DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Responsive to Communication filed 06/21/2026
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending
Claim 10 has been cancelled
Claims 1-2 and 9 have been amended
Claim Objections
The following claims have been objected to due to minor informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 is directed to be dependent on claim 16 which is a claim further down numerically. For the purposes of clarity, it is recommended to renumber claims such that claims are only dependent on claims numerically above them.
Regarding Claims 17-18:
Claims 17-18 are labeled as “currently amended” however no amendments have been made. As such, the claim identifier is improper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh et al. (US 20070051312) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6039834), Uemura et al. (US 20160372305), and Kim (KR 101697970), with Nishikawa et al. (US 20020088542) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Sneh teaches A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (process chamber 100) providing a reaction space (the interior space of process chamber 100) therein and including a substrate entrance (the opening sealed by partition valve 150) through which a substrate enters or exits (when the perimeter partition valve 150 is actuated to the OPEN position, such as in Fig. 1b, the substrate chuck 114 is accessible); a susceptor (chuck 114) inside the process chamber and supporting the substrate; a gas injector (gas dispersion member 112) on an opposing surface to inject a gas toward the substrate; a slot valve (valve 150) comprising a blade (L-shaped slide 152) opening and closing the substrate entrance and a slot (bonnet 160) in which the blade is disposed, the blade having an internal surface with a curvature forming a part of an internal side surface of the process chamber (as evidenced by Figs. 1A and 8-14b, the partition valves may take multiple shapes, such as curved shapes as depicted in Fig. 8); wherein: the part of the internal side surface of the process chamber is between a lower surface of the process chamber and the substrate entrance, (as evidenced by Fig. 1a, the gate valve 150 is between a lower surface of the chamber 100 and the opening), when the blade closes the substrate entrance, the blade forms the part of the internal side surface of the process chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 1a, the valve 150 forms a part of the internal side surface of the process chamber), the blade is vertically driven (three or four actuators 164 are conveniently arranged to actuate the slide between a SHUT position and an OPEN position) [Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020].
Sneh does not specifically disclose the reaction space has a cylindrical structure.
Tanaka teaches the reaction space has a cylindrical structure (as evidenced by Fig. 1c, the process chamber has a cuboidal shape with a cylindrical reaction space) [Fig. 1c & Col. 4 lines 38-48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process chamber of Sneh to be cuboidal with a cylindrical reaction space, as in Tanaka, since utilizing the chamber shape of Tanaka would merely be applying a known technique to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 C). Nishikawa et al. (US 20020088542) also discloses that utilizing a cylindrical reaction space provides uniform processing (since a cylinder is axially symmetrical) [Nishikawa - 0046].
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose the blade having an internal surface with a curvature, forming a part of an internal side surface of the process chamber, a portion of the internal side surface of the process chamber surrounding the blade overlaps with the blade and has a same curvature as the internal surface of the blade.
Uemura teaches the blade having an internal surface with a curvature, forming a part of an internal side surface of the process chamber, a portion of the internal side surface of the process chamber surrounding the blade overlaps with the blade and has a same curvature as the internal surface of the blade (the shape of the processing chamber formed by the inner wall surface of the upper container 230 and the end surface of the convex portion of the valve body of the second gate valve 112 facing the processing chamber constitutes the side surface of a cylinder concentric with the central axis of the specimen stage 241) [Fig. 3 & 0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve of Modified Sneh to be curved, as in Uemura, so that the irregularity of the inner wall surface of a processing chamber caused by the valve body can be reduced [Uemura - 0071].
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka and Uemura) does not specifically disclose a control electrode on the internal surface of the blade and adjacent to an internal sidewall of the process chamber and an upper surface of the slot.
Kim teaches a control electrode (electrode unit 160) on the internal surface of the wall structure and adjacent to an internal sidewall of the process chamber (electrode unit 160 is disposed in the sidewalls of chamber 110) [Fig. 5b, 8 & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the wall structure (valve) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the control electrode and wall structure of Kim to improve chamber cleaning efficiency [Kim - 0042, 0059, 0074-0075, 0087, 0095]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the electrode of Kim is disposed inside a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an electrode in the valve of Sneh since the valve is acting as an inner wall.
It is noted that the combination of references would disclose the electrode being adjacent to an internal sidewall of the process chamber and an upper surface of the slot, as placing the electrode unit 160 of Kim into the partition valve 150 of Sneh would disclose the electrode being adjacent to an upper surface of the slot (opening) where the partition valve 150 of Sneh is disclosed. It is noted that the word "adjacent" broadly can be interpreted to mean proximate to or nearby/not distant (see Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Furthermore, the applicant's electrode cannot be said to be directly adjacent to the internal sidewall nor the upper surface of the slot since there are intervening structures therebetween [IA - Fig. 3].
Furthermore, the limitations “when power is applied to the control electrode, the control electrode interacts with a plasma in the reaction space,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
It is noted that the electrode unit 160 of Kim forms a second plasma, and as such, interacts with a plasma in the chamber [Kim - 0074]. Furthermore, in the Fig. 13 embodiment of Kim, the electrode unit 160 is in direct contact with the internal reaction space, and as such (even through mere physical contact) interacts with the plasma in the chamber. It is noted that, unless blocked or confined by specific structures, plasma formed within a chamber can be present throughout a chamber. It’s further noted that the electrode of Kim can be connected to a DC power supply, and as such, would be capable applying a bias to affect ions within a plasma [Kim - 0073-0074, 0094-0095].
Regarding Claim 2:
Sneh teaches wherein the process chamber has a cuboidal shape (as evidenced by Fig. 1a, the chamber 100 has a cuboidal shape).
Sneh does not specifically disclose the reaction space has a cylindrical structure.
Tanaka teaches the reaction space has a cylindrical structure (as evidenced by Fig. 1c, the process chamber has a cuboidal shape with a cylindrical reaction space) [Fig. 1c & Col. 4 lines 38-48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process chamber of Sneh to be cuboidal with a cylindrical reaction space, as in Tanaka, since utilizing the chamber shape of Tanaka would merely be applying a known technique to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 C). Nishikawa et al. (US 20020088542) also discloses that utilizing a cylindrical reaction space provides uniform processing (since a cylinder is axially symmetrical) [Nishikawa - 0046].
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka and Uemura) teaches a driving unit (actuators 164) allowing the blade to ascend and descend, the blade is vertically driven inside the process chamber (three or four actuators 164 are conveniently arranged to actuate the slide between a SHUT position and an OPEN position) [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020].
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose wherein the control electrode is on the blade.
Kim teaches and wherein the control electrode (electrode unit 160) is formed on a body of the wall structure (electrode unit 160 is disposed in the sidewalls of chamber 110) [Fig. 5b, 8 & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the wall structure (valve) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the control electrode and wall structure of Kim to improve chamber cleaning efficiency [Kim - 0042, 0059, 0074-0075, 0087, 0095]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the electrode of Kim is disposed inside a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an electrode in the valve of Sneh since the valve is acting as an inner wall.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka and Uemura) does not specifically disclose wherein the control electrode is connected to a power supply unit.
Kim teaches wherein the control electrode is connected to a power supply unit (power source 254) [Fig. 8 & 0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the wall structure (valve) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the control electrode and wall structure of Kim to improve chamber cleaning efficiency [Kim - 0042, 0059, 0074-0075, 0087, 0095]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the electrode of Kim is disposed inside a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an electrode in the valve of Sneh since the valve is acting as an inner wall.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka and Uemura) does not specifically disclose wherein the power supply unit includes at least one of a positive DC power supply, a negative DC power supply, and an RF power supply.
Kim teaches wherein the power supply unit includes at least one of a positive DC power supply, a negative DC power supply, and an RF power supply (power source 254 is an RF power source) [Fig. 7 & 0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the wall structure (valve) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the control electrode and wall structure of Kim to improve chamber cleaning efficiency [Kim - 0042, 0059, 0074-0075, 0087, 0095]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the electrode of Kim is disposed inside a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an electrode in the valve of Sneh since the valve is acting as an inner wall.
Regarding Claim 17:
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka and Uemura) does not specifically disclose wherein the control electrode is adjacent to an internal sidewall of the process chamber, and power is applied to the control electrode.
Kim teaches and a control electrode (electrode unit 160) on a wall structure and adjacent to an internal sidewall of the process chamber (electrode unit 160 is disposed in the sidewalls of chamber 110) [Fig. 5b, 8 & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the wall structure (valve) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the control electrode and wall structure of Kim to improve chamber cleaning efficiency [Kim - 0042, 0059, 0074-0075, 0087, 0095]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the electrode of Kim is disposed inside a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an electrode in the valve of Sneh since the valve is acting as an inner wall.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh et al. (US 20070051312) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6039834), Uemura et al. (US 20160372305), and Kim (KR 101697970), with Nishikawa et al. (US 20020088542) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, and 17 above, and further in view of Bera et al. (US 20090230089).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6-7, and 17 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose wherein the blade is selectively grounded or connected to an impedance circuit by a first switch.
Bera teaches wherein the body of the wall structure (chamber wall 320) is selectively grounded or connected to an impedance circuit by a first switch (impedance circuit 312 is coupled to chamber wall 320; the impedance circuit 312 may have one or more switches 318 that may couple the capacitor 316 and/or the inductor 314 to ground and/or to the object) [Fig. 3 & 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the body of the wall structure (blade) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the wall structure and impedance circuit of Bera to provide control over local plasma uniformity [Bera - 0038, 0040]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the wall structure of Bera also acts as a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to connect an impedance circuit to the blade of Sneh.
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Sneh teaches a second switch configured to connect the power supply unit or a ground and the control electrode to each other, wherein the second switch selectively connected to one of the positive DC power supply, the negative DC power supply, and the RF power supply (a power switch may be installed to selectively block/provide power to the electrode 160) [Kim - Fig. 8 & 0085, 0096].
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose a second switch configured to connect the power supply unit or a ground and the control electrode to each other, wherein the second switch selectively connected to one of the positive DC power supply, the negative DC power supply, and the RF power supply.
Bera teaches a second switch configured to connect the power supply unit or a ground and the control electrode to each other, wherein the second switch selectively connected to one of the positive DC power supply, the negative DC power supply, and the RF power supply (switch 228 may selectively connect a capacitor to ground or a power source 238) [Fig. 2 & 0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the body of the wall structure (blade) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the wall structure and impedance circuit of Bera to provide control over local plasma uniformity [Bera - 0038, 0040]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the wall structure of Bera also acts as a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to connect an impedance circuit to the blade of Sneh.
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose wherein the first switch connects the blade to the impedance circuit.
Bera teaches wherein the first switch connects the blade to the impedance circuit (impedance circuit 312 is coupled to chamber wall 320; the impedance circuit 312 may have one or more switches 318 that may couple the capacitor 316 and/or the inductor 314 to ground and/or to the object) [Fig. 3 & 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the body of the wall structure (blade) of Modified Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the wall strucure and impedance circuit of Bera to provide control over local plasma uniformity [Bera - 0038, 0040]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the wall structure of Bera also acts as a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to connect an impedance circuit to the blade of Sneh.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh et al. (US 20070051312) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6039834), Uemura et al. (US 20160372305), Kim (KR 101697970), and Bera et al. (US 20090230089), with Nishikawa et al. (US 20020088542) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 4, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20090229969).
The limitations of claims 4, 8, and 16 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose wherein the impedance circuit includes LC circuits connected to each other in parallel or in series, and each of the LC circuits comprises a variable capacitor.
Hoffman teaches wherein the impedance circuit includes LC circuits connected to each other in parallel or in series, and each of the LC circuits comprises a variable capacitor (the impedance element 140 may have a plurality of resonant circuits connected in parallel; each resonant circuit comprises an inductor and variable capacitor) [Fig. 6B & 0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the impedance circuit of Modified Sneh to have a plurality of LC circuits in parallel each comprising variable capacitors, as in Hoffman, to provide further control over select harmonics, thereby improving deposition uniformity on inner surfaces [Hoffman - 0025, 0028, 0030].
Regarding Claim 19:
The limitations “wherein the variable capacitor adjusts an RF current flowing from the blade to ground, and the impedance circuit changes an impedance between the ground and the blade to change local plasma characteristics,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the instant application utilizes a variable capacitor and an inductor in parallel to perform the stated intended use [IA - 0052]. The combination of references discloses the same structures (see Fig. 3 of Bera). As such, since the combination of references have a circuit substantially similar to the instant application, the combination of references would be capable of controlling local plasma characteristics and controlling RF current.
Claim(s) 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh et al. (US 20070051312) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6039834), Uemura et al. (US 20160372305), Kim (KR 101697970), and Bera et al. (US 20090230089), with Nishikawa et al. (US 20020088542) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 9:
Sneh teaches q substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (process chamber 100) providing a reaction space therein (the interior space of process chamber 100); a susceptor (chuck 114) inside the process chamber and supporting a substrate; a gas injector (gas dispersion member 112) on an opposing surface to inject a gas toward the substrate; a slot valve (valve 150) providing an internal side surface forming a part of the internal side surface of the process chamber and opening and closing a substrate entrance of the process chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b, the valve 150 forms a part of the internal side surface of the process chamber; when the perimeter partition valve 150 is actuated to the OPEN position, such as in Fig. 1b, the substrate chuck 114 is accessible), a slot valve (valve 150) comprising a blade (L-shaped slide 152) opening and closing the substrate entrance and a slot in which the blade is disposed, a slot (bonnet 160) in which the blade is disposed; a driving unit (actuators 164) allowing the blade to descend, wherein the blade is vertically driven inside the process chamber (three or four actuators 164 are conveniently arranged to actuate the slide between a SHUT position and an OPEN position), and provides the internal side surface forming the part of the internal side surface of the process chamber between a lower surface of the process chamber and the substrate entrance when the blade closes the substrate entrance (as evidenced by Fig. 1a, the gate valve 150 is between a lower surface of the chamber 100 and the opening) [Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020].
Sneh does not specifically disclose the reaction space has a cylindrical structure.
Tanaka teaches the reaction space has a cylindrical structure (as evidenced by Fig. 1c, the process chamber has a cuboidal shape with a cylindrical reaction space) [Fig. 1c & Col. 4 lines 38-48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process chamber of Sneh to be cuboidal with a cylindrical reaction space, as in Tanaka, since utilizing the chamber shape of Tanaka would merely be applying a known technique to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 C). Nishikawa et al. (US 20020088542) also discloses that utilizing a cylindrical reaction space provides uniform processing (since a cylinder is axially symmetrical) [Nishikawa - 0046].
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose the blade having an internal surface with a curvature, forming a part of an internal side surface of the process chamber, a portion of the internal side surface of the process chamber surrounding the blade overlaps with the blade and has a same curvature as the internal surface of the blade.
Uemura teaches the blade having an internal surface with a curvature, forming a part of an internal side surface of the process chamber, a portion of the internal side surface of the process chamber surrounding the blade overlaps with the blade and has a same curvature as the internal surface of the blade (the shape of the processing chamber formed by the inner wall surface of the upper container 230 and the end surface of the convex portion of the valve body of the second gate valve 112 facing the processing chamber constitutes the side surface of a cylinder concentric with the central axis of the specimen stage 241) [Fig. 3 & 0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve of Modified Sneh to be curved, as in Uemura, so that the irregularity of the inner wall surface of a processing chamber caused by the valve body can be reduced [Uemura - 0071].
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka and Uemura) does not specifically disclose a control electrode adjacent to an internal sidewall of the process chamber.
Kim teaches and a control electrode (electrode unit 160) adjacent to an internal sidewall of the process chamber (electrode unit 160 is disposed in the sidewalls of chamber 110) [Fig. 5b, 8 & 0048]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the wall structure (valve) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the control electrode and wall structure of Kim to improve chamber cleaning efficiency [Kim - 0042, 0059, 0074-0075, 0087, 0095]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the electrode of Kim is disposed inside a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an electrode in the valve of Sneh since the valve is acting as an inner wall. It is noted that the combination of references would disclose the electrode being adjacent to an internal sidewall of the process chamber and an upper surface of the slot, as placing the electrode unit 160 of Kim into the partition valve 150 of Sneh would disclose the electrode being adjacent to an upper surface of the slot (opening) where the partition valve 150 of Sneh is disclosed.
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka, Uemura, and Kim) does not specifically disclose wherein the blade is selectively grounded or connected to an impedance circuit by a switch.
Bera teaches wherein a body of the wall structure (chamber wall 320) is selectively grounded or connected to an impedance circuit by a switch (impedance circuit 312 is coupled to chamber wall 320; the impedance circuit 312 may have one or more switches 318 that may couple the capacitor 316 and/or the inductor 314 to ground and/or to the object) [Fig. 3 & 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the body of the wall structure (blade) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the wall structure and impedance circuit of Bera to provide control over local plasma uniformity [Bera - 0038, 0040]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the wall structure of Bera also acts as a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to connect an impedance circuit to the blade of Sneh.
Furthermore, the limitations “controls local process non-uniformity of the substrate,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that electrode unit 160 of Kim is capable of affecting plasma and gas flow, and as such, would be capable of affecting substrate processing uniformity [Kim - 0073-0074, 0094-0095]. It’s further noted that the electrode of Kim can be connected to a DC power supply, and as such, would be capable applying a bias to affect ions within a plasma [Kim - 0073-0074, 0094-0095].
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka, Uemura, and Kim) does not specifically disclose wherein the blade is selectively grounded.
Bera teaches wherein the blade is selectively grounded (impedance circuit 312 is coupled to chamber wall 320; the impedance circuit 312 may have one or more switches 318 that may couple the capacitor 316 and/or the inductor 314 to ground and/or to the object) [Fig. 3 & 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the body of the wall structure (blade) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the wall structure and impedance circuit of Bera to provide control over local plasma uniformity [Bera - 0038, 0040]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the wall structure of Bera also acts as a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to connect an impedance circuit to the blade of Sneh.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka, Uemura, and Kim) does not specifically disclose wherein the switch connects the blade to the impedance circuit.
Bera teaches wherein the switch connects the blade to the impedance circuit (impedance circuit 312 is coupled to chamber wall 320; the impedance circuit 312 may have one or more switches 318 that may couple the capacitor 316 and/or the inductor 314 to ground and/or to the object) [Fig. 3 & 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the body of the wall structure (blade) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the wall structure and impedance circuit of Bera to provide control over local plasma uniformity [Bera - 0038, 0040]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the wall structure of Bera also acts as a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to connect an impedance circuit to the blade of Sneh.
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka and Uemura) does not specifically disclose a power supply unit connected to the control electrode.
Kim teaches a power supply unit (power source 254) connected to the control electrode [Fig. 8 & 0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the wall structure (valve) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the control electrode and wall structure of Kim to improve chamber cleaning efficiency [Kim - 0042, 0059, 0074-0075, 0087, 0095]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the electrode of Kim is disposed inside a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an electrode in the valve of Sneh since the valve is acting as an inner wall.
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Sneh (Sneh modified by Tanaka and Uemura) does not specifically disclose wherein the internal surface of the blade and the internal side surface of the process chamber are in a same cylinder.
Kim teaches wherein the control electrode is adjacent to an internal sidewall of the process chamber (as evidenced by Figs. 5b, 6, 7, and 8, the control electrode unit 160 is adjacent to an inner sidewall of the chamber 110), and power is applied to the control electrode (power source 254 is electrically connected to the control electrode unit 160) [Fig. 5b, 8 & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the wall structure (valve) of Modified Sneh with the arrangement of the control electrode and wall structure of Kim to improve chamber cleaning efficiency [Kim - 0042, 0059, 0074-0075, 0087, 0095]. It is noted that the valve 150 of Sneh in the closed position acts as in inner wall of the chamber [Sneh - Fig. 1A, 1B & 0020]. As such, since the electrode of Kim is disposed inside a sidewall of its chamber, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an electrode in the valve of Sneh since the valve is acting as an inner wall.
Claim(s) 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh et al. (US 20070051312) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6039834), Uemura et al. (US 20160372305), Kim (KR 101697970), and Bera et al. (US 20090230089), with Nishikawa et al. (US 20020088542) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20090229969).
The limitations of claims 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose wherein the impedance circuit comprises a plurality of LC circuits connected to each other in parallel, wherein each of the LC circuits includes a variable capacitor.
Hoffman teaches wherein the impedance circuit comprises a plurality of LC circuits connected to each other in parallel, wherein each of the LC circuits includes a variable capacitor (the impedance element 140 may have a plurality of resonant circuits connected in parallel; each resonant circuit comprises an inductor and variable capacitor) [Fig. 6B & 0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the impedance circuit of Modified Sneh to have a plurality of LC circuits in parallel each comprising variable capacitors, as in Hoffman, to provide further control over select harmonics, thereby improving deposition uniformity on inner surfaces [Hoffman - 0025, 0028, 0030].
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose wherein the impedance circuit comprises a variable capacitor
Hoffman teaches wherein the impedance circuit comprises a variable capacitor (the impedance element 140 may have a plurality of resonant circuits connected in parallel; each resonant circuit comprises an inductor and variable capacitor) [Fig. 6B & 0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the impedance circuit of Modified Sneh to have a plurality of LC circuits in parallel each comprising variable capacitors, as in Hoffman, to provide further control over select harmonics, thereby improving deposition uniformity on inner surfaces [Hoffman - 0025, 0028, 0030].
Furthermore, the limitations “that adjusts an RF current flowing from the blade to ground, and the impedance circuit changes an impedance between the ground and the blade to change local plasma characteristics,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the instant application utilizes a variable capacitor and an inductor in parallel to perform the stated intended use [IA - 0052]. The combination of references discloses the same structures (see Fig. 3 of Bera, and Fig. 6B of Hoffman). As such, since the combination of references have a circuit substantially similar to the instant application, the combination of references would be capable of controlling local plasma characteristics and controlling RF current.
It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "wherein the internal surface of the blade and the internal side surface of the process chamber are in a same cylinder," because the electrode unit 160 of Kim would be placed within the valve 150 of Sneh.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh et al. (US 20070051312) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6039834), Uemura et al. (US 20160372305), Kim (KR 101697970), and Bera et al. (US 20090230089), with Nishikawa et al. (US 20020088542) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Rasheed et al. (US 20110209995)
The limitations of claims 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Sneh does not specifically disclose wherein the impedance circuit comprises a plurality of LC circuits connected to each other in series, wherein each of the LC circuits includes a variable capacitor.
Rasheed teaches wherein the impedance circuit comprises a plurality of LC circuits connected to each other in series, wherein each of the LC circuits includes a variable capacitor (the multi-frequency impedance controller 170 comprises multiple LC circuits connected in series, wherein each circuit comprises an inductor and a variable capacitor) [Fig. 4 & 0057, 0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the impedance circuit of Modified Sneh to have a plurality of LC circuits in series each comprising variable capacitors, as in Rasheed, to provide further control over select harmonics, thereby improving deposition uniformity on inner surfaces [Rasheed - 0052, 0059, 0061].
Furthermore, the limitations “that adjusts an RF current flowing from the blade to ground, and the impedance circuit changes an impedance between the ground and the blade to change local plasma characteristics,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the instant application utilizes a variable capacitor and an inductor in parallel to perform the stated intended use [IA - 0052]. The combination of references discloses the same structures (see Fig. 3 of Bera, and Fig. 6B of Hoffman). As such, since the combination of references have a circuit substantially similar to the instant application, the combination of references would be capable of controlling local plasma characteristics and controlling RF current.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 USC 112b has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a slot valve comprising a blade opening and closing the substrate entrance and a slot in which the blade is disposed, the blade having an internal surface with a curvature, forming a part of an internal side surface of the process chamber, wherein: the part of the internal side surface of the process chamber is between a lower surface of the process chamber and the substrate entrance, when the blade closes the substrate entrance, the blade forms the part of the internal side surface of the process chamber, the blade is vertically driven,” and “wherein the process chamber has a cuboidal shape, and the reaction space has a cylindrical structure, the blade has a vertical section and a horizontal section connected to a lower part of the vertical section, at least part of the horizontal section is inside an inner sidewall of the vertical section, and the horizontal section contacts a lower surface of the process chamber to seal the process chamber.” These arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Sneh et al. (US 20070051312) and Uemura et al. (US 20160372305) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “when power is applied to the control electrode, the control electrode interacts with a plasma in the reaction space.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, as this limitation is merely an intended use and intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
It is noted that the electrode unit 160 of Kim (KR 101697970) forms a second plasma, and as such, interacts with a plasma in the chamber [Kim - 0074]. Furthermore, in the Fig. 13 embodiment of Kim, the electrode unit 160 is in direct contact with the internal reaction space, and as such (even through mere physical contact) interacts with the plasma in the chamber. It is noted that, unless blocked or confined by specific structures, plasma formed within a chamber can be present throughout a chamber. It’s further noted that the electrode of Kim can be connected to a DC power supply, and as such, would be capable applying a bias to affect ions within a plasma [Kim - 0073-0074, 0094-0095].
Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims; the claim currently requires that the electrode merely interacts with a plasma. In fact, the applicant themselves admit in Page 21 of the Remarks filed 06/21/2026 that Kim utilizes its wall electrode to form a second plasma. As such, Kim can be reasonably interpreted to interact with a plasma in the reaction space under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Furthermore, the applicant seems to extensively argue aspects of individual references. The examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they do not consider the particular combination of references as presented by the examiner for the purposes of an obviousness rejection. Essentially, the applicant’s arguments amount to a piecemeal analysis and seeking every aspect of the invention in one single reference. 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). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered but are not considered persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights