DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are amended; claim 12 is canceled.
The applicant contends:
(1) The examiner characterizes Figure 14B of Dhindsa as a “graphical illustration of pre-existing mathematical data,” but this is incorrect, as the figure simply depicts illustrative schematics. That is, there is no data underlying these schematics, as opposed to the veritable plots of Figures 15-17 (p. 9).
(2) Dhindsa’s disclosure does not enable the claimed act of calculating a time difference. Figure 14B of Dhindsa merely shows a synchronous sequence and an asynchronous sequence, but there is no indication that the reference calculated the time difference of the latter plot in order to generate the former (p. 10).
(3) The plots composing Figure 14B of Dhindsa are merely prospective and do not derive from a material process. Further, because these plots are standalone schematics, there is no need to calculate the time difference of an asynchronous plot in order to generate the synchronous plot (p. 11).
In response,
(1) The examiner disagrees with this characterization. Admittedly, the step plots of Figure 14B have been smoothed relative to the noisy raw data of Figures 15, but this is simply an aesthetic decision to promote visual clarity. The choice to depict noisy data as a linear stepwise function to facilitate comprehension does not then imply the stepwise function lacks underlying data. Paragraph [0118] states directly: “Fig. 14B is a graphical representation of multiple timing sequences…of pressure pulse and RF modulation.” Dhindsa also characterizes each plot sequence precisely: in timing graph 1430, for instance, RF power is “200 degrees out of phase with process gas flow” resulting in a “20 degree delay after T1” [0119]. Clearly, the data conveyed by Figure 14B derives from experimental results. Even more dispositively, each of the plots of Figure 14B yield a “resulting optical emission trace” which is necessarily generated experimentally by a physical spectroscope. It is the Office’s position, then, that these plots depict data characterizing an actual physical process. Said differently, Figure 14B derives from the same repository of data as Figure 15, which Applicant admits as legitimate, but merely smooths the signal noise shown by the latter’s more granular plots.
(2) The step of calculating a time difference need not be explicitly shown because the effort to generate this factor is frivolous, within the scope of ordinary skill, and already implied by the prior art. That is, both Figures 14B and 15 depict an array of plots showing synchronous and asynchronous provisions of RF power and process gas. These timing sequences are not random but, instead, are determined by the operator at will. In other words, the operator intentionally generates an asynchronous act of provision and then generates a synchronous act of provision. The capacity to intentionally generate both asynchronous and synchronous timing sequences presupposes the ability to both insert a “time difference,” in the case of asynchronous provision, and remove a “time difference,” in the case of synchronous provision.
As an example, for each plot depicted by Figure 14B, Dhindsa explicitly discloses, or “computes,” the time difference between RF power and process gas provision [0118-0123]. And the existence of the synchronous plot (1450) in Figure 14B demonstrates the capacity of the operator to generate a timing sequence in which the time difference is removed, which is equivalent to the claimed act of “deriving a…time calibration parameter,” i.e., a parameter which removes said time difference.
Lastly, the examiner notes that the claim language does not foreclose a scenario in which the time difference, and the subsequent time calibration parameter, is zero, i.e., a scenario in which RF and gas provision happened to be already aligned. In such an instance, the semiconductor process would proceed materially unaltered, rendering the claimed control sequence trivial. That is, a control sequence which applies no control whatsoever to the apparatus and its functioning fails to constitute a patentable advance over the prior art.
(3) The responses directly above substantially address these arguments. In addition, the examiner notes that Dhindsa’s operator can generate, at will, the synchronous plot of 1450, which evidences the capacity to eliminate any outstanding time differences. And the capacity to eliminate the time difference is understood by the Office as, firstly, presupposing the computation of said time difference, and, secondly, rendering obvious the claimed act of “applying [a] time calibration parameter.” Note, however, that a prior art apparatus capable of generating an initial act of synchronous provision would satisfy the claimed limitations tautologically, as the time difference and time calibration factor would be zero.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder – “unit,” in this case – that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “gas source unit” of claims 6-7 and 9;
The “RF generating unit” of claims 6-7 and 9;
The “clean gas applying unit” of claim 6;
The “processor unit” of claims 6-7 and 9;
The “gas discharging unit” of claim 9.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The gas source unit (1) will be interpreted as one of a purifier, a cabinet, or mixing equipment in accordance with paragraph [0025] of Applicant’s specification.
Each RF generating unit will be interpreted as a radio frequency power generator in accordance with paragraph [0026].
The clean gas applying unit (A3) will be interpreted as a fluid distributor in accordance with Figure 1.
The processor unit will be interpreted as a PLC, a CPU, or a combination of the two in accordance with paragraph [0026].
The gas discharging unit (9) will be interpreted as a pump, a channel, and a valve in accordance with paragraph [0049].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 6-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruse et al., US 2011/0266256, in view of Koh et al., US 2005/0037154, and Dhindsa et al., US 2015/0060404.
Claims 6-7: Cruse discloses a multi-chamber apparatus, comprising:
A gas cabinet (204), i.e., the “gas source unit” (Fig. 2);
A first chamber (110) [0031];
A second chamber (111);
Wherein the gas source unit provides a process gas to the first and second chambers [0031];
An RF generator (229), i.e., the “first RF generating unit,” coupled to the first chamber [0033];
An RF generator (235), i.e., the “second RF generating unit,” coupled to the second chamber [0035];
A clean gas applying unit (240) [0040];
A first isolated valve (242);
A second isolated valve (244);
A CPU (138), i.e., the “processor unit,” coupled to each component within the apparatus [0042].
Cruse’s CPU controls the gas source to provide gas to the first and second chambers and controls the first and second RF generators to apply RF power to the first and second chambers. Because these steps proceed within the dimension of time, Cruse necessarily applies a “gas flow parameter” and a “time parameter” to the provision of these resources.
Although Cruse provides several gases to the chamber, the reference does not characterize one as a “pre-process” gas. Koh, however, elaborates a deposition process in which a pre-process gas (402a) is provided to the chamber followed by the application of RF power [0071]. Subsequently, a process gas (404a) is provided along with another application of RF power (440a) (Fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to provide a pre-process gas to season the substrate for a subsequent deposition step.
Lastly, Cruse does not address the control step of calculating a time difference between the respective durations of RF power application and process gas supply, and then use this time difference to assist in the synchronization of said durations. In supplementation, Dhindsa elaborates a series of provision sequences pertaining to gas flow and RF power (Fig. 14B). As shown by sequence 1450, Dhindsa teaches the synchronous provision of RF power and gas flow from start to end [0121]. In other sequences, such as 1430 or 1440, RF power and gas flow are asynchronous, demonstrating that Dhindsa is capable of determining the respective time calibration parameters for each variable and modifying said parameters to achieve synchronization [0118-0120]. It would have been obvious to endow Cruse with the capacity to determine time calibration parameters and, subsequently, manipulate those parameters to achieve synchronization between RF power and gas supply, as applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 8: An operator can modulate the power levels of the RF generator to satisfy the stipulations of this claim – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647).
Claim 9: Cruse provides each chamber with a pump (212), a conduit, and a valve (216), i.e., the “gas discharging unit” [0023]. It would have been obvious to discharge the effluent through the discharging unit subsequent the completion of processing.
Claim 10: Cruse provides a communicating channel (242, 244) configured to communicate between the first and second chamber. Further, Cruse articulates critical pressure thresholds vis-à-vis the first and second chambers and the subsequent contingency operations if pressure levels were to drop below these thresholds [0026]. Necessarily, this presupposes a means by which to measure pressure in the two process chambers – this means may be deemed a “pressure gauge.”
Claim 11: Cruse’s gas discharging unit comprises an air pump (212), a gas discharging channel communicating with both chambers, and a discharging isolated valve (242) and a discharging adjustment valve (244). The pump may selectively communicate with the discharging channel via the aforementioned valves.
Claim 13: As shown by plot 1450 in Figure 14B of Dhindsa, the application of both RF power and process gas ceases at the same moment. The examiner understands the act of cessation to be functionally equivalent to the claimed act of “turned off.”
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Zhong et al., US 2021/0043483. Zhong provides twin plasma chambers (10, 20) each coupled to a dedicated RF generator (14, 24) (Fig. 1). In addition, Zhong provides a common gas supply (30) to provide fluid to both the first and second chambers [0005].
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
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716