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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add “and a second gas supply that supplies a purge gas such that the purge gas flows upwardly through a gap between the ring electrode and the substrate support, wherein the exhaust device is configured to exhaust the gas within the chamber via an exhaust port provided on a sidewall of the chamber and disposed above the ring electrode, and the second gas supply supplies the purge gas through a gas introduction port provided on a wall of the chamber below the substrate support”, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2010/0243608 to Koshimizu et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0279008 to Takagi et al is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2010/0243608 to Koshimizu et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0279008 to Takagi et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Koshimizu teaches a plasma processing apparatus Fig. 1 comprising: a chamber 100; a first gas supply 115 configured to supply a processing gas into the chamber; an exhaust device 155 configured to exhaust a gas within the chamber; a substrate support 110 including a lower electrode 120 electrically floating from a ground potential and provided within the chamber [0043]; an upper electrode 105 provided above the substrate support; a power supply 140 electrically connected to the upper electrode and configured to generate high frequency power [0044]; and a ring electrode 130 provided around the substrate support so as to surround the substrate support and connected to ground [0043; 0039-0105].
Koshimizu does not expressly teach a second gas supply that supplies a purge gas such that the purge gas flows upwardly through a gap between the ring electrode and the substrate support, wherein the exhaust device is configured to exhaust the gas within the chamber via an exhaust port provided on a sidewall of the chamber and disposed above the ring electrode, and the second gas supply supplies the purge gas through a gas introduction port provided on a wall of the chamber below the substrate support.
Takagi teaches a film deposition apparatus/plasma processing apparatus 1 Fig. 1, comprising a chamber 2, a first gas supply configured 51 configured to supply a processing gas into the chamber, an exhaust device 21 configured to exhaust a gas within the chamber, a substrate support 31, an upper electrode 40, a ring electrode provided around the substrate support so as to surround the substrate support, and a second gas supply 66, 222 that supplies a purge gas such that the purge gas flows upwardly through a gap between the ring electrode 26 and the substrate support [0087] to the exhaust device, wherein the exhaust device is configured to exhaust the gas within the chamber via an exhaust port 211 provided on a sidewall of the chamber and disposed above the ring electrode, and the second gas supply supplies the purge gas through a gas introduction port 222 provided on a wall of the chamber below the substrate support, as shown in Fig. 3 [0038-0078]. Takagi teaches that the arrangement of the purge gas with the exhaust ring prevents material gases to be discharged to flow into the lower container 22, which would result in unwanted adhesion of the reactant in the lower part of the process container and thus require the container/chamber walls to be heated [0012-0014].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the exhaust mechanism of Koshimizu to place it above the ring and add a lower chamber purge gas, as per the teachings of Takagi. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of preventing undesired adhesive of the reactant in the lower part of the processing container. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 7, Koshimizu teaches the processing gas includes a gas 115 but does not expressly teach the gas is for forming an insulating film on a substrate placed on the substrate support.
However, it has been held that 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). 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 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of gas and intended use of gas is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Koshimizu would be capable of processing such that the gas is for forming an insulating film on a substrate placed on the substrate support, based on user selection of the type of Koshimizu, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2010/0243608 to Koshimizu et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0279008 to Takagi, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0035605 to Takahashi.
The teachings of Koshimizu in view of Takagi are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 3-4, Koshimizu in view of Takagi does not expressly teach comprising a discharge electrode disposed along the ring electrode; and another power supply electrically connected to the discharge electrode and configured to cause an electrical discharge between the discharge electrode and the ring electrode to generate charged particles flowing together with the purge gas or a dielectric portion provided between the ring electrode and the discharge electrode.
Takahashi teaches a plasma processing system Fig. 2, 3 wherein the exhaust path has a grounding ring 144 that has a discharge electrode 142 that is disposed along the ring electrode, such that a purge gas is supplied (gas source not shown [0036]) in between the ground ring and the discharge ring to form a plasma therein (as shown in Fig. 2), such that the purge gas implicitly flows upwardly through a gap between the ring electrode and the substrate support, as broadly recited, and a power supply 150 electrically connected to the discharge electrode and configured to cause an electrical discharge between the discharge electrode and the ring electrode to generate charged particles flowing together with the purge gas (as formed by the plasma therein) and a dielectric portion 146 that is provided between the ring electrode and the discharge electrode, thus creating a secondary plasma [0034], the secondary plasma being present to reduce plasma leakage from the process space to the pumping space and improve the spatial uniformity of processing plasma in the process space [0043].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Koshimizu in view of Takagi by adding the discharge electrode, power, purge gas, and power as per the teachings of Takahashi. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of reducing plasma leakage from the process space to the pumping space and improve the spatial uniformity of processing plasma in the process space. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2010/0243608 to Koshimizu et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0279008 to Takagi, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2020/0362457 to Hu et al and United States Patent Application No. 2003/0029567 to Dhindsa et al.
The teachings of Koshimizu in view of Takagi are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 5, Koshimizu in view of Takagi does not expressly teach the power supply periodically applies the pulses of the DC voltage to the upper electrode, and the plasma processing apparatus further comprises a capacitor connected between the power supply and the upper electrode.
Hu teaches that the gas distribution member 112 Fig. 1A/upper electrode is connected to a power source 142 that can be an RF power source, a pulsed RF power source, or a pulsed DC power [0019], as suitable embodiments for power for the showerhead [0013-0043].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Koshimizu in view of Takagi with the art analogous power, as per the teachings of Hu.
Koshimizu in view of Takagi and in further view of Hu does not expressly teach a capacitor is placed between a power source and the showerhead/upper electrode.
Dhindsa teaches an upper electrode/showerhead 22 (Fig. 1,3) that has a capacitor 154, 150, 158 that allow for current flow in order for precise control over the density of the plasma in the excitation region [0023-0055].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Koshimizu in view of Takagi and in further view of Hu, by adding the capacitor as per the teachings of Dhindsa. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of giving control over plasma density in the excitation region. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2010/0243608 to Koshimizu et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2010/0279008 to Takagi, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2014/0290576 to Chen et al.
The teachings of Koshimizu in view of Takagi are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 6, Koshimizu in view of Takagi does not expressly teach a capacitor connected between the lower electrode and the ground.
Chen teaches that adding a capacitor 139 Fig. 1 connected between the lower electrode 112 and the ground, which is used to control the current flow [0019] which results in lower film stress of the film deposited on the substrate [0026; 0014-0029].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Koshimizu in view of Takagi by adding the capacitor of Chen. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of being able to lower film stress of the film deposited on the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2011/0100552 to Dhindsa et al.
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 TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716