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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tran (US 20170069466).
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).
Regarding claim 17. Tran teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, 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 in claim 16).
Regarding claim 33. Tran 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).
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) 18-20, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20170069466) in view of Shintaku (US 20150107773).
Regarding claim 18. Tran teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 17, 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 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 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 29. Tran 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 A, 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 30. Tran 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.
Claim(s) 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20170069466) in view of Shintaku (US 20150107773) and Tsuji (US 20160237559).
Regarding claim 21. Tran in view of 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 Shintaku and Tsuji 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 23. Tran in view of Shintaku and Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 22, 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 24. Tran in view of Shintaku and Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 23, 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 Shintaku and Tsuji 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 Shintaku and Tsuji 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 Shintaku and Tsuji 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 Shintaku and Tsuji teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 23, 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.
Claim(s) 31, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20170069466).
Regarding claim 31. Tran 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 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.
Claim(s) 34, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20170069466) in view of Tsuji (US 20160237559).
Regarding claim 34. Tran 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.
Regarding claim 35. Tran teaches the plasma processing apparatus of Claim 16, 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues regarding amended claim 16 that in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0059] of Tran, the lift plate 390 is configured to horizontally protrude toward the substrate support assembly 118. The outer peripheral portion of the ceramic pumping liner 370 is located between a vertical portion of the lift plate 390 and a horizontally protruding portion thereof. That is, the lift plate 390 is not formed to be concave outward in a direction opposite to the substrate support assembly 118. The outer peripheral portion of the ceramic pumping liner 370 is not configured to be inserted into a stepped concave portion or recess that is concave outward in a direction opposite to the substrate support assembly 118. The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. Contrary to the applicant’s allegations, Tran clearly shows in fig. 3, as annotated below, the lift plate 390’s lower recess being recessed towards the right or away/direction opposite from the stage 118. This is 100% identical to the applicant’s Fig. 2b, also annotated for clarity. The other comments about the dependent claims depend on the argument directed to claim 16 and thus are also addressed by the response above.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
458
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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