DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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:
Substrate support unit in claim 1 and 14;
Plasma generation unit in claim 1 and 14;
Drive unit in claim 1, 14, and 15;
Shower head unit in claims 11 and 12;
Sealing member in claims 4 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically,
The substrate support unit is interpreted as being an electrostatic chuck 122 (Paragraph 0046);
Plasma generation unit is interpreted as being an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source (Paragraph 0057), or a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) source (Paragraph 0132);
Drive unit is interpreted as being a step motor (paragraph 0108);
Shower head unit is interpreted as being a shower head 410 as seen in Figures 7 and 9; and
Sealing member is interpreted as being an O-ring (Paragraph 0112).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, US 2011/0303362 A1, in view of KR 100458982 B1 (‘982).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14-16, 18, and 19, Saito teaches a substrate treating apparatus 100, comprising: a housing 1; a substrate support unit 8 disposed inside the housing 1 and configured to support the substrate; a process gas supplying unit (Fig. 3, [0035], non-illustrated gas supply source supplies gas to multiple gas nozzles 20a via common processing gas inlet 28a, and further into processing space 10) configured to supply a process gas into the housing 1a; and a plasma generation unit configured to generate plasma in the housing using the process gas ([0032], plasma is generated from gas in process space 10 by supplying power from power supply 6 to antenna 5 and by supplying power from power supply 9 to susceptor 8), wherein the process gas supplying unit comprises: an injection nozzle 20 installed on an inner sidewall of the housing 1a and configured to inject the process gas; and a rotation controller (Fig. 3, [0034]-[0036], revolution device 30 is installed outside chamber 1a, and is connected to gas nozzles 20a which extends through hole in sidewall of chamber 1a, where gas discharge holes 21 and 22 formed within nozzles 20a are located inside chamber 1a) installed on an outer sidewall of the housing 1a, connected to the injection nozzle 20 via a hole (Figure 3) formed to penetrate the inner sidewall of the housing 1a, wherein the rotation controller comprises: a body (Fig. 3, whole portion of nozzle 20a); a process gas inlet (Fig. 3, [0035], processing gas communicates from outside chamber 1a to the process space 10 via fixed member 24 and processing gas inlet 28a) installed in the body, and configured to introduce the process gas to the body; a sealing member 25a, 25b configured to maintain airtightness between the body 20a and the shaft 26, wherein the rotation controller rotates the injection nozzle 20a along the circumference of the inner sidewall of the housing, and the sealing member 25b is a ferrofluid seal (magnetic seal) .
Saito differs from the present invention in that Saito does not teach that the gas inlet is protruding vertically in a height direction of the housing perpendicular to a longitudinal direction, and configured to introduce the process gas to the body; a shaft that is inserted into a hole formed at a first end of the body that is positioned outside of the housing; and a drive unit interlocked with the shaft that supplies a rotational force to the body through the shaft.
‘982 teaches a rotation controller that comprises: a body 305-2; a process gas inlet 305-4 installed in the body 305-2, protruding perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the body and shaft, and configured to introduce the process gas to the body 305-2 via injection holes 305-3; a shaft 305-1 that is inserted into a hole formed at a first end of the body that is positioned outside of the housing (Figures 3 and 5); and a drive unit interlocked with the shaft that supplies a rotational force to the body through the shaft (not shown but required to rotate the shaft as shown in Figures 3 and 5); a sealing member (not shown) configured to maintain airtightness between the body and the shaft, wherein the rotation controller rotates the injection nozzle along the circumference of the inner sidewall of the housing, and the sealing member is a magnetic seal (Figures 3 and 5, Specification TECH-SOLURION 3rd paragraph).
The motivation for replacing the circumferential drive of Saito with the axial drive of ‘982 is to provide a well-known alternate and equivalent drive to rotate the nozzle of Saito. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the circumferential drive of Saito with the axial drive of ‘982.
The Examiner notes that if the axial drive of ‘892 if rotated so that the longitudinal axis is horizontal, as in Saito, the process gas inlet 305-4 installed in the body 305-2, will protrude vertically in a height direction of the housing perpendicular to a longitudinal direction.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Saito and ‘982 both inherently include a process gas supply source configured to supply the process gas; and a process gas supplying line configured to move the process gas to the injection nozzle.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, ‘982 teaches the process gas supplying line connects the process gas supply source and the rotation controller and moves the process gas to the injection nozzle through the rotation controller.
Regarding claim 9, Saito and ‘982 inherently teach that the rotation controller controls a rotation speed of the injection nozzle.
Regarding claim 10, Saito teaches a plurality of injection nozzles 20a are installed along the circumference of the inner sidewall of the housing, and the rotation controller is connected to at least one injection nozzle among the plurality of injection nozzles. (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 13, Saito and ‘982 both teach that the substrate treating apparatus comprises a vacuum chamber.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and ‘982, as applied in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 13-16, and 18-20, and further in view of Koizumi (US 20080178810 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Saito and ‘982 fail to explicitly teach wherein the rotation controller controls a rotation speed of the injection nozzle.
However, Koizumi teaches wherein the rotation controller controls a rotation (Koizumi, Fig. 1, [0058], revolution speed of rotary base 56 and gas injection ring member 60 are rotated at a predetermined speed, such as 100 rpm by control unit 106).
The motivation for adding the control unit of Koizumi to the apparatus of Saito and ‘982 is to control the speed that the nozzle rotates as taught by Koizumi.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the controller of Koizumi to the apparatus of Saito and ‘982.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and ‘982, as applied in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 13-16, and 18-20, and further in view of Sriraman (US 20160293431 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Saito and ‘982 fail to teach a shower head unit disposed on an upper part of the substrate in the housing and including a plurality of gas injection holes on a surface thereof, wherein the process gas supplying unit is connected to the shower head unit via a hole formed to penetrate the upper part of the housing.
However, Sriraman teaches a shower head unit disposed on an upper part of the substrate in the housing and including a plurality of gas injection holes on a surface thereof (Sriraman, Fig. 2-3B, [0057], injector 104 is located above substrate 112 in dielectric window 106, where injector 104 has plural holes 304 and 306 and where injector 104 may be a showerhead, [0055]), wherein the process gas supplying unit is connected to the shower head unit via a hole formed to penetrate the upper part of the housing (Fig. 2, gas source 128 connects to injector 104, which is installed through a hole in dielectric window 106).
The motivation for adding the showerhead of Sriraman to the apparatus of Saito and ‘982 is to allow for control of the spatial plasma dissociation profile, resulting in uniform byproduct distribution on the wafer as taught by Sriraman, (Paragraph 0055).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the showerhead of Sriraman to the apparatus of Saito and ‘982.
Regarding claim 12, Saito and ‘982 fail to teach wherein the process gas supplying unit supplies the process gas into the housing by using one of the injection nozzle and the shower head unit, or supplies the process gas into the housing by using one of the injection nozzle and the shower head unit and then supplies the process gas into the housing by using the other thereof.
However, Sriraman teaches wherein the process gas supplying unit supplies the process gas into the housing by using one of the injection nozzle and the shower head unit, or supplies the process gas into the housing by using one of the injection nozzle and the shower head unit and then supplies the process gas into the housing by using the other thereof (Sriraman, Fig. 2, gas source 128 supplies process gas to both injector 104 located on the top of the chamber body 114 and second side gas injectors 110 located in the sidewall of chamber body 114, all of which inject gas into the interior of chamber 132).
The motivation for adding the showerhead of Sriraman to the apparatus of Saito and ‘982 is to allow for control of the spatial plasma dissociation profile, resulting in uniform byproduct distribution on the wafer as taught by Sriraman, (Paragraph 0055).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the showerhead of Sriraman to the apparatus of Saito and ‘982.
To clarify the record, the limitation "wherein the process gas supplying unit supplies the process gas into the housing by using one of the injection nozzle and the shower head unit, or supplies the process gas into the housing by using one of the injection nozzle and the shower head unit and then supplies the process gas into the housing by using the other thereof " is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The gas source and manifolds of Sriraman are connected to the respective top and side gas injectors, whereby gas is injected through either or both injectors into the chamber, thereby being capable of meeting the above claim limitations. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 15, 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of KR 100458982 B1 (‘982).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g)) KR 100458982 B1 (‘982) could be replaced with JP S6245121 A in the 103 rejections above.
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 Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, 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.
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights