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 08/01/2025.
4. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
5. Claim 1 has been amended.
6. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 sets forth that the Faraday shielding plate includes “a dielectric window”. Nothing in the specification at the time of filing indicates that the Faraday shielding plate includes a dielectric window. The plasma etching system includes a dielectric window (see original claim 8). However, the Faraday shielding plate does NOT include a dielectric window.
Regarding claims 2-7:
Claims 2-7 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “the Faraday shielding plate is integrally sintered in the dielectric window” [lines 4-5]. However, claim 1 previously recites “the Faraday shielding plate includes … a dielectric window”. Therefore, it is unclear how a structure could possibly be integrally sintered into itself. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is interpreting the dielectric window to be a different structure than the Faraday shielding plate and the limitation of lines 4-5 to recite “the Faraday shielding plate is integrally sintered in [[the]] a dielectric window”.
Regarding claims 2-7:
Claims 2-7 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobin et al (US 5,619,103) in view of Li et al (US 2002/0100557) and Ohkuni (US 2007/0004208).
Regarding claim 1:
Tobin teaches a Faraday shielding apparatus (shield, 42) which can be used for heating of a plasma etching system (80) [fig 3, 6 & col 5, lines 45-57 and col 6, lines 44-60], comprising a Faraday shielding plate (42), and the Faraday shielding plate (42) includes a conductive ring and a plurality of conductive petal-shaped members radially symmetrically connected to an outer periphery of the conductive ring (see fig 4b) [fig 3, 4b, 6 & col 5, lines 45-57, col 5, lines 52-65, and col 6, lines 44-60].
Tobin does not specifically teach the Faraday shielding apparatus further includes a heating circuit.
Li teaches a Faraday shielding apparatus further includes a heating circuit (heating assembly, 130) [fig 1-3, 7 & 0050].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Faraday shielding apparatus of Tobin 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].
Tobin modified by Li does not specifically disclose the Faraday shielding plate is integrally sintered in a dielectric window.
Ohkuni teaches a Faraday shielding plate (Faraday shield electrode, 13) is integrally sintered in a 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 modified Tobin to be integrally sintered in a 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].
The claim limitations “when the heating circuit is used in an etching process, the Faraday shielding plate is heated by electricity; wherein the Faraday shielding apparatus is configured such that, during a cleaning process, a cleaning gas is introduced to maintain a reaction chamber at a specified pressure, and the Faraday shielding plate is supplied with power so as to heat the cleaning gas to generate cleaning gas ions that are sputtered onto an inner wall of the dielectric window to clean the dielectric window” 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 2:
Modified Tobin teaches the heating circuit (130) includes a heating supply power (132) and a filter circuit unit (138), an output terminal of the heating power supply is connected to the Faraday shielding plate after being filtered via the filter circuit unit (see fig 1) [Li - fig 1-3, 7 & 0050].
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Tobin teaches the conductive ring is connected with a positive pole of the heating circuit, and an outer terminal of each of the conductive petal-shaped members is connected with a negative pole of the heating circuit; or the conductive ring is connected with the negative pole of the heating circuit, and the outer terminal of each of the conductive petal-shaped members is connected with the positive pole of the heating circuit (see fig 3) [Li - fig 1-3, 7 & 0050, 0055].
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Tobin teaches the conductive ring includes a plurality of arc segments spaced from and insulated to each other; each arc segment is connected with a plurality of conductive petal-shaped members; the outer terminal of one conductive petal-shaped member on one or more arc segment is connected with the positive pole of the heating circuit; an outer terminal of another conductive petal-shaped member on the arc segment is connected with the negative pole of the heating circuit (see fig 4) [Li - fig 1-4, 7 & 0050, 0058].
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Tobin teaches wherein in the one arc segment, the one conductive petal-shaped member connected with the positive pole of the heating circuit and the other conductive petal-shaped member connected with the negative pole of the heating circuit are located at both ends of an arc on the arc segment, respectively (see fig 4) [Li - fig 1-4, 7 & 0050, 0058].
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Tobin teaches a plasma etching system (80) [Tobin - fig 3, 6 & col 5, lines 45-57 and col 6, lines 44-60], wherein the plasma etching system (80) includes the Faraday shielding apparatus which can be used for heating according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
14. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobin et al (US 5,619,103) in view of Li et al (US 2002/0100557) and Ohkuni (US 2007/0004208) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-7 above, and further in view of Mahadeswaraswamy (US 2012/0273162).
The limitations of claims 1-2 and 4-7 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Tobin the Faraday shielding apparatus further includes a feedback control circuit (134/136), 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 Faraday shielding plate and transmit data to the temperature controller (134) [Li - fig 1 & 0050].
Modified Tobin does not specifically disclose the feedback control circuit includes a solid state relay; 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 feeds back signals to control a turn-on and turn-off of the solid state relay according to a set temperature.
Mahadeswaraswamy teaches a feedback control circuit includes a solid state relay (390B may be a solid state relay) [fig 3 & 0049]; 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) feeds back signals to control a turn-on and turn-off of the solid state relay according to a set temperature (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 Tobin to include a solid state relay, as in Mahadeswaraswamy, because such is an effective means for providing temperature control [Mahadeswaraswamy – 0056].
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Tobin nor Li disclose the Faraday shielding plate is sintered into the dielectric window and that Mahadeswaraswamy and Ohkuni fail to cure the deficiencies of Tobin and Li.
In response, it is noted that applicant is incorrect. Ohkuni was specifically cited to teach a Faraday shielding plate sintered into a dielectric window. As such, this argument fails to address the rejection of record.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure in the references that suggest using the Faraday shielding plate to ionize cleaning gas for sputter-cleaning.
In response, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed structure provide significant, non-limiting technical advantages, 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).
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshida (US 5,735,993) and Willwerth et al (US 2009/0236315) teach a Faraday shielding apparatus [fig 1 and 4, respectively].
17. 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.
18. 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
Prosecution Insights