Detailed Correspondence
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 Amendment
Applicants’ submission, filed on 09/02/2026, in response to claims 1-20 rejection from the non-final office action (06/03/2026), by amending claims 1, 14, and 17 and cancelling claims 6-10, 15-16, and 20 is entered and will be addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
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 limitation(s) is/are:
The “a substrate supporting unit” in claims 1 and 17, Fig. 1 shows it is a stage or support.
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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 20210035780, hereafter ‘780).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
’780 teaches all limitations of:
Claim 1: Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, a substrate processing apparatus 1 according to the present inventive concept performs a processing process on a substrate S ([0033], includes the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising”):
The substrate supporter 2 may be coupled to a chamber 100 which provides a processing space where the processing process is performed ([0034], 8th sentence, includes the claimed “a process chamber providing a reaction space for processing a substrate; a substrate supporting unit supporting the substrate”);
The substrate processing apparatus 1 according to the present inventive concept includes a substrate supporter 2, a first electrode 3, a second electrode 4, an opening 5, and a protrusion electrode 6 ([0033], last sentence, includes the claimed “a first electrode installed in the process chamber, the first electrode being opposite to the substrate and including a plurality of protrusion electrodes protruding toward the substrate; and a second electrode disposed under the first electrode, the second electrode including a plurality of openings into which the plurality of protrusion electrodes are inserted”),
As illustrated in FIG. 13, a third distance D3 to the protrusion electrodes 6 disposed in the center portion CA may be implemented to be greater than a third distance D3′ (illustrated in FIG. 13) to the protrusion electrodes disposed in the peripheral portion SA ([0074], includes the claimed “wherein the plurality of protrusion electrodes comprise a first protrusion electrode disposed in a first region and a second protrusion electrode disposed in a second region outside the first region, and the first protrusion electrode and the second protrusion electrode protrude by different lengths,
wherein a bottom surface of the second electrode facing the substrate supporting unit is flat such that the bottom surface of the second electrode in the first region and the bottom surface of the second electrode in the second region are located at a same height,
wherein the first protrusion electrode and the second protrusion electrode are inserted into the openings and disposed inward from the bottom surface of the second electrode, and a bottom surface of the first protrusion electrode and a bottom surface of the second protrusion electrode are located at different distances from the bottom surface of the second electrode within the openings,
wherein the first region is disposed at a portion corresponding to a center of the substrate, and the second region is disposed at a portion corresponding to an edge of the substrate”).
Claim 17: Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, a substrate processing apparatus 1 according to the present inventive concept performs a processing process on a substrate S ([0033], includes the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising”):
The substrate supporter 2 may be coupled to a chamber 100 which provides a processing space where the processing process is performed ([0034], 8th sentence, includes the claimed “a process chamber providing a reaction space for processing a substrate; a substrate supporting unit supporting the substrate”);
The substrate processing apparatus 1 according to the present inventive concept includes a substrate supporter 2, a first electrode 3, a second electrode 4, an opening 5, and a protrusion electrode 6 ([0033], last sentence), Referring to FIGS. 16 and 17, the substrate processing apparatus 1 according to the present inventive concept may include a second gas distribution hole 8 ([0082], includes the claimed “a first injection plate installed in the process chamber, the first injection plate being opposite to the substrate and including a plurality of protrusion paths protruding toward the substrate and injecting a first gas”);
Referring to FIGS. 14 and 15, the substrate processing apparatus 1 according to the present inventive concept may include a first gas distribution hole 7. The first gas distribution hole 7 distributes a first gas to the first discharging region 10. The first gas may be a gas for generating plasma or a gas for performing a processing process on the substrate S. The first gas may be a mixed gas where the gas for generating the plasma is mixed with the gas for performing the processing process on the substrate S ([0078]-[0079], includes the claimed “and a second injection plate disposed under the first injection plate, the second injection plate including a plurality of injection holes into which the protrusion paths are inserted and through which a second gas is injected”),
As illustrated in FIG. 13, a third distance D3 to the protrusion electrodes 6 disposed in the center portion CA may be implemented to be greater than a third distance D3′ (illustrated in FIG. 13) to the protrusion electrodes disposed in the peripheral portion SA ([0074], includes the claimed “wherein a first protrusion path disposed in a first region and a second protrusion path disposed in a second region outside the first region among the protrusion paths protrude toward the substrate by different lengths, and
wherein a bottom surface of the second injection plate facing the substrate supporting unit is flat such that the bottom surface of the second plate in the first region and the bottom surface of the second injection plate in the second region are located at a same height,
wherein the first protrusion path and the second protrusion path are inserted into the injection holes and disposed inward from the bottom surface of the second injection plate, and a bottom surface of the first protrusion path and a bottom surface of the second protrusion path are located at different distances from the bottom surface of the second injection plate within the injection holes, and
wherein the first region is disposed at a portion corresponding to a center of the substrate, and the second region is disposed at a portion corresponding to an edge of the substrate”).
Claims 2 and 18: Fig. 13 shows the claimed “wherein the first protrusion electrode protrudes toward the substrate by a longer length than the second protrusion electrode” of claim 2, “wherein the first protrusion path protrudes toward the substrate by a longer length than the second protrusion path” of claim 18.
Claim 5: The third distance D3 may be implemented to be equal to the sum of the first distance D1 and the second distance D2. In this case, the lower surface 62 of the protrusion electrode 6 and the lower surface 42 of the second electrode 4 may be disposed at the same position with respect to the vertical direction (the Z-axis direction) (Fig. 7, [0066], 5th-6th sentences, includes the claimed “wherein one of the first protrusion electrode and the second protrusion electrode inserted into the opening is the same plane as a bottom surface of the second electrode”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (WO 2019147097, hereafter ‘097, US 20200357613 is cited as English translation), in view of Vermeer et al. (US 20130012029, hereafter ‘029).
‘097 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: Referring to FIGS. 2 and 3, a substrate processing apparatus 1 … The substrate processing apparatus 1 according to the present inventive concept includes a supporting part 2, a first electrode unit 3, a generating hole 4, a second electrode unit 5, and a protrusion electrode 6 ([0021], includes the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising”):
Referring to FIG. 2, the supporting part 2 supports the substrate S. The supporting part 2 may be disposed under the first electrode unit 3 … The supporting part 2 may be coupled to a chamber 100 which provides a processing space where the processing process is performed ([0022], includes the claimed “a process chamber providing a reaction space for processing a substrate; a substrate supporting unit supporting the substrate; a first electrode installed in the process chamber, the first electrode being opposite to the substrate and including a plurality of protrusion electrodes protruding toward the substrate; and a second electrode disposed under the first electrode, the second electrode including a plurality of openings into which the plurality of protrusion electrodes are inserted”),
Fig. 2 shows the claimed “wherein a bottom surface of the second electrode facing the substrate supporting unit is flat such that the bottom surface of the second electrode in the first region and the bottom surface of the second electrode in the second region are located at a same height“.
‘097 further teaches that as illustrated in FIG. 3, the protrusion electrode 6 may be implemented to be disposed in a portion of the inner portion of the first electrode unit 3 ([0030]) and as illustrated in FIG. 4, the protrusion electrode 6 may be implemented to be disposed in a whole inner portion of the first electrode unit 3. Although not shown, the protrusion electrode 6 may protrude from the lower surface 32 of the first electrode unit 3 in the downward direction (the DD arrow direction), in addition to that the protrusion electrode 6 is disposed in the whole inner portion of the first electrode unit 3 ([0029]), the protrusion electrode 6 may protrude by a length 6a which is equal to or longer than an interval D between the first electrode unit 3 and the second electrode unit 5 spaced apart from each other with respect to the vertical direction (the Z-axis direction) ([0032], 2nd sentence), the length 61a of a portion, inserted into the first electrode unit 3, of the protrusion electrode 6 may be equal to or less than 0.7 L (Figs. 6-7, [0037], 2nd sentence). However, ‘097 does not explicitly teach varying the length of the plurality of the protrusion electrodes 6 in Fig. 2, or the combination of Figs. 3-7 in Fig. 2.
‘097 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: wherein the plurality of protrusion electrodes comprise a first protrusion electrode disposed in a first region and a second protrusion electrode disposed in a second region outside the first region, and the first protrusion electrode and the second protrusion electrode protrude by different lengths,
wherein the first protrusion electrode and the second protrusion electrode are inserted into the openings and disposed inward from the bottom surface of the second electrode, and a bottom surface of the first protrusion electrode and a bottom surface of the second protrusion electrode are located at different distances from the bottom surface of the second electrode within the openings,
wherein the first region is disposed at a portion corresponding to a center of the substrate, and the second region is disposed at a portion corresponding to an edge of the substrate.
‘029 is analogous art in the field of Method for depositing a layer on a surface of a substrate ... The method further comprising providing a first electrode and a second electrode, positioning the first electrode and the substrate relative to each other, and generating a plasma discharge near the substrate for contacting the substrate by generating a high-voltage difference between the first electrode and the second electrode (abstract). ’029 teaches that the plasma device 6 comprises an electrode positioner arranged for individually moving each one of the first electrodes 52.i in its respective bore 68.i. (Fig. 3A, [0101],3rd sentence), the first and second electrodes 52.i, 54.j. (Figs. 3C-3D, [0113], last sentence), the electrodes 52.i, 54.j are individually movable in a direction towards and away from the substrate 14, e.g. as described with respect to FIGS. 3A-C (Fig. 3D, [0118]), for the purpose of generating the plasma discharge selectively ([0004]).
‘029 further teaches that the device 6 is specially adapted for patterning the surface 12 of a three-dimensional substrate 14 ([0117], last sentence). Fig. 3D of ‘029 shows “wherein a part of the second electrode in a first region and another part of the second electrode in a second region outside the first region in the second electrode are apart from the substrate supporting unit by different lengths”. Note the substrate supporting unit is flat (see Fig. 2A, for example).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added individual positioner of ‘029 to each electrode 6 of ‘097, for the purpose of generating the plasma discharge selectively, as taught by ‘029 ([0004]) and suggested by ‘097. As such, the combined apparatus is capable of arranging the first protrusion electrode and the second protrusion electrode at different distances from the bottom surface of the second electrode.
Note as the substrate is not part of the apparatus, a flat substrate or a substrate 14 of less of curvature can be used in Fig. 3D of ‘029, therefore, “a part of the second electrode in a first region and another part of the second electrode in a second region outside the first region in the second electrode protrude toward the substrate by different lengths”.
The combination apparatus of ‘097 and ‘029 further teaches the limitations of:
Claims 2 and 5: with individually controlled positioner from ‘029 to each of the protrusion electrode 6 of ‘097, the combination apparatus is capable of the claimed “wherein the first protrusion electrode protrudes toward the substrate by a longer length than the second protrusion electrode” of claim 2, see also Fig. 5A of ‘029, and “wherein one of the first protrusion electrode and the second protrusion electrode inserted into the opening is the same plane as a bottom surface of the second electrode” of claim 5, (see also Fig. 4 of ‘097).
Claim 3: with individually controlled positioner from ‘029 to each of the protrusion electrode 6 of ‘097, the combination apparatus is capable of the claimed “wherein the second protrusion electrode protrudes toward the substrate by a longer length than the first protrusion electrode” of claim 3. Alternatively, when coating curved substrate such as Fig. 3D of ‘029.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘780, as being applied to claims 1 and 17 rejection above, further in view of ‘029.
‘780 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 3: wherein the second protrusion electrode protrudes toward the substrate by a longer length than the first protrusion electrode.
Claim 19: wherein the second protrusion path protrudes toward the substrate by a longer length than the first protrusion path.
‘029 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added individual positioner of ‘029 to each of the protrusion electrode 6 of ‘780, for the purpose of generating the plasma discharge selectively, as taught by ‘029 ([0004]). As such, the combined apparatus is capable of arranging the first protrusion electrode (or path) and the second protrusion electrode (or path) at length.
Note as the substrate is not part of the apparatus, a flat substrate or a substrate 14 of less of curvature can be used in Fig. 3D of ‘029, therefore, “a part of the second electrode in a first region and another part of the second electrode in a second region outside the first region in the second electrode protrude toward the substrate by different lengths”.
Claims 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘097 and ‘029, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Choi et al. (US 20080302303, hereafter ‘303).
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 further teaches some limitations of:
Claim 4: Referring to FIG. 9, the protrusion electrode 6 may include a distribution hole 63 (‘097, [0055], includes the claimed “wherein the first protrusion electrode comprises a first injection hole injecting a first gas”),
By arranging the adjustable electrodes of Fig. 3A as shown in Fig. 3D of ‘029, it would have the claimed “the second protrusion electrode comprises a second injection hole injecting a second gas”.
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 4: an area of the first injection hole differs from an area of the second injection hole.
Claim 12: wherein an area of the second injection hole is formed to be greater than an area of the first injection hole.
Claim 13: wherein the area of the first injection hole and the area of the second injection hole are horizontal cross-sectional areas.
‘303 is analogous art in the field of APPARATUS FOR DEPOSITING A UNIFORM SILICON FILM WITH FLOW GRADIENT DESIGNS (title), Plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) ([0006], 4th sentence). ‘990 teaches that FIG. 9C depicts a bottom view of the downstream surface 928 of the plate 902 having chokes 926 opened thereon. The surface area density and distribution of the chokes 926 formed on the plate 902 may be varied to meet different process requirement. In one embodiment, the chokes 926 in the corner edge portion 912 may have a higher surface area density than chokes 926 in the center portion 910 in the plate 902 so that a hollow cathode gradient (HCG) may be provided ([0076]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted higher surface area at the edge portion than the center portion, as taught by ‘303, to the distribution holes 63 of ‘097, for the purpose of uniform gas flow to meet different process requirement, as taught by ‘303 (title and [0076]).
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 14: Fig. 2 of ‘097 shows the claimed “wherein at least one of the first protrusion electrode and the second protrusion electrode inserted into the opening is the same plane as a bottom surface of the second electrode”.
Claims 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘780, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of ‘303.
‘780 further teaches some limitations of:
Claim 4: The second gas distribution hole 8 distributes a second gas to the third discharging region 30 (Figs. 16-17, [0083], includes the claimed “wherein the first protrusion electrode comprises a first injection hole injecting a first gas”),
The description of Figs. 16-17 is clearly applicable to all protrusion electrodes of Fig. 13, the claimed “the second protrusion electrode comprises a second injection hole injecting a second gas”.
‘780 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 4: an area of the first injection hole differs from an area of the second injection hole.
Claim 12: wherein an area of the second injection hole is formed to be greater than an area of the first injection hole.
Claim 13: wherein the area of the first injection hole and the area of the second injection hole are horizontal cross-sectional areas.
‘303 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted higher surface area at the edge portion than the center portion, as taught by ‘303, to the gas distribution holes 8 of the protrusion electrodes 6 ‘780, for the purpose of uniform gas flow to meet different process requirement, as taught by ‘303 (title and [0076]).
‘780 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 5: The third distance D3 may be implemented to be equal to the sum of the first distance D1 and the second distance D2. In this case, the lower surface 62 of the protrusion electrode 6 and the lower surface 42 of the second electrode 4 may be disposed at the same position with respect to the vertical direction (the Z-axis direction) (Fig. 7, [0066], 5th-6th sentences, includes the claimed “wherein at least one of the first protrusion electrode and the second protrusion electrode inserted into the opening is the same plane as a bottom surface of the second electrode”).
Claims 4, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘097 and ‘029, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of FAGUET (US 20080241377, hereafter ‘377).
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 further teaches some limitations of:
Claim 4: Referring to FIG. 9, the protrusion electrode 6 may include a distribution hole 63 (‘097, [0055], includes the claimed “wherein the first protrusion electrode comprises a first injection hole injecting a first gas”),
By arranging the adjustable electrodes of Fig. 3A as shown in Fig. 3D of ‘029, it would have the claimed “the second protrusion electrode comprises a second injection hole injecting a second gas”.
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 4: an area of the first injection hole differs from an area of the second injection hole.
Claim 11: wherein an area of the first injection hole is formed to be greater than an area of the second injection hole.
Claim 13: wherein the area of the first injection hole and the area of the second injection hole are horizontal cross-sectional areas.
‘377 is analogous art in the field of VAPOR DEPOSITION SYSTEM (title), plasma enhanced CVD (PECVD) ([0004]). ‘377 teaches that the plurality of openings 144 can be distributed in various density patterns on the gas distribution plate 141. For example, more openings can be formed near the center of the gas distribution plate 141 and fewer openings can be formed near the periphery of the gas distribution plate 141. Alternatively, for example, more openings can be formed near the periphery of the gas distribution slate 141 and fewer openings can be formed near the center of the gas distribution plate 141. Additionally , the size of the openings can vary on the gas distribution plate 141. For example, larger openings can be formed near the center of the gas distribution plate 141 and smaller openings can be formed near the periphery of the gas distribution plate 141. Alternatively, for example, smaller openings -can be formed near the periphery of the gas distribution plate 141 and larger openings can be formed near the center of the gas distribution plate 141 (Fig. 2A, [0040]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted larger openings near the center than near the periphery of the gas distribution, as taught by ‘377, to the gas distribution holes 63 of ‘097, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Note the last sentence of [0040] of ‘377 is a typo which seems unnecessarily paraphrasing the bold-faced sentence right before the last sentence. In the spirit of the earlier two sentences of [0040] that states the opposite arrangement, the last sentence should be smaller openings near the center of the gas distribution plate, which also is a valid rejection of claim 12.
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 further teaches the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Claims 4, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘780, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of ‘377.
‘780 further teaches some limitations of:
Claim 4: The second gas distribution hole 8 distributes a second gas to the third discharging region 30 (Figs. 16-17, [0083], includes the claimed “wherein the first protrusion electrode comprises a first injection hole injecting a first gas”),
The description of Figs. 16-17 is clearly applicable to all protrusion electrodes of Fig. 13, the claimed “the second protrusion electrode comprises a second injection hole injecting a second gas”.
‘780 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 4: an area of the first injection hole differs from an area of the second injection hole.
Claim 11: wherein an area of the first injection hole is formed to be greater than an area of the second injection hole.
Claim 13: wherein the area of the first injection hole and the area of the second injection hole are horizontal cross-sectional areas.
‘377 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted larger openings near the center than near the periphery of the gas distribution, as taught by ‘377, to the gas distribution holes 8 of the protrusion electrodes 6 ‘780, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
The ‘780 further teaches the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘097, in view of Ha et al. (US 20150303037, hereafter ‘037) and ‘029.
‘097 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 17: Referring to FIGS. 2 and 3, a substrate processing apparatus 1 … The substrate processing apparatus 1 according to the present inventive concept includes a supporting part 2, a first electrode unit 3, a generating hole 4, a second electrode unit 5, and a protrusion electrode 6 ([0021], includes the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising”):
Referring to FIG. 2, the supporting part 2 supports the substrate S. The supporting part 2 may be disposed under the first electrode unit 3 … The supporting part 2 may be coupled to a chamber 100 which provides a processing space where the processing process is performed ([0022], includes the claimed “a process chamber providing a reaction space for processing a substrate; a substrate supporting unit supporting the substrate”);
Referring to FIG. 9, the protrusion electrode 6 may include a distribution hole 63 ([0055], the second electrode unit 5, and the protrusion electrode 6 is the claimed “a first injection plate installed in the process chamber, the first injection plate being opposite to the substrate and including a plurality of protrusion paths protruding toward the substrate and injecting a first gas”, the first electrode unit 3 is the claimed “a second injection plate disposed under the first injection plate, the second injection plate including a plurality of injection holes into which the protrusion paths are inserted”),
Fig. 2 shows the claimed “wherein a bottom surface of the second injection plate facing the substrate supporting unit is flat such that the bottom surface of the second plate in the first region and the bottom surface of the second injection plate in the second region are located at a same height“.
‘097 further teaches that as illustrated in FIG. 3, the protrusion electrode 6 may be implemented to be disposed in a portion of the inner portion of the first electrode unit 3 ([0030]) and as illustrated in FIG. 4, the protrusion electrode 6 may be implemented to be disposed in a whole inner portion of the first electrode unit 3. Although not shown, the protrusion electrode 6 may protrude from the lower surface 32 of the first electrode unit 3 in the downward direction (the DD arrow direction), in addition to that the protrusion electrode 6 is disposed in the whole inner portion of the first electrode unit 3 ([0029]), the protrusion electrode 6 may protrude by a length 6a which is equal to or longer than an interval D between the first electrode unit 3 and the second electrode unit 5 spaced apart from each other with respect to the vertical direction (the Z-axis direction) ([0032], 2nd sentence), the length 61a of a portion, inserted into the first electrode unit 3, of the protrusion electrode 6 may be equal to or less than 0.7 L (Figs. 6-7, [0037], 2nd sentence). However, ‘097 does not explicitly teach varying the length of the plurality of the protrusion electrodes 6 in Fig. 2, or the combination of Figs. 3-7 in Fig. 2.
‘097 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 17: (17A) (a second injection plate disposed under the first injection plate, the second injection plate including a plurality of injection holes into which the protrusion paths are inserted) and through which a second gas is injected,
(17B) wherein a first protrusion path disposed in a first region and a second protrusion path disposed in a second region outside the first region among the protrusion paths protrude toward the substrate by different lengths, and
wherein the first protrusion path and the second protrusion path are inserted into the injection holes and disposed inward from the bottom surface of the second injection plate, and a bottom surface of the first protrusion path and a bottom surface of the second protrusion path are located at different distances from the bottom surface of the second injection plate within the injection holes, and
wherein the first region is disposed at a portion corresponding to a center of the substrate, and the second region is disposed at a portion corresponding to an edge of the substrate.
‘037 is analogous art in the field of Substrate Processing Apparatus (title), an apparatus for processing substrate which prevents a plasma discharge from being transferred to a substrate so as to minimize damages on the substrate and also minimize deterioration in quality of a thin film deposited on the substrate, wherein the apparatus may include a process chamber for providing a reaction space, and a gas distribution module for dissociating processing gas by the use of plasma, and distributing the dissociated processing gas onto a substrate, wherein the gas distribution module may include a lower frame having a plurality of electrode inserting portions (abstract). ’037 teaches that The lower frame 147, which is electrically insulated from the upper frame 143, is inserted into and is electrically connected with a plasma power supply member ([0079], see Figs. 2-3), The lower frame 147 is provided with a plurality of electrode inserting portions (EIP) into which the plurality of protruding electrodes (PE) penetrating through the electrode penetrating portions 145a of the insulating plate 145 are inserted ([0077]), whereby the upper frame 143 may be electrically grounded through the chamber lid 130 ([0065], last sentence, i.e. the PE is grounded), The upper frame 143 may include the plurality of protruding electrodes (PE), a plurality of processing gas distribution holes (SH1), a plurality of dilution gas supply holes 143b, and a plurality of dilution gas distribution holes (SH2) ([0066]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added dilution gas supply of ‘037, to the generating hole 4 of ‘097 (the limitations of 17A), for the purpose of minimizing damages on the substrate and also minimizing deterioration in quality of a thin film, as taught by ‘037 (abstract).
‘029 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have re-arranged the protrusion electrodes 6 of ‘097 according to Fig. 3D of ‘029, to have added individual positioner of ‘029 to each electrode 6 of ‘097 (the limitations of 17B), for the purpose of coating a three-dimensional substrate, as taught by ‘029 ([117]) and generating the plasma discharge selectively, as taught by ‘029 ([0004]) and suggested by ‘097. Note as the substrate is not part of the apparatus, a flat substrate or a substrate 14 of less of curvature can be used in Fig. 3D of ‘029, therefore, “a part of the second electrode in a first region and another part of the second electrode in a second region outside the first region in the second electrode protrude toward the substrate by different lengths”.
The combination of ‘097, ‘029, and ‘037 further teaches the limitations of:
Claims 18-20: with individually controlled positioner from ‘029 to each of the protrusion electrode 6 of ‘097, the combination apparatus is capable of the claimed “wherein the first protrusion path protrudes toward the substrate by a longer length than the second protrusion path” of claim 18 and “wherein the second protrusion path protrudes toward the substrate by a longer length than the first protrusion path” of claim 19, and “wherein a first protrusion electrode disposed in the first region and a second protrusion electrode disposed in the second region among the protrusion electrodes protrude by different lengths” of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to 35 USC 103 rejection over Oh ‘097 and Vermeer ‘029, Applicants argue that
A) ‘097 teaches away from their combination, see the 1st complete paragraph of page 6.
This argument is found not persuasive.
Nowhere in ‘097 “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”, see MPEP 2143.01 I.
B) ‘029 fails to disclose a flat lower plate having openings facing the substrate that surround the pins and defines the plasma discharge space, see the bottom of page 6.
This argument is found not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection is based on ‘097 in view of ‘029. ‘097 teaches a flat lower plate (second electrode) with pins (protrusion electrodes) but fails to teach varying the distance of the protrusion electrodes relatively to the bottom of the second electrode. ‘029 teaches adjusting the protrusion electrodes (upper electrodes 52.1-52.6, Fig. 3A) by positioner. The combined apparatus is capable of various electrode distance distribution. Furthermore, Fig. 3D specifically teaches the first protrusion electrodes in the center region being away from the substrate more than the first protrusion electrodes in the edge region.
C) the combination would move the electrode ends away from a common plane, see the top of page 7.
This argument is found not persuasive.
This is again attacking reference individually.
The examiner notices Applicants’ Specification describes “Accordingly, discharging may be performed by an electrical field applied between the protrusion electrode 44 and the second electrode 42, and thus, plasma may be generated” the second last complete paragraph of page 11.
This is the same as “When the plasma power source applies the power to the first electrode unit 3, plasma may be generated from an electric field generated between the protrusion electrode 6 and the first electrode unit 3” of ‘097.
Therefore, from the teaching of ‘029, it would have been moving the protrusion electrode 6 to affect the plasma discharge selectively.
Because the amendment, the examiner re-apply ‘780 as primary reference as 102 rejection for some claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notices that newly submitted IDS, KR 20150078475, is also applicable to the rejection of some claims.
US 20030097988 is cited for coating thickness is larger when the distance to wafer is shorter (Fig. 5, first row).
WO 2019212270 is cited for the center first electrode closer to substrate than peripheral first electrode (Fig.1 5).
The examiner notices that ‘097 and ‘780 teaches rationale for varying length of the protrusion electrodes. US 20080110860 is cited for varying mode of etching edge-high vs. edge-low (Figs. 5A-5D). This provides rationale to reverse the plasma distribution for various design factor such as varying length of the protrusion electrodes, hole area, and distance to the substrate, in the center vs. edge regions.
US 20150235812 is cited for power electrode 250 protrudes at different length at different regions (Fig. 9). US 20150111391 is cited for gas G1 to the second injection holes, in addition to gas G3 to the protrusion electrode (Fig. 8).
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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.
/KEATH T CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
