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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (processing chamber), drawn to claims 1-8 and 11-15, in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-4, 7-8, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al (US 2014/0302680) in view of Kumar et al (US 2008/0099426).
Regarding claim 1:
Singh teaches a processing chamber (chamber depicted in figure 4) [fig 4 & 0035], comprising: a grid (fixed grid) including a plurality of holes (generally circular holes) arranged in the processing chamber (see fig 4), the grid (fixed grid) partitioning the processing chamber into a first chamber in which plasma is generated and a second chamber in which a pedestal is configured to support a substrate (see fig 4) [fig 4 & 0035, 0059-0060]; a movable grid (movable grid) arranged in the second chamber (see fig 4), the movable grid (movable grid) being movable parallel to the grid (grid line of sight open area is tunable by rotation and/or translation) between the grid and the substrate when supported on the pedestal (see fig 4) [fig 4 & 0035, 0051, 0059-0060].
Singh does not specifically teach the movable grid comprising a first disk and a second disk, wherein the first disk and the second disk are coplanar in a plane that is perpendicular to a vertical axis.
Kumar teaches a first disk (172A) and a second disk (172B), wherein the first disk (172A) and the second disk (172B) are coplanar in a plane that is perpendicular to a vertical axis (see fig 1-2A) [fig 1-2A, 3A & 0033-0035].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movable grid of Singh to comprise a first disk and a second disk, as in Kumar, to control the spatial distribution of ions and neutrals in the plasma in a localized manner thereby allowing for enhanced process control [Kumar – 0033].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Singh teaches the first disk (movable grid of Singh was modified to comprise 172A and 172B of Kumar) is movable parallel (tunable by rotation) to the grid (fixed grid) [Singh - fig 4 & 0035, 0051, 0059-0060 and Kumar – fig 2A, 3A].
Regarding claims 3-4:
Modified Singh teaches the first disk (172A) includes at least one or more apertures (apertures, 174) [Kumar - fig 1-2A, 3A & 0033-0035].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “wherein the first disk blocks ions from the plasma from reaching the substrate” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Singh teaches the first disk (172A) is made of a material selected from a group consisting of diamond-like carbon (C), tantalum (Ta), molybdenum (Mo), aluminum (Al), alumina (Al2O3), chromium (Cr), Beryllium (Be), tantalum carbide (TaC), and lead zirconate titanate (PZT) ceramic (alumina) [Kumar - fig 1-2A, 3A & 0033-0035].
Regarding claim 8:
The claim limitations “wherein the first disk has a smaller diameter than the substrate” does not impart any additional structure. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Specifically, one may process a substrates of various diameters.
Regarding claims 11-12:
Modified Singh teaches wherein the first disk (172A) and the second disk (172B) have the same geometry (see fig 2A) [Kumar - 2A & 0033-0035]; and wherein the first disk (172A) and the second disk (172B) have different geometries (see fig 3A) [Kumar - 2A & 0033-0035].
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Singh teaches at least one of the first disk (172A) and the second disk (172B) includes one or more apertures (apertures, 174) [Kumar - fig 1-2A, 3A & 0033-0035].
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al (US 2014/0302680) in view of Kumar et al (US 2008/0099426) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-13 above, and further in view of Jung et al (US 2018/0122638).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 5-6:
Modified Singh does not specifically teach the first disk includes an adjustable aperture; and wherein the first disk includes an adjustable aperture and an aperture of a fixed size.
Jung teaches a first disk (150) includes an adjustable aperture (151 may be adjusted by inserting 220b) [fig 8 & 0049]; and wherein the first disk (150) includes an adjustable aperture (151 may be adjusted by inserting 220b) and an aperture of a fixed size (151 in which 220b are not inserted) [fig 8 & 0049].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first disk of modified Singh to include an adjustable aperture and an aperture of a fixed size, as in Jung, to adjust a fine flow of the reaction species thereby allowing for more uniform distribution on the substrate [Jung – 0049].
Regarding claims 14-15:
Modified Singh does not specifically teach at least one of the first disk and the second disk includes an adjustable aperture; and at least one of the first disk and the second disk includes an aperture of a fixed size.
Jung teaches at least one of the first disk and the second disk (150) includes an adjustable aperture (151 may be adjusted by inserting 220b) [fig 8 & 0049]; and at least one of the first disk and the second disk (150) includes an aperture of a fixed size (151 in which 220b are not inserted) [fig 8 & 0049].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify at least one of the first disk and the second disk of modified Singh to include an adjustable aperture and an aperture of a fixed size, as in Jung, to adjust a fine flow of the reaction species thereby allowing for more uniform distribution on the substrate [Jung – 0049].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baldwin et al (US 6,402,905), Wang et al (US 6,830,663), and Engelhardt (US 2015/0179413) teach a first and second disk are coplanar in a plane that is perpendicular to a vertical axis [fig 1, 18, and 4B, respectively]. Takaoka (JPH1060673A), Moslehi (US 6,132,805), Kilpela et al (US 2003/0075273), and Xu et al (US 2014/0120731) teach an adjustable aperture [fig 2A, 2, 4A, and 8, respectively].
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