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 07/06/2026
Claims 1-16 are pending
Claims 1 and 10 are amended
Claims 1-3 are rejected
Claims 10-16 are allowed
Claims 4-7 are objected to
Elections/Restrictions
The restriction requirement between species and inventions, as set forth in the Office
Action mailed on 08/19/2025, respectively, have been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. As such, the restriction requirement of 08/19/2025 is fully WITHDRAWN.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um et al. (US 20190066978) in view of Masuda et al. (US 6245190).
Regarding Claim 1:
Um teaches an electrode assembly, comprising: a first electrode (gas supply unit 3) comprising an upper surface, a lower surface, (as evidenced by Fig. 8, the gas supply unit 3 comprises an upper and lower surfaces), and one or more gas delivery openings extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (the gas supply unit 3 may be a shower head-type unit, and may supply a gas introduced through a gas inlet 2; gas delivery openings can be reasonably inferred. Other embodiments of gas supply unit 3, such as in Fig. 3, also depict gas delivery openings) [Fig. 3, 8 & 0056]; a ground plate (ground shield GS); wherein the ground plate is electrically coupled to a ground reference (the ground shield GS and the reactor 1 may be electrically connected to each other to form a ground channel) and comprises: a plurality of first ground plate features (metal member M and the holes of ground shield GS where split points 17 are disposed) that each extend between a surface of the ground plate and an upper surface of the first electrode, wherein each first ground plate feature surrounds at least a portion of a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver a fluid to one of the one or more gas delivery openings (as evidenced by Fig. 8, the metal member M surrounds at least a portion of the gas inlet 2); and a first radio frequency (RF) delivery feature (split point 17) that at least partially surrounds a portion of a first ground plate feature of the plurality of ground plate features and is coupled to the upper surface of the first electrode (as evidenced by Fig. 6, the split point 17 surrounds at least a portion of the ground shield GS) [Figs. 6-8 & 0056, 0062, 0082].
Um does not specifically disclose a non-conductive plate; a first electrode (electrode plate 22) coupled to the non-conductive plate, a ground plate mounted over the non-conductive plate.
Masuda teaches a non-conductive plate (cover 26); a first electrode (electrode plate 22) coupled to the non-conductive plate, a ground plate (upper electrode insulator 21) mounted over the non-conductive plate [Fig. 1 & Col. 10 lines 1-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrode assembly of Um to include a non-conductive plate, as in Masuda, to protect surfaces from plasma [Masuda - Col. 11 lines 15-39].
Regarding Claim 2:
Um teaches wherein the one or more gas delivery openings further comprises an array of openings that are formed through the lower surface of the first electrode (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the gas supply unit 3 may be a showerhead unit with multiple openings) [Fig. 3, 8 & 0058].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um et al. (US 20190066978) in view of Masuda et al. (US 6245190), as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kilpela et al. (US 20030075273).
The limitations of claims 1-2 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Um does not specifically disclose wherein the array of openings comprise two or more openings that have an inner diameter that is between 50 micrometers and 1 millimeter (mm) in size.
Although Kilpela does not specifically disclose wherein the array of openings comprise two or more openings that have an inner diameter that is between 50 micrometers and 1 millimeter (mm) in size, Kilpela does not disclose that showerhead hole size is a result effective variable. Specifically, showerhead hole sizes can be adjusted to achieve a desired gas flow/uniformity profile. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum sizing for an array of holes to obtain a desired gas flow/uniformity profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claims 4-7:
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would
be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim
and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 10:
The prior art of record whether alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest
specific claim limitations “a second electrode coupled to the electrode support plate,
and comprising a second gas delivery opening formed therein, wherein the second electrode has a lower surface that is substantially parallel to the first plane, wherein the second electrode and the first electrode are spaced a distance apart in a second direction that is parallel to the first plane; a ground plate mounted over the electrode support plate, wherein the ground plate is electrically coupled to a ground reference, and comprises: a first ground plate feature that extends between a surface of the ground plate and an upper surface of the first electrode, wherein the first ground plate feature surrounds at least a portion of a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver a fluid to the first gas delivery opening; and a second ground plate feature that extends between the surface of the ground plate and an upper surface of the second electrode, wherein the second ground plate feature surrounds at least a portion of a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver a fluid to the second gas delivery opening; a first RF delivery feature coupled to the first electrode, and having a feature wall that surrounds a portion of the first ground plate feature; and a second RF delivery feature coupled to the second electrode, and having a feature wall that surrounds a portion of the second ground plate feature,” in the context of other limitations in the claim.
Regarding Claims 11-16:
Claims 11-16 are allowed at least based on their dependency on claim 10.
The examiner considers Um et al. (US 20190066978) as the closest prior art of record. Um discloses an RF delivery feature partially surrounding a ground plate feature that surrounds a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver fluid to a first gas delivery opening in a single electrode. However, Um does not specifically disclose multiple ground plate features and RF delivery features surrounding a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver gas to a second gas delivery opening in a second electrode.
The examiner has found references that provide motivation for a plurality of gas delivery openings in multiple electrodes, such as in Moslehi et al. (US 5286297) and Long et al. (US 20030079983), but there has been no motivation to specifically surround the gas distribution pipe specifically feeding each of those gas delivery openings with a ground shield feature and an RF delivery feature.
In summary, Um does not specifically disclose the RF delivery and ground shield features surrounding a gas pipe that, by itself, feeds a plurality of openings in a plurality of electrodes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 103 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 Um et al. (US 20190066978) and Masuda et al. (US 6245190) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 10-16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 10-16 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn in full.
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