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 08/04/2025.
4. Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are currently pending.
5. Claim 1 has been amended.
6. Claims 5-6 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 4, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willwerth et al (US 2009/0236315).
Regarding claim 1:
Willwerth teaches a Faraday shielding apparatus (shielded lid heater, 280) which can be used for heating in a plasma etching system (100) [fig 1-5 & 0025, 0042], comprising a Faraday shielding plate (280), the Faraday shielding plate (280) includes a conductive ring (annular member, 300) and a plurality of conductive petal-shaped members (plurality of fingers, 308,318) radially and symmetrically connected to an outer periphery of the conductive ring (300), wherein the Faraday shielding apparatus further comprises a resistance wire (resistive element, 212) attached to a lower end surface of the Faraday shielding plate, and an outer surface of the resistance wire (212) is provided with an insulating and thermally conductive layer (electrical insulator, 210) [fig 1-5 & 0036], the Faraday shielding plate (280) is divided into a plurality of heating regions (see fig 4), each of the heating regions includes a section of the conductive ring and a plurality of conductive petal-shaped members connected to the section of the conductive ring, respectively, one resistance wire is arranged on each heating region (see fig 4), the resistance wire is wired along the conductive ring in the heating region and each conductive petal-shaped member in the heating region (see fig 4) [fig 1-5 & 0044], and the resistance wire is wired along a bow-shaped path (stepped along its path) on the lower end surface of the conductive petal-shaped member (see fig 4) [fig 1-5 & 0044].
The claim limitations “the resistance wire is energized and heated during an etching process” 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 4:
Willwerth teaches a pattern formed by wiring the resistance wire on the Faraday shielding plate is an open curve (see fig 4) [fig 1-5 & 0044].
Regarding claim 7:
Willwerth teaches the lower end surface (290) of the Faraday shielding plate is provided with a wiring slot (channel, 286) [fig 1-5 & 0041]; the resistance wire is embedded in the wiring slot (286) [fig 1-5 & 0041].
Regarding claim 8:
Willwerth teaches a plasma etching system (plasma processing chamber, 100) [fig 1 & 0025], wherein the plasma etching system (100) comprises a Faraday shielding apparatus which can be used for heating according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willwerth et al (US 2009/0236315) as applied to claims 1, 4, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Li et al (US 2002/0100557).
The limitations of claims 1, 4, and 7-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 2:
Willwerth does not specifically teach the Faraday shielding apparatus further comprises a heating circuit configured to supply power to the resistance wire; the heating circuit includes a heating power supply and a filter circuit unit; an output terminal of the heating power supply is connected to the resistance wire after being filtered by the filter circuit unit.
Li teaches a heating circuit (132/138) configured to supply power (via 132) to the resistance wire (130) [fig 1, 3 & 0050, 0055-0056]; the heating circuit (132/138) includes a heating power supply (132) and a filter circuit unit (138) [fig 1-3 & 0050]; an output terminal of the heating power supply (132) is connected to the resistance wire (130) after being filtered by the filter circuit unit (138) [fig 1-3 & 0050].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Faraday shielding apparatus of Willwerth to further include a heating circuit, as in Li, to allow for the simultaneous control of both the temperature of the dielectric lid and the electrostatic potential in the region directly adjacent to the lid thereby producing conditions that are very favorable for achieving the desired plasma process results on the workpiece [Li – 0089].
12. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willwerth et al (US 2009/0236315) in view of Li et al (US 2002/0100557) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mahadeswaraswamy (US 2012/0273162).
The limitations of claim 2 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Willwerth teaches the Faraday shielding apparatus further includes a feedback control circuit (134/136) [Li – fig 1 & 0050]; the feedback control circuit (134/136) includes a temperature measurement sensor (temperature sensor, 136) and a temperature controller (temperature controller, 134) [Li - fig 1 & 0050]; the temperature measurement sensor (136) is configured to measure a temperature of the resistance wire and transmit data to the temperature controller (134) [Li - fig 1 & 0050].
Modified Willwerth does not specifically disclose the feedback control circuit includes a solid state relay, and the solid state relay is arranged on the heating circuit and configured to control the heating circuit to be turned-on and turned-off; and the temperature controller controls a turn-on and turn-off of the solid state relay according to a set temperature and feedback signals.
Mahadeswaraswamy teaches a feedback control circuit includes a solid state relay (390B may be a solid state relay), and the solid state relay (390B) is arranged on the heating circuit and configured to control the heating circuit to be turned-on and turned-off (heating element 390 is driven by 390B) [fig 3 & 0049]; and the temperature controller (temperature controller, 375) controls a turn-on and turn-off of the solid state relay according to a set temperature and feedback signals (heater temperature set point) [fig 2-3 & 0049].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feedback control circuit of modified Willwerth to include a solid state relay, as in Mahadeswaraswamy, because such is an effective means for providing temperature control [Mahadeswaraswamy – 0056].
13. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willwerth et al (US 2009/0236315) as applied to claims 1, 4, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Ohkuni (US 2007/0004208).
The limitations of claims 1, 4, and 7-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 9:
Willwerth teaches the plasma etching system further includes a dielectric window (lid, 120, is a substantially flat ceramic member) [fig 1 & 0029].
Willwerth does not specifically disclose the Faraday shielding plate is integrally sintered in the dielectric window.
Ohkuni teaches a Faraday shielding plate (Faraday shield electrode, 13) is integrally sintered in the dielectric window (dielectric wall, 2) [fig 9 & 0072].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Faraday shielding plate of Willwerth to be integrally sintered in the dielectric window, as in Ohkuni, to allow for the thickness of the dielectric to be reduced thereby reducing high-frequency power loss by the dielectric [Ohkuni – 0072].
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/04/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 4-8 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 2-3 and 9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the conductive ring of Willwerth is arranged at the middle of the Faraday shielding plate.
In response, it is noted that this difference is NOT reflected in the claims. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the resistance wire of Willwerth is not wired along the lower end surface.
In response, it is noted that the lower surface of 206 has been interpreted to correspond to the claimed “lower end surface”. It is noted that the claims do NOT set forth that the “lower end surface” is a lowermost surface.
Applicant argues that the shape of the resistance wire of Willwerth is different.
In response, it is noted that the shape of Willwerth has been reasonably interpreted to correspond to a “bow-shaped path” because there are many different kinds of bow shapes. There is no single shape corresponding to a bow. Examiner suggest more specifically defining the shape of the resistance wire.
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the claimed Faraday shielding apparatus results in compact structure and enhanced heating efficiency and improved heating and plasma uniformity, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tobin et al (US 5,619,103) and Yoshida (US 5,735,993) teach a Faraday shielding apparatus [fig 3 and 1, respectively].
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 at (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