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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 21 are pending.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1 is currently amended.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “phase control member for controlling” and “phase control member configured to…” in claim 1, and similarly in claims 3-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification identifies the phase control member as reference 650, and identifies actions the phase control member controls. However, the specification does not appear to define structurally what the phase control member comprises that would be capable of performing such controlling actions. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the “phase control member” to correspond to any structure that could be construed to control the phase of voltage waveforms.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Interpretation – Intended Use
To clarify the record, the limitations “a first/second/third power supply configured to…“ as recited similarly in claims 1, 11, and 21 are merely an intended use and is given patentable 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. See MPEP 2114(II). This interpretation is being applied to all relevant rejections below, and further in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the claim limitation “phase control member for controlling…”. As currently written, and in consideration of the 112(f) interpretation above, it is unclear as to what structure is attributed to the phase control member and therefore how it is capable of performing controlling actions. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the “phase control member” to correspond to something that could be construed as being capable of controlling the phases of the first pulse voltage and second pulse voltage, in line with pg. 23 line 24 and pg. 24 line 1 of the instant specification.
Claims 3-5, 8-11, and 21 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawasaki (US 20200075290 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawasaki teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1, [0019], plasma reactor containing substrate 137) for processing a substrate comprising:
a chamber defining an inner space (Fig. 1, [0020], enclosed chamber 100);
an electrode configured to generate plasma in the inner space (Fig. 1, [0022], plasma bias power is applied to electrode 138); and
a power supply unit configured to apply an RF voltage to the electrode (Fig. 1, [0022], power is applied to chamber 100 from plurality of salve RF generators 144, 148, and 150 to electrode 138),
the power supply unit including
a first power supply configured to apply a first pulse voltage having a first frequency to the electrode (Fig. 1, [0022], first slave generator 144 may generate power at 2 MHz and can be pulsed by pulse control input 144a);
a second power supply configured to apply a second pulse voltage having a second frequency lower than the first frequency to the electrode (Fig. 1, [0022], second slave generator 148 may generate power at 400 kHz and can be pulsed by pulse control input 148a, where 400 kHz is less than 2 MHz);
a third power supply configured to apply an RF voltage having a third frequency lower than the first frequency and the second frequency (Fig. 1, [0022], third slave generator 150 may generate power at 100 kHz and can be pulsed by pulse control input 150a, where 100 kHz is less than 400 kHz and less than 2 MHz); and
a phase control member for controlling at least one of the phases of the first pulse voltage and the second pulse voltage ([0028], controller 160 applies pulse control signals to slave generators 144/148/150 to produce desired phase changes amongst the generators),
wherein the phase control member configured to control at least one of the phase of the first pulse voltage and the phase of the second pulse voltage so that the phase of the first pulse voltage and the phase of the second pulse voltage are different from each other (Fig. 5, [0039], RF power waveform 504, corresponding to first slave generator 144, and RF power waveform 506, corresponding to second slave generator 148, may be provided out of phase with each other, where controller 160 is programmable to apply pulse control signals to each of the pulse control inputs 140a, 144a, 148a, 150a of the plurality of RF generators 140, 144, 148, 150 to produce the desired phase lead or lag relationship and/or duty cycle relationship among the pulses of the master RF generator 140 and the slave RF generators 144, 148, 150, [0028]), and
wherein the third power supply is configured to synchronize a third pulse voltage with the first pulse voltage such that the third pulse voltage and the first pulse voltage are pulsed at a same time (Fig. 5, [0039], RF power waveforms 502, 504, 506, and 508 may be provided by the plurality of RF generators 140, 144, 148, and 150, where the RF power waveforms may be pulsed synchronously and where the duty cycles of the separate RF power waveforms are synchronized, [0046], where synchronous pulsing corresponds to waveforms having identical phase and duty cycle and the pulses are fully aligned in time, [0034], Figs. 3A-3C).
Regarding claim 5, Kawasaki teaches wherein the phase control member is configured to shift the phase of the second pulse to generate a difference between the phase of the first pulse voltage and the phase of the second pulse voltage ([0028], controller 160 applies pulse control signals to slave generators 144/148/150 to produce desired phase changes amongst the generators, where RF power waveform 504, corresponding to first slave generator 144, and RF power waveform 506, corresponding to second slave generator 148, may be provided out of phase with each other, [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Kawasaki teaches wherein the phase control member is connected to the first power supply and the second power supply among the first power supply, the second power supply, and the third power supply (Fig. 1, [0028], controller 160 applies pulse control signals to slave generators 144 and 148 to produce desired phase changes amongst the generators).
Regarding claim 9, Kawasaki teaches a lower electrode unit having a lower electrode that is the electrode and supporting the substrate in the inner space (Fig. 1, [0020], support pedestal 136 has internal electrode that chucks substrate 137 on a surface, contained in chamber 100); and an upper electrode unit (Fig. 1, [0020], lid 104 and manifold 110) having an upper electrode facing the lower electrode (Fig. 1, [0020]-[0021], gas distribution plate 108, to which power is applied by RF generator 140, faces pedestal 136) and providing a supply path of the process gas supplied to the inner space (Fig. 1, [0020], gas flows through orifices 109 formed in gas distribution plate 108).
Regarding claim 10, Kawasaki teaches a gas supply unit for supplying process gas to the inner space (Fig. 1, [0020], gas panel 120),
wherein the gas supply unit comprises
a gas storage unit for storing the process gas (Fig. 1, [0020], gas panel 120 flows different process gases);
a gas inlet port disposed to overlap with a central region of the lower electrode unit when viewed from a top perspective view, the gas inlet port being configured to supply the process gas (Fig. 1, [0020], gas flows from gas panel 120 through gas inlet 111, and through manifold enclosure 110 at a point that is located over the center of the pedestal 136); and
a gas supply line configured to supply the process gas stored in the gas storage unit to the gas inlet port (Fig. 1, [0020], gas supply inlet pipe 111 transmits gas from gas panel 120 to top of manifold enclosure 110).
Regarding claim 11, Kawasaki teaches wherein the first power supply is configured to further apply a first continuous voltage having the first frequency to the electrode (Fig. 1, [0022], first slave generator 144 may generate power at 2 MHz and RF power signals may be provided continuously, Fig. 5, [0037]), and the second power supply is configured to further apply a second continuous voltage having the second frequency to the electrode (Fig. 1, [0022], second slave generator 148 may generate power at 400 kHz and RF power signals may be provided continuously, Fig. 5, [0037]).
Regarding claim 21, Kawasaki teaches wherein the third power supply is configured to synchronize the third pulse voltage with the first pulse voltage such that the third pulse voltage and the first pulse voltage occur for a same duration (Fig. 5, [0039], RF power waveforms 502, 504, 506, and 508 may be provided by the plurality of RF generators 140, 144, 148, and 150, where the RF power waveforms may be pulsed synchronously and where the duty cycles of the separate RF power waveforms are synchronized, [0046], where synchronous pulsing corresponds to waveforms having identical phase and duty cycle and the pulses are fully aligned in time, [0034], Figs. 3A-3C).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (US 20200075290 A1), as applied in claims 1, 5, 8-11, and 21, and further in view of Urakawa (US 20160247666 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 5, 8-11, and 21 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Kawasaki fails to teach wherein the phase control member is configured to control at least one of the phase of the first pulse voltage and the phase of the second pulse voltage so that a difference between the phase of the first pulse voltage and the phase of the second pulse voltage becomes 90° to 270°.
While Urakawa does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Urakawa teaches wherein the phase offset of a first pulse voltage and second pulse voltage is a result effective variable. Specifically, Urakawa teaches that when two high frequency powers are applied to an electrode at the same time, varying the phase shift of the applied second power pulse in a range from 0% to 100% in relation to the first power pulse changes the uniformity of the etch rate across a substrate (Urakawa, Figs. 4-6).
Urakawa is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of Urakawa to alter the phase degree between the first pulse voltage and second pulse voltage of Kawasaki to experimentally find the optimized phase offset value(s) that would produce a desired uniform plasma process to perform on a substrate (Urakawa, [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Kawasaki fails to teach wherein the phase control member is configured to control at least one of the phase of the first pulse voltage and the phase of the second pulse voltage so that a difference between the phase of the first pulse voltage and the phase of the second pulse voltage becomes 180°.
While Urakawa does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Urakawa teaches wherein the phase offset of a first pulse voltage and second pulse voltage is a result effective variable. Specifically, Urakawa teaches that when two high frequency powers are applied to an electrode at the same time, varying the phase shift of the applied second power pulse in a range from 0% to 100% in relation to the first power pulse changes the uniformity of the etch rate across a substrate (Urakawa, Figs. 4-6).
Urakawa is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of Urakawa to alter the phase degree between the first pulse voltage and second pulse voltage of Kawasaki to experimentally find the optimized phase offset value(s) that would produce a desired uniform plasma process to perform on a substrate (Urakawa, [0051]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 02/25/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Kawasaki, teach the claim limitation “wherein the third power supply is configured to synchronize a third pulse voltage with the first pulse voltage such that the third pulse voltage and the first pulse voltage are pulsed at a same time” of independent claim 1 as newly amended. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive. To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the third power supply is configured to…“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Kawasaki teaches plural RF generators (Fig. 1, [0021], 140, 144, 148, 150) that are in communication with a controller (Fig. 1, [0028]) that can produce desired phase and/or duty cycle relationships amongst the generators, including where the RF power waveforms may be pulsed synchronously and where the duty cycles of the separate RF power waveforms are synchronized ([0046]), thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitations. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shannon (US 20090298287 A1) teaches a similar apparatus where plural bias generators having low, medium, and high frequencies are pulsed at the same time for the same duration for plasma stabilization considerations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights