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 filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “centers of circular shape of a plurality of recesses that are different from each other in a plan view” is supported by Figure. 12 and paragraph [0040].
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
PNG
media_image1.png
269
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
According to Figure 12 of the current application, the centers of the circular shape of the recesses (16) are the same. They are not different from each other in any view.
According to paragraph [0040] of the current application, Figure 12 shows an example in which the recesses 16 are cone-shaped. Figure 13 shows another example in which the recesses are cone-shaped.
PNG
media_image2.png
289
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, figures 12, 13 and paragraph [0040] fail to disclose or teach “centers of circular shape of a plurality of recesses that are different from each other in a plan view”. According to paragraph [0040], the shape of the recesses is the same (e.g. cone-shaped).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification fails to disclose “centers of circular shapes of a plurality of recesses that are different from each other in a plan view” recited in Claim 1 to enable one skilled in the art to make or use the invention.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 4-6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (2021/0082727) in view of Koshimizu (20120031560), further in view of Tian et al. (2014/0312767), further in view of Saito et al. (2017/0009338).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikeda et al. (2021/0082727) discloses a plasma processing apparatus (10) (Fig. 1), comprising:
a chamber (1) having a processing space (U) for performing plasma processing on a substrate (W) and a synthesis space (V) for synthesizing electromagnetic waves (paragraph [0029)); a dielectric window (5) configured to partition the processing space (U) and the synthesis space (V) (paragraph [0029]);
an antenna unit (2) having a plurality of antennas that radiate the electromagnetic waves into the synthesis space and functioning as a phased array antenna (paragraph [0025]); an electromagnetic wave output part (6) configured to output the electromagnetic waves to the antenna unit; and
a controller (7, 8, fig. 1; a phase control, paragraphs [0010], [0011], Figs 3A-3C, Fig. 4) configured to cause the antenna unit to function as the phased array antenna (paragraph [0028]).
As discussed above, Ikeda essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the dielectric window has a plurality of recesses, each having a circular shape in a plan view, on a surface thereof facing the processing space, and wherein the plurality of recesses is uniformly provided in an area where the substrate is arranged.
However, Koshimizu (20120031560) discloses a plurality of circular ring-shaped recesses (41) (paragraphs [0064], [0065], [0067], [0093], [0094]) in a plan view on the surface of a dielectric window (30) (See Fig. 2 as below).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art incorporate the features (e.g. circular ring-shaped recesses) of Koshimizu into the apparatus of Ikeda in order to strengthen the magnetic field and thus improving plasma distribution as taught by Koshimizu (paragraphs [0012] and [0065]).
Further, it has been held that merely changing the shape of the parts is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious which involves routine skill in the art.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Although neither Ikeda nor Koshimizu literally discloses that the plurality of recesses is uniformly provided in an area where the substrate is arranged, however, Tian discloses the plurality of recesses (circular recesses (47), fig. 3) is uniformly provided in an area where the substrate is arranged (e.g. a plurality of recesses may be provided in the dielectric window. Thus, the uniformity of the generated plasma may be further improved (paragraphs [0012] to [0014)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art incorporate the features (e.g. circular recesses 47, fig. 3) of Tian into the apparatus of Ikeda/Koshimizu in order to improve the uniformity of the generated plasma as taught by Tian (paragraphs [0012] to [0014]).
As discussed above, the combination of Ikeda, Koshimizu and Tian does not explicitly disclose the “wherein the centers of the circular shapes of the plurality of recesses are different from each other in the plan view”.
However, this limitation is not supported by the specification. In order to expedite the prosecution, the claimed limitation is interpreted as best as examiner can.
However, Saito et al. (2017/0009338) discloses a plurality of recesses (18a, 18b), in which the center (tapered groove, formed annularly, paragraph [0061]) of the recess (18a) is different from the center (cylindrical, paragraph [0064]) of recesses (18b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided different center shape of the recesses in the combination of Ikeda, Koshimizu and Tian in order to facilitate generation of standing waves by microwaves and contribute to efficient generate of the plasma by the microwave discharge as taught by Saito (paragraph [0061]).
Ikeda et al (2021/00827237) discloses a plurality of phased array antennas disposed below the dielectric window and configured to irradiate a plurality of electromagnetic waves (abstract). Ikeda teaches that the electric field distribution in the dielectric window 5 is controlled by controlling the phases of microwaves and radiating the microwaves from below the dielectric window 5. Thus, the plasma processing apparatus 10 capable of controlling a plasma distribution is provided (paragraph [0037]). Ikeda also teaches since a wavelength of the microwaves propagating through the dielectric can be shortened by filling the space V with the dielectric, the size of the plasma processing apparatus 10 can be reduced (paragraph [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized that the dielectric window in Ikeda would have also suppressed the electromagnetic waves and plasma generated in the plurality of recesses from spreading in an in-plan direct of the dielectric window since the electric field and plasma distribution in the dielectric window is controlled and the wavelength of the microwaves is shorted as taught by Ikeda.
Further, Saito et al. discloses suppressing the abnormal discharge in the dielectric window gas flow path in a case where the processing gas and the electromagnetic waves for plasma generation are introduced into the processing container through the dielectric window (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the dielectric window would have suppressed the electromagnetic waves for plasma since dielectric material of the dielectric windows reduces or suppresses the electromagnetic waves from spreading in Ikeda as taught by Saito.
Regarding Claim 2, Ikeda in view of Koshimizu, Tian and Saito, discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein plasma is generated in the recesses (41) (Fig. 2 of Koshimizu).
Regarding Claim 3, Ikeda in view of Koshimizu, Tian and Saito, discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein a depth of the recesses is 18 mm or more (“the recesses 41 are formed may be in the range of, e.g., about 10 mm to about 20 mm (paragraph [0066] of Koshimizu). 20mm meets the range of “18mm or more”).
Regarding Claim 4, as discussed above, Ikeda in view of Koshimizu essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the recesses have a cone shape with a wide frontage on the side of the processing space.
However, Tian et al. (2014/0312767) discloses cone-shaped recesses (See paragraphs [0006] and [0055], figs. 9-11 of Tian).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided cone shaped recesses of Tian in the combination of Ikeda and Koshimizu in order to meet a desired result and optimization since it was held that changing in shape would have found obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding Claim 5, as discussed above, Ikeda essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the recesses have a shape with rounded corners or a chamfered shape.
However, Tian discloses the recesses have shape with rounded corners or chamfered shape (Figs, 1, 9-11 of Tian).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided recesses having shape with rounded corners or chamfered shape of Tian in Ikeda in order to meet a desired result and optimization since it was held that changing in shape would have found obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding Claim 6, as discussed above, Ikeda in view of Koshimizu and Saito essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein a pitch between the recesses is 56 mm or less.
However, Tian discloses a pitch between the recesses is 56 mm or less (paragraph [0052] of Tian).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the dimension of the pitch between recesses having 56mm or less of Tian in Ikeda in order to generate desired level of plasma.
Regarding Claim 8, Ikeda in view of Koshimizu, Tian and Saito, discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein an area of the dielectric window (5) where recesses (41) formed on the window (30) (fig. 2 of Koshimizu) is wider than an area corresponding to the substrate (W) (Fig. 1 of Ikeda).
Regarding Claim 9, Ikeda in view of Koshimizu, Tian and Saito, discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the controller (7, 8, a phase control, paragraphs [0010], [0011], Figs 3A-3C, Fig. 4 of Ikeda) is configured to control a phase of each of the electromagnetic waves radiated from the plurality of antennas so that a condensing portion where the electromagnetic waves are condensed at an arbitrary position on the surface of the dielectric window due to interference when synthesizing the electromagnetic waves in the synthesis space is formed and moved (“dielectric window and configured to irradiate a plurality of electromagnetic waves”, abstract; “electric field is strengthened at a predetermined position of the dielectric window 5”, paragraph [0035] of Ikeda; “to control the plasma density on the outer peripheral side of the dielectric window 5 to be higher than the plasma density on the inner peripheral side of the dielectric window 5”, paragraph [0054] of Ikeda).
Regarding Claim 10, Ikeda in view of Koshimizu, Tian, and Saito, discloses the apparatus of Claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to control an average electric field distribution per unit time by changing a moving speed of the condensing portion by phase control (“move the focal position O over time with a high speed control...the distribution of microwave electric fields can be controlled”, paragraph [0050] of Ikeda; “moving the focal position C and a focus matching portion Ar at high speed”, paragraphs [0053] of Ikeda; “the controller may change the moving speed of the focus matching portion Ar...control an average electric field distribution per unit time”, paragraph [0054] of Ikeda).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (2021/0082727) in view of Koshimizu (20120031560), further in view of Tian et al. (2014/0312767), further in view of Saito et al. (2017/0009338) further in view of Leeser et al. (2022/0246428) and further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (2014/0231016).
Regarding Claim 7, as discussed above, Ikeda essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the number of the recesses is 37 or more when the substrate is a wafer with a diameter of 300 mm.
However, Leeser discloses more than 37 recesses (fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a desired number (e.g. 37 or more) of recesses of Leeser in Ikeda in order to generate desired level of plasma as taught by Leeser.
As discussed above, neither Ikeda, Koshimizu, Tian, Saito nor Leeser discloses a wafer with diameter of 300mm.
However, Yoshikawa teaches increasing the size of the wafer with diameter of 300mm (paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0045] and [0047)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a wafer with diameter of 300mm of Yoshikawa in Ikeda in order to process a desired number of chips on the wafer in accordance with the size of the chamber and etching technology.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (2021/0082727) in view of Koshimizu (20120031560), further in view of Tian et al. (2014/0312767), further in view of Saito et al. (2017/0009338) further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (2014/0124478).
Regarding Claim 11, Ikeda discloses control the plasma density on the outer peripheral side of the dielectric window 5 to be higher than the plasma density on the inner peripheral side of the dielectric window”, paragraph [0054]) but does not explicitly disclose that the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein a density of the plasma generated in the processing space is higher than a cutoff density above which the electromagnetic waves penetrating into the plasma are attenuated.
However, Yoshikawa et al. (2014/0124478) discloses a density of the plasma generated in the processing space is higher than a cutoff density above which the electromagnetic waves penetrating into the plasma are attenuated (“a specific plasma generating location is approximately just below the transmission plate 28 serving as the dielectric window that allows high-frequency power to pass, and when electron density of plasma just below the transmission plate is higher than frequency cutoff density of the high-frequency power”, paragraph [0074]. Plasma generation location as the claimed processing space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have generated a density of the plasma generated in the processing space is higher than a cutoff density above which the electromagnetic waves penetrating into the plasma are attenuated in Ikeda in order to hold a specific level of plasma to process the substrate as taught by Yoshikawa.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (2021/0082727) in view of Koshimizu (20120031560), further in view of Tian et al. (2014/0312767), further in view of Saito et al. (2017/0009338) further in view of Zong et al. (2023/0011958), further in view of Onuki et al. (2022/0328486).
Regarding Claim 12, Ikeda discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising: a gas supply part configured to supply at least a first gas and a second gas to the processing space, wherein at least the first gas and the second gas (gas supply ports, fig. 1A. Noted that first gas and second gas enter into the chamber from the left and the right) to the substrate (W) to form a film (S).
As discussed above, Ikeda essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the first gas and second gas being sequentially supplied.
However, Zong et al. (2023/0011958) discloses that the auxiliary gas and the reactant gas may be supplied to the reaction chamber body or may be introduced in a sequential order according to requirements (paragraph [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to have supplied gases in a sequential order in Ikeda in order to meet the specific requirements to make the substrate as taught by Zong.
As discussed above, Ikeda in view of Koshimizu, Tian, Saito and Zong essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose ALD process.
However, Onuki et al. (2022/0328486) discloses that ALD method which enables one atomic layer to be deposited at a time using self-regulating characteristics of atoms, has advantages such as deposition of an extremely thin film, deposition on a component with a high aspect ratio, deposition of a film with a small number of defects such as pinholes, deposition with excellent coverage, and low- temperature deposition (paragraph [0251]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used ALD method in Ikeda in order to obtain the advantage of ALD to deposit extremely thin film as taught by Onuki.
Claim(s) 1-3, 4-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al. (2003/0155075) in view of Koshimizu (20120031560), further in view of Tian et al. (2014/0312767), further in view of Saito et al. (2017/0009338).
Regarding Claim 1, Yasui et al. (2003/015075) discloses a plasma processing apparatus (Abstract and Fig. 1), comprising:
a chamber (104) having a processing space (101) for performing plasma processing on a substrate (114) and a synthesis space (109) for synthesizing electromagnetic waves (paragraphs [0034] to [0036]);
a dielectric window (103) configured to partition the processing space (101) and the synthesis space (109);
an antenna unit (113) having a plurality of antennas that radiate the electromagnetic waves into the synthesis space (paragraph [0036]) and functioning as a phased array antenna;
an electromagnetic wave output part (112) configured to output the electromagnetic waves to the antenna unit (paragraph [0042]); and
a controller configured to cause the antenna unit to function as the phased array antenna (paragraph [0069]).
As discussed above, Yasui essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the dielectric window has a plurality of recesses, each having a circular shape in a plan view, on a surface thereof facing the processing space, and wherein the plurality of recesses is uniformly provided in an area where the substrate is arranged.
However, Koshimizu (20120031560) discloses a plurality of circular ring-shaped recesses (41) (paragraphs [0064], [0065], [0067], [0093], [0094]) in a plan view, on the surface of a dielectric window (30) (See Fig. 2 as below).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art incorporate the features (e.g. circular ring-shaped recesses) of Koshimizu into the apparatus of Yasui in order to strengthen the magnetic field and thus improving plasma distribution as taught by Koshimizu (paragraphs [0012] and [0065]).
Further, it has been held that merely changing the shape of the parts is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious which involves routine skill in the art.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Although neither Yasui nor Koshimizu literally discloses that the plurality of recesses is uniformly provided in an area where the substrate is arranged, however, Tian discloses the plurality of recesses (circular recesses (47), fig. 3) is uniformly provided in an area where the substrate is arranged (e.g. a plurality of recesses may be provided in the dielectric window. Thus, the uniformity of the generated plasma may be further improved (paragraphs [0012] to [0014)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art incorporate the features (e.g. circular recesses 47, fig. 3) of Tian into the apparatus of Yasui/Koshimizu in order to improve the uniformity of the generated plasma as taught by Tian (paragraphs [0012] to [0014]).
As discussed above, the combination of Yasui, Koshimizu and Tian does not explicitly disclose the “wherein the centers of the circular shapes of the plurality of recesses are different from each other in the plan view”.
However, this limitation is not supported by the specification. In order to expedite the prosecution, the claimed limitation is interpreted as best as examiner can.
However, Saito et al. (2017/0009338) discloses a plurality of recesses (18a, 18b), in which the center (tapered groove, formed annularly, paragraph [0061]) of the recess (18a) is different from the center (cylindrical, paragraph [0064]) of recesses (18b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided different center of the recess formation in the combination of Ikeda, Koshimizu and Tian in order to facilitate generation of standing waves by microwaves and contribute to efficient generate of the plasma by the microwave discharge as taught by Saito (paragraph [0061]).
Yasui et al. discloses the dielectric window 103 is made of quartz (paragraph [0034]) but does not explicitly disclose suppress the electromagnetic waves and plasma generated in the plurality of recesses from spreading in an in-plane direction of the dielectric window.
However, since Yasui teaches the window is made of dielectric material such as quartz, a reduction or absorption of electromagnetic waves by the dielectric window would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, Saito et al. discloses suppressing the abnormal discharge in the dielectric window gas flow path in a case where the processing gas and the electromagnetic waves for plasma generation are introduced into the processing container through the dielectric window (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the dielectric window would have suppressed the electromagnetic waves for plasma since dielectric material of the dielectric windows reduces or suppresses the electromagnetic waves from spreading in Yasui as taught by Saito.
Regarding Claim 2, Yasui in view of Koshimizu, Tian and Saito, discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein plasma is generated in the recesses (41) (fig. 2 of Koshimizu).
Regarding Claim 3, Yasui in view of Koshimizu, Tian and Saito, discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein a depth of the recesses is 18 mm or more (“the recesses 41 formed may be in the range of, e.g., about 10 mm to about 20 mm (paragraph [0066] of Koshimizu). 20mm meets the range of “18mm or more”).
Regarding Claim 4, as discussed above, Yasui in view of Koshimizu and Saito essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the recesses have a cone shape with a wide frontage on the side of the processing space.
However, Tian et al. (2014/0312767) discloses cone-shaped recesses (paragraphs [0006] and [0055], figs. 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided cone shaped recesses of Tian in the combination of Yasui and Koshimizu in order to meet a desired result and optimization since it was held that changing in shape would have found obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding Claim 5, as discussed above, Yasui in view of Koshimizu and Saito essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the recesses have a shape with rounded corners or a chamfered shape.
However, Tian discloses the recesses have shape with rounded corners or chamfered shape (Figs, 1, 9-11 of Tian).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided recesses having shape with rounded corners or chamfered shape of Tian in Ikeda in order to meet a desired result and optimization since it was held that changing in shape would have found obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding Claim 6, as discussed above, Yasui essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein a pitch between the recesses is 56 mm or less.
However, Tian discloses a pitch between the recesses is 56 mm or less (paragraph [0052] of Tian).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the dimension of the pitch between recesses having 56mm or less of Tian in Yasui in order to generate desired level of plasma.
Regarding Claim 8, Yasui in view of Koshimizu, Tian and Saito, discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein an area of the dielectric window (103) where recesses (41) formed on the window (30) (See fig. 2 of Koshimizu) is wider than an area corresponding to the substrate (104) (Fig. 1 of Yasui).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al. (2003/0155075) in view of Koshimizu (20120031560), further in view of Tian et al. (2014/0312767), further in view of Saito et al. (2017/0009338) further in view of Leeser et al. (2022/0246428) and further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (2014/0231016).
Regarding Claim 7, as discussed above, Yasui essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the number of the recesses is 37 or more when the substrate is a wafer with a diameter of 300 mm.
However, Leeser discloses more than 37 recesses (fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a desired number (e.g. 37 or more) of recesses of Leeser in Yasui in order to generate desired level of plasma as taught by Leeser.
As discussed above, neither Yasui, Koshimizu, Tian, Saito nor Leeser discloses a wafer with diameter of 300mm.
However, Yoshikawa teaches increasing the size of the wafer with diameter of 300mm (paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0045] and [0047)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a wafer with diameter of 300mm of Yoshikawa in Ikeda in order to process a desired number of chips on the wafer in accordance with the size of the chamber and etching technology.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al. (2003/0155075) in view of Koshimizu (20120031560), further in view of Tian et al. (2014/0312767), further in view of Saito et al. (2017/0009338) further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (2014/0124478).
Regarding Claim 11, as discussed above, Yasui in view of Koshimizu, Tian, Saito, essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose that the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein a density of the plasma generated in the processing space is higher than a cutoff density above which the electromagnetic waves penetrating into the plasma are attenuated.
However, Yoshikawa et al. (2014/0124478) discloses a density of the plasma generated in the processing space is higher than a cutoff density above which the electromagnetic waves penetrating into the plasma are attenuated (“a specific plasma generating location is approximately just below the transmission plate 28 serving as the dielectric window that allows high-frequency power to pass, and when electron density of plasma just below the transmission plate is higher than frequency cutoff density of the high-frequency power”, paragraph [0074]. Plasma generation location as the claimed processing space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have generated a density of the plasma generated in the processing space is higher than a cutoff density above which the electromagnetic waves penetrating into the plasma are attenuated in order to hold a specific level of plasma to process the substrate as taught by Yoshikawa.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al. (2003/0155075) in view of Koshimizu (20120031560), further in view of Tian et al. (2014/0312757), further in view of Saito et al. (2017/0009338) further in view of Zong et al. (2023/0011958) and further in view of Onuki et al. (2022/0328486).
Regarding Claim 12, Yasui in view of Koshimizu, Tian and Saito, discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising: a gas supply part configured to supply at least a first gas and a second gas to the processing space, wherein at least the first gas and the second gas (a process gas feeder 105 feeding gas, abstract) to the substrate (114) to form a film.
As discussed above, Yasui essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the first gas and second gas being sequentially supplied.
However, Zong et al. (2023/0011958) discloses that the auxiliary gas and the reactant gas may be supplied to the reaction chamber body or may be introduced in a sequential order according to requirements (paragraph [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to have supplied gases in a sequential order in Yasui in order to meet the specific requirements to make the substrate as taught by Zong.
As discussed above, Yasui in view of Koshimizu, Tian, Saito and Zong essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose ALD process.
However, Onuki et al. (2022/0328486) discloses that ALD method which enables one atomic layer to be deposited at a time using self-regulating characteristics of atoms, has advantages such as deposition of an extremely thin film, deposition on a component with a high aspect ratio, deposition of a film with a small number of defects such as pinholes, deposition with excellent coverage, and low- temperature deposition (paragraph [0251]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used ALD method in Yasui in order to obtain the advantage of ALD to deposit extremely thin film as taught by Onuki.
Conclusion
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.
Record of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (2019/0148118) discloses that a portion of the electromagnetic energy is transformed into heat energy that can be absorbed by the dielectric window (paragraph [0035]).
Kawakami et al. (2015/0214083) discloses that the dielectric window reduces and stabilizes electromagnetic waves (Abstract).
McChesney et al. (2013/0228283) discloses that a portion of the electromagnetic energy is transformed into heat energy that can be absorbed by the dielectric window 10 (paragraph [0038]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844