect to the inner wall within a range of 90+/-30 degrees (370 is oriented 90 deg/normal w/ respect to the upper part of the step part of 390, fig. 3 commensurate w/ applicant fig. 2b) and protrudes toward the stage (as disc above), but does not teach wherein a plurality of exhaust holes penetrating the dielectric member in a thickness direction is formed in the first portion of the dielectric member. However, Tsuji teaches in fig. 7 a plurality of exhaust holes formed by 50a/b [44-46] penetrating the dielectric member/ceramic duct 30 in a thickness direction (fig. 7 in the x-direction) is formed in the first portion of the dielectric member (formed in the outward part of 30). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Tran to improve gas flow rate [49].
Regarding claim 31. Tran in view of Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, but does no teach wherein the dielectric member has a thickness of 1/2 or more of an effective wavelength A¾ of the electromagnetic waves in the dielectric member. However, Tran teaches in [59] the thickness of another similar dielectric/ceramic spacer 350 affects the amount of continuous contact and grounding and is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to optimize the thickness of the dielectric member to control the amount of continuous contact and grounding.
Regarding claim 32. Tran in view of Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, but does not teach wherein the dielectric member has a thickness of 5 mm or more. However, Tran teaches in [59] the thickness of another similar dielectric/ceramic spacer 350 affects the amount of continuous contact and grounding and is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to optimize the thickness of the dielectric member to control the amount of continuous contact and grounding.
Regarding claim 33. Tran in view of Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, wherein the dielectric member has a bottom surface exposed to an internal space of the processing container (fig. 2, 3, the bottom of 370 is exposed/fluidly coupled to and located inside the process space 112 of the reactor chamber 110, fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 34. Tran in view of Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, but does not teach wherein a distance from a top surface of the second portion of the dielectric member and a surface of the inner wall facing the top surface is 0.5 mm or less. However, Tsuji teaches in fig. 2 a distance Z between from a top surface of the second portion 30b of the dielectric member 30 and a surface of the inner wall facing the top surface (bottom surface of an inner wall 30a in the chamber facing said top, fig. 2) affects the facility of gas conductance [28] and is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art the time of the invention to optimize the distance from a top surface of the second portion of the dielectric member and a surface of the inner wall facing the top surface to control gas conductance.
Claim(s) 18-22, 24-28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20170069466) in view of Tsuji (US 20160237559) and Shintaku (US 20150107773).
Regarding claim 18. Tran in view of Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, but does not teach wherein the dielectric member protrudes radially from the inner wall by 1/2 or more of an effective wavelength Ag of the electromagnetic waves in the dielectric member. However, Shintaku teaches in [7, abstract, 83-86] the length of the protruding dielectric member choke member CH in the radial direction, Fig. 6, affects the suppression of radiation leakage/malfunction of parts below it and thus is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the amount/length the dielectric member radially protrudes to control the amount of the suppression of radiation leakage/malfunction of parts below it. For optimization of dimensions, ranges, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19. Tran in view of Tsuji, Shintaku teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 18, but does not teach wherein the dielectric member has a thickness of 1/2 or more of the effective wavelength A of the electromagnetic waves in the dielectric member. However, Shintaku teaches in [86] the thickness of the dielectric member TP1, of which CH is a part, affects the length of CH to suppress radiation and thus is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the thickness of the dielectric member to control the amount of variation in its length and the amount of the suppression of radiation leakage/malfunction of parts below it. For optimization of dimensions, ranges, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20. Tran in view of Tsuji, Shintaku teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 19, wherein the dielectric member has a bottom surface exposed to an internal space of the processing container (see claim 33).
Regarding claim 21. Tran in view of Tsuji, Shintaku teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 20, but does not teach wherein a distance between the bottom surface of the dielectric member and a surface of the inner wall facing the bottom surface is 5 mm or more. However, Tsuji teaches in fig. 2 a distance Z between the bottom surface of the dielectric member (a bottom of ceramic duct 30) and a surface of the inner wall facing the bottom surface (upper surface of an inner wall 30b in the chamber facing said bottom, fig. 2) affects the facility of gas conductance [28] and is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art the time of the invention to optimize the distance between the bottom surface of the dielectric member and a surface of the inner wall facing the bottom surface to control gas conductance.
Regarding claim 22. Tran in view of Tsuji, Shintaku teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 21, but does not teach wherein a distance from a top surface of the second portion of the dielectric member and a surface of the inner wall facing the top surface is 0.5 mm or less. However, Tsuji teaches in fig. 2 a distance Z between from a top surface of the second portion 30b of the dielectric member 30 and a surface of the inner wall facing the top surface (bottom surface of an inner wall 30a in the chamber facing said top, fig. 2) affects the facility of gas conductance [28] and is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art the time of the invention to optimize the distance from a top surface of the second portion of the dielectric member and a surface of the inner wall facing the top surface to control gas conductance.
Regarding claim 24. Tran in view of Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, but does not teach wherein the plurality of exhaust holes is formed at locations distanced radially from the inner wall by 1/4 or more of the effective wavelength Ag of the electromagnetic waves in the dielectric member. However, Shintaku teaches in [7, abstract, 83-86] the length of the protruding dielectric member choke member CH in the radial direction, Fig. 6, equivalent to the protruding part of the dielectric member where the holes are located, from an inner wall TP1 affects the suppression of radiation leakage/malfunction of parts below it and thus is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the distance the plurality of holes protrudes from the inner wall to control the amount of the suppression of radiation leakage/malfunction of parts below it. For optimization of dimensions, ranges, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 25. Tran in view of Tsuji, Shintaku teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 24, but does not teach wherein the electromagnetic waves have a frequency of 100 MHz or higher. However, Shintaku teaches in [6, 39] using microwaves in the GHz level above 100Hz to excite ions to form plasma. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Tran in order to provide additional processing capabilities/options, [6] since mwaves provide more energy and thus would provide more energetic plasmas if required.
Regarding claim 26. Tran in view of Tsuji, Shintaku teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 25, wherein a space between the first portion of the dielectric member and the stage is a first exhaust path (fig. 2, 3 space between 118 and 370 flows down to exhaust pump at bottom of apparatus, fig. 1), and wherein the plasma processing apparatus is configured such that the gas is exhausted from an exhaust space, which is in communication with the first exhaust path and is located below the dielectric member (as discussed, exhaust spaces such as 114 or the space of pump 182 are below the area around the stage 118 where 370 is located and fluidly connected to said 1st exhaust space above to remove reactants, etc from the process space 112 and maintain low pressure/vacuum).
Regarding claim 27. Tran in view of Tsuji, Shintaku teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 26, wherein the exhaust space below the dielectric member is in communication with a second exhaust path formed outside a side wall of the processing container (eg space below 370 is fluidly connected to at least the exhaust space w/ valve 180 and pump 182 below, all of which are away and outside at the sidewall around 104, fig. 1), and wherein the plasma processing apparatus is configured such that the gas is exhausted laterally from the second exhaust path via the exhaust space below the dielectric member (gas molecules, including those exhausted, are freely movable in all directions due to random collisions/random walks at the molecular level, hence they move in the x,y,z directions).
Regarding claim 28. Tran in view of Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, but does not teach wherein the plurality of exhaust holes is formed at locations distanced radially from the inner wall by 5 mm or more. However, Shintaku teaches in [7, abstract, 83-86] the length of the protruding dielectric member choke member CH in the radial direction, Fig. 6, equivalent to the protruding part of the dielectric member where the holes are located, from an inner wall TP1 affects the suppression of radiation leakage/malfunction of parts below it and thus is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the distance the plurality of holes protrudes from the inner wall to control the amount of the suppression of radiation leakage/malfunction of parts below it. For optimization of dimensions, ranges, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 30. Tran in view of Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, but does not teach wherein the dielectric member protrudes radially from the inner wall by 5 mm or more. However, Shintaku teaches in [7, abstract, 83-86] the length of the protruding dielectric member choke member CH in the radial direction, Fig. 6, affects the suppression of radiation leakage/malfunction of parts below it and thus is a result effective parameter. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the amount/length the dielectric member radially protrudes to control the amount of the suppression of radiation leakage/malfunction of parts below it. For optimization of dimensions, ranges, see MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that regarding amended claim 16, the cited references, whether taken alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest at least the features "the dielectric member is inclined with respect to the inner wall within a range of 90±30 degrees and protrudes toward the stage" and "a plurality of exhaust holes penetrating the dielectric member in a thickness direction is formed in the first portion of the dielectric member" recited in amended Claim 16, and which were previously addressed in dependent claims 17, 23.
The arguments were considered but were not persuasive. For instance, the applicant does not at all specifically explain any issues with the previous rejection of claim 17 or its limitations now added to claim 16, and how the prior art, Tran, was applied. Rather, the applicant has simply re-summarized Tran, stating, “Tran is directed to a plasma process chamber. The plasma process chamber 100 includes a source module 102, a process module 104, a flow module 106, and an exhaust module 108…The source module 102 is configured to generate one or more plasmas. The process module 104 includes a chamber body 140 that surrounds a process region 112. A substrate support assembly 118 is centrally disposed within the chamber body 140…The flow module 106 provides flow paths between the process region 112 defined within the process module 104 and the exhaust module 108…The exhaust module 108 includes a symmetric flow valve 180 and a vacuum pump 182 attached to the symmetric flow valve 180…To reduce transverse electric fields at the edge of the substrate support assembly 118, an optional ceramic spacer 350 and/or an optional ceramic pumping liner 370 is used.” Nowhere does the argument specifically address issues with the previous rejection regarding limitations of the previous claim 17, such as any mention of angles, protrusion of “the dielectric member is inclined with respect to the inner wall within a range of 90±30 degrees and protrudes toward the stage.” Therefore, the argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, MPEP 707.07(f) ¶ 7.37.11.
Regarding the limitation, “a plurality of exhaust holes penetrating the dielectric member in a thickness direction is formed in the first portion of the dielectric member,” which was from previous claim 23 in further view of Tsuji, the applicant does not at all specifically explain any issues with the previous rejection of claim 23 or its limitations now added to claim 16, and how the prior art, Tran and Tsuji, were applied. Rather, the applicant simply re-summarized Tsuji, including “Tsuji is directed to a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus. The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 10 includes a chamber (reactor chamber) 12. An RF electrode 14 to which RF power is applied is provided in the chamber 12. Holes 14a are formed in the RF electrode 14. A gas supply part 22 is connected to the RF electrode 14, with an insulating part 20 interposed therebetween. The gas supply part 22 is a part through which a material gas is supplied to a space between the RF electrode 14 and the stage 16. In a space over the stage 16, processing such as film forming is performed on a substrate placed on the stage 16…Tsuji merely discloses that an annular slit 30a formed by a plurality of obstacles 50a and 50b is provided in a direction substantially perpendicular to the direction along the inner wall (e.g., 12a which is indicated by a red color) of the chamber 12…
Tsuji merely discloses that the annular slit 30a through which a gas supplied into a processing space is led into an annular passage 30b. That is, the annular slit 30a disclosed in Tsuji merely functions as an exhaust opening for discharging the gas.” The applicant then further explains how his invention and its effects, pointing to the specification, are different from Tsuji, for instance stating, “The exhaust hole 13c recited in amended Claim 16 is configured to perform downward exhaust as well as to prevent abnormal discharge occurring in the space between the stage 12 and the dielectric member 13 and in the space below the dielectric member 13.” Nowhere does the argument specifically address issues with the previous rejection regarding limitations of the previous claim 23, or how Tran was combined with Tsuji as applied in the rejection. Therefore, the argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, MPEP 707.07(f) ¶ 7.37.11. Furthermore, the applicant has not argued against the combination of Tran and Tsuji as applied with previous claim 23 but addressed them individually, thus one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references, MPEP 707.07(f) ¶ 7.37.13. The other arguments, including those against the dependent claims, rely on the arguments above and thus are addressed by the responses and rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights