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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ submission, filed on 04/28/2026, in response to claims 1-20 rejection from the final office action (01/30/2026), by amending claims 1, 7, and 17 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, 7, 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 § 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, 5-8, and 15 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”).
Claim 7: 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”).
‘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 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, 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.
Claim 7: 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 protrude toward the substrate by different lengths, 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.
Claim 15: 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.
‘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 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, 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 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).
Claims 3 and 6: Fig. 3D of ‘029 shows the claimed “wherein the second protrusion electrode protrudes toward the substrate by a longer length than the first protrusion electrode” of claim 3 and “wherein a part of the second electrode in the first region and another part of the second electrode in the second region protrude toward the substrate by different lengths” of claim 6.
Claim 8: Fig. 3D of ‘029 also shows the claimed “wherein the part of the second electrode in the first region is apart from the substrate supporting unit by a longer distance than the another part of the second electrode in the second region”, note the substrate supporting unit is flat (see Fig. 2A, for example).
Alternatively, claims 1-3, 5-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘097, in view of Schaepkens (US 20040263083, hereafter ‘083).
Applicants argue that the substrate has to be a flat substrate, which is not in the claim. Even with this interpretation, ‘083 is applied as below.
‘097 teaches some limitations of claims 1 and 7 and does not teach the other limitations of claims 1, 7, and 15 as discussed above.
Note the center region of the substrate in ‘097 is neighboring more nozzle/electrode than the edge region of the substrate.
‘083 is analogous art in the field of System And Method For Inductive Coupling Of An Expanding Thermal Plasma (title). ’083 teaches that the nozzle injector substantially confines the plasma, which tends to induce non-uniformities ([0005]), The reagent dissociation products are transported along with the expansion at high drift velocity, thus generating a convective flux of reactive species, which arrives at the surface of the substrate 20, resulting in deposition of a coating 34 on the substrate ([0024], last sentence, Fig. 1 shows the common knowledge that less coating away from the center of the nozzle, therefore a higher deposition rate at shorter distance).
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 known, based on the deposition profile as taught by coating 34 in Fig.1 of ‘083, the deposition rate is a superposition of neighboring electrode/nozzle and the edge region of the substrate, having fewer electrode/nozzle, would have less deposition thickness in Fig. 1 of ‘097. It would have been obvious to compensate the lower deposition rate at the edge of the substrate to shortening the distance between the edge nozzle/electrode to the edge of the substrate, for the purpose of uniform coating, as taught by ‘083.
The rejection of claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 are discussed above.
Claims 4, 10, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘097 and ‘029 (or ‘083), as being applied to claims 1 and 7 rejection above, further in view of Choi et al. (US 20080302303, hereafter ‘303).
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 (or ‘083) further teaches some limitations of:
Claims 4 and 10: 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” of claim 4 and “wherein a first protrusion electrode disposed in the first region among the protrusion electrodes comprises a first injection hole injecting a first gas” of claim 10),
By arranging the electrodes as shown in Fig. 3D of ‘029 (or ‘083), it would have the claimed “the second protrusion electrode comprises a second injection hole injecting a second gas” of claim 4 and “a second protrusion electrode disposed in the second region among the protrusion electrodes comprises a second injection hole injecting a second gas” of claim 10.
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 (or ‘083) does not teach the other limitations of:
Claims 4 and 10: 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 (or ‘083) further teaches the limitations of:
Claims 14 and 16: 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” of claim 14 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 the same length” of claim 16, (note ‘029’s electrode positioner is also capable of this arrangement).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘097 and ‘029, as being applied to claim 7 rejection above, further in view of MOCHIZUKI et al. (US 20220170158, hereafter ‘158).
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 9: wherein the another part of the second electrode in the second region is apart from the substrate supporting unit by a longer distance than the part of the second electrode in the first region.
‘158 is analogous art in the field of FILM FORMING DEVICE (title), Provided is a film forming device that deposits, on a substrate, a product generated by decomposing raw material gas by a plasma discharged from a discharge port of a double tube, the device including: an inner tube through which raw material gas containing a film-forming raw material flows and is guided to the discharge port on a downstream side; an outer tube that has the inner tube inserted thereinto and through which plasma-generating gas flows and a plasma generated by discharge is guided to the discharge port on the downstream side; a first electrode that is formed in an annular shape around the outer tube and grounded; and a second electrode that is formed in an annular shape around the outer tube and to which a voltage is applied (abstract). ‘158 teaches that As shown in FIG. 6, the protrusion amount of the end part of the inner tube 11 on the downstream side with respect to the end part of the outer tube 12 on the downstream side is defined as δ. In the present embodiment, for example, the protrusion amount δ is set to 7 mm ([0075], last two sentences), the film forming device 10A of the present embodiment is suitable for forming a film on a substrate 20A having a concave surface ([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 reversed the electrode arrangement of Fig. 3D of ‘029 and then combined with ‘097, for the purpose of coating concave substrate, as taught by ‘158 ([0076]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘097 and ‘083, as being applied to claim 7 rejection above, further in view of Yanagisawa et al. (US 20020144781, hereafter ‘781).
The combination of ‘097 and ‘083 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 9: wherein the another part of the second electrode in the second region is apart from the substrate supporting unit by a longer distance than the part of the second electrode in the first region.
Note ‘083’s coating 34 is for deposition.
‘781 is analogous art in the field of a local etching method using plasma. Notation 100 designates a plasma generating portion and activated species gas G in plasma generated at the plasma generating portion 100 is injected from a nozzle 101 to a surface of a semiconductor wafer W (Fig. 1, [0004]). ‘781 teaches that When the outer edge Wc is sufficiently remote therefrom by the distance [Symbol font/0x65] in observing a surface of the semiconductor wafer by disposing an observing point on the nozzle 20, the surface looks like a simple plane having substantially infinite spread and having no characteristic. Therefore, activated species gas injected from the nozzle 20 is impacted to the semiconductor wafer, changes a direction of flow and thereafter flows to uniformly spread along the surface of the semiconductor wafer. Therefore, the flow of the activated species gas is symmetrical with respect to a center axis of the nozzle 20 and accordingly, the etching rate E becomes symmetrical with respect to the nozzle axis. However, at a position approaching the outer edge Wc of the semiconductor wafer, the situation differs from the above-described. The flow of the activated species gas is influenced by the shape of the semiconductor wafer. At the position proximate to the outer edge Wc of the semiconductor wafer, in looking at the surface of the semiconductor wafer by placing the observing point on the central axis of the nozzle 20, the outer edge Wc is brought into the field of vision and the semiconductor wafer can no longer be regarded as the plane having the infinite spread and having no characteristic. Therefore, the flow of the activated species gas is not axially symmetrical and the distribution of the etching rate E is not axially symmetrical. That is, the etching rate profile is deformed. The deformation of the etching rate profile is caused by still other factor. When the activated species gas is blown to the semiconductor wafer, the activated species in the gas collide with silicon atoms at a constant frequency and cause chemical reaction. The activated species become other compound (gases) by the chemical reaction and lose the activity. When a comparison is made between the activated species gas staying for a long period of time in a space proximate to the surface of the semiconductor wafer and the activated species gas staying in a space remote from the surface of the semiconductor wafer, rates of the activated species included therein differ from each other. Therefore, when attention is paid to an arbitrary block of the activated species gas, the chemical activity as a whole differs for respective block ([0042]-[0044], see also [0041]), In FIG. 6, the etching rate profile of FIG. 5 is indicated by a dotted line for comparison. Further, at an outer side (right side) of the outer edge Wc, the semiconductor wafer is not present and therefore, the etching rate E is null. It is known that on an inner side of the outer edge Wc, the etching rate E is increased by [Symbol font/0x44]E at the same position ([0046], last sentence).
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 applied the etching with the apparatus of ‘097, because with increased etching rate at the outer edge of the substrate, as taught by ‘781, to lengthen the distance between the edge nozzle/electrode to the edge of the substrate, for the purpose of uniform etching rate, as taught by ‘781 ([0046], last sentence).
Claims 4, 10-11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘097 and ‘029 (or ‘083), as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of FAGUET (US 20080241377, hereafter ‘377).
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 (or ‘083) further teaches some limitations of:
Claims 4 and 10: 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” of claim 4 and “wherein a first protrusion electrode disposed in the first region among the protrusion electrodes comprises a first injection hole injecting a first gas” of claim 10),
By arranging the electrodes 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” of claim 4 and “a second protrusion electrode disposed in the second region among the protrusion electrodes comprises a second injection hole injecting a second gas” of claim 10.
The combination of ‘097 and ‘029 (or ‘083) does not teach the other limitations of:
Claims 4 and 10: 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 yet, 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:
Claims 14 and 16: 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” of claim 14 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 the same length” of claim 16, (note ‘029’s or ‘083’s electrode positioner is also capable of this arrangement).
Claims 17-20 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”).
‘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 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.
Alternatively, claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘097, in view of ‘037 and ‘083.
Applicants argue that the substrate has to be a flat substrate, which is not in the claim. Even with this interpretation, ‘083 is applied as below.
‘097 teaches some limitations of claim 17 and does not teach the other limitations of claim 17 as discussed above.
Note the center region of the substrate in ‘097 is neighboring more nozzle/electrode than the edge region of the substrate.
‘037 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 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).
‘083 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 known, based on the deposition profile as taught by coating 34 in Fig.1 of ‘083, the deposition rate is a superposition of neighboring electrode/nozzle and the edge region of the substrate, having fewer electrode/nozzle, would have less deposition thickness in Fig. 1 of ‘097. It would have been obvious to compensate the lower deposition rate at the edge of the substrate to shortening the distance between the edge nozzle/electrode to the edge of the substrate (the limitations of 17B), for the purpose of uniform coating, as taught by ‘083.
The combination of ‘097, ‘029, and ‘083 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 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to 35 USC 103 rejection over Oh ‘097 and Vermeer ‘029, Applicants repeatedly argue that ‘029 is designed to follow the contour of the surface of the substrate, because ‘097’s substrate is flat, there would be absolutely no motivation to adjust the protrusion lengths of the electrodes differently, see the bridging paragraph between pages 1 and 2.
This argument is found not persuasive.
A substrate is not part of the apparatus. An apparatus that is designed for processing the contour of the substrate of ‘029 would have the apparatus structure. Then this combined apparatus is capable of processing substrate of different shape, either flat, have less curvature, or have the same curvature as ‘029’s Fig. 3D. Furthermore, if by employing the adjustable electrodes as shown in Fig. 3A, the combined apparatus is capable of processing substrates of different curvature with uniform coating of all.
This OC also introduces new references ‘083 and ‘781 that teaches even if a flat substrate is part of the claim, other factors, such as coating and/or etching at the edge of the substrate, may require different distances between the electrode/nozzle to the substrate between the center region and the edge region.
Instant Application is a factorial design for various factors (hole area, length of various electrodes to the substrate between center and edge regions), there is no particular reason why one configuration works better than the other, it is just these factors affecting the coating/etching performance, and certain configuration is preferred in certain circumstance. The instant OC and previous OC has pointed out many of these factors having effects on coating/etching uniformity. Arguing that the second electrode should be further away in the edge region (Fig. 9 of instant application) or should be closer (Figs. 7-8) cannot be persuasive because different needs during certain coating/etching conditions.
The examiner omitted ‘780 as primary references to simplify the rejection. ‘780 can replaced ‘097 in all of the above rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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).
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
Prosecution Insights