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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “treat” is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Honda (US 2007/0068798).
Regarding claim 13, Honda teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising:
a housing (11) defining a treatment space, the treatment space being configured to treat a substrate (W);
a support unit (12) configured to support the substrate (W) in the treatment space;
a gas supply unit (41) configured to supply a process gas;
a plasma source configured to excite the process gas supplied into the treatment space in a first direction by generating an electric field in the treatment space [0075];
and a density adjusting member (48, Fig. 2, 54, Fig. 3) configured to differently adjust a density of plasma generated by exciting the process gas according to areas of the treatment space, by shielding the electric field generated in the treatment space [0032-0035], [0115]], the areas being spaced apart from each other in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 3).
The Examiner takes the position that an area at the center, an area at the middle and an area at the edge of Honda read on Applicant’s “areas of treatment space” that are spaced apart from each other in the second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (48 or 54).
Regarding claim 14, Honda teaches the density adjusting member (48) includes at least one dielectric pad, and the at least one dielectric pad being configured to shield the electric field generated in at least any one of a center area including a center of the treatment space, a middle area that surrounds the center area, and an edge area that surround the middle area, when viewed from a top (pg. 2, [0029-0035], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Honda teaches the at least one dielectric pad (48, fig 2, 54, Fig. 3) includes a center pad, a middle pad, and an edge pad,
the center pad has a first dielectric permittivity, and shields an electric field of the center area,
the middle pad has a second dielectric permittivity, and shields an electric field of the middle area, and
the edge pad has a third dielectric permittivity, and shields an electric field of the edge area (pg. 2, [0029-0035], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Honda teaches the first dielectric permittivity, the second dielectric permittivity, and the third dielectric permittivity are different (relative dielectric constant, [0115]) because Honda teaches progressively increasing the relative dielectric constant towards the center of the shower head [0115].
Regarding claim 17, Honda teaches the first dielectric permittivity is higher than the second dielectric permittivity and the third dielectric permittivity,
and the second dielectric permittivity is higher than the third dielectric permittivity because Honda teaches progressively increasing the relative dielectric constant towards the center of the shower head [0115].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,2, 4-12, 19 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2007/0068798) in view of ‘085 (KR 2015/0044085 see translation).
Regarding claim 1, Honda teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising:
a housing (11) defining a treatment space, the treatment space being configured to treat a substrate (W, fig. 1);
a support unit (12) configured to support the substrate (W) in the treatment space (Fig. 1);
a shower plate (34) defining a through-hole (37), the through-hole being configured to allow a process gas to flow into the treatment space in a first direction;
a plasma source configured to excite plasma by exciting the process gas supplied to the treatment space [0075];
and a density adjusting member (48, 54, Fig. 2 and 3) configured to adjust a density of the plasma generated in the treatment space by changing a dielectric permittivity, the density adjusting member including a plurality of dielectric pads (48, 54, fig. 2 and 3) with different permittivities,
wherein the density adjusting member being located on the shower plate ([0033-0035, [0115]]).
Honda does not teach the plurality of dielectric pads being spaced apart in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction. Honda does teach the use of a plurality of dielectric pads (54).
‘085 is directed to plasma processing reactor with a ceiling electrode that uses spaced apart members (4711-4714, 4731-4734, fig. 9) to adjust the electromagnetic field to achieve a uniform plasma density inside the reactor. ‘085 teach the plurality of pads being spaced apart in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 9). ‘085 teaches that it was well known in the plasma arts to use a plurality of pads spaced apart as show in figure 9. Because ‘085 teach that spaced apart pads are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a plurality of spaced apart pads as the plurality of dielectric pads in Honda with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of dielectric pads of Honda by providing the plurality of dielectric pads being spaced apparat in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, as taught by ‘085, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Regarding claim 2, Honda teaches the plasma source includes an electrode plate (39, [0075]) located on an upper side of the shower plate (39), and the density adjusting member (48) is disposed between the shower plate (34, 38) and the electrode plate (39).
Regarding claim 4, Honda teaches through-hole (37) is defined in a space between the plurality of spaced dielectric pads (48, fig. 2, [0115]).
Regarding claim 5, Honda teaches the plurality of dielectric pads (48, 54) includes a center pad, an edge pad ([0033-0035]), wherein the center pad has a first dielectric permittivity (relative dielectric constant, [0115]) the center pad being in a circular center area including a center of the shower plate, and wherein the edge pad has a second dielectric permittivity, and is located in a ring- shaped edge area that surrounds the circular center area (Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Honda teaches the first dielectric permittivity is higher than the second dielectric permittivity (relative dielectric constant) because it teaches the relative dielectric constant increases towards the center of the showerhead [0115].
Regarding claim 7, Honda recognizes that the dielectric permittivity (dielectric constant) within the shower head is a result effective variable and that changing its value would effect the amount of polymer generated in the plasma process relative to its position on the shower head [0036].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the “first dielectric permittivity is lower than or equal to the second dielectric permittivity” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Honda does not teach the plurality of dielectric pads includes a plurality of center pads and a plurality of edge pads, the plurality of center pads are spaced apart from the circular center area, the plurality of edge pads are spaced apart from the ring shaped edge area in the at least one second direction.
‘085 teach the plurality of dielectric pads includes a plurality of center pads (4711-4714) and a plurality of edge pads (4731-4734), the plurality of center pads are spaced apart from the circular center area in the at least one second direction, the plurality of edge pads are spaced apart from the ring shaped edge area in the at least one second direction (Fig. 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of dielectric pads of Honda by providing a plurality of center pads and a plurality of edge pads, the plurality of center pads are spaced apart from the circular center area, the plurality of edge pads are spaced apart from the ring shaped edge area in the at least one second direction, as taught by 085, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Regarding claim 9, Honda teach the plurality of center pads have different dielectric permittivities, and wherein the plurality of edge pads have different dielectric permittivities because it teaches progressively increasing the relative dielectric constant toward the center of the showerhead using different materials with different dielectric constants [0115].
Regarding claim 10, Honda does not teach the plurality of dielectric pads is located in any one of a center area including a center of the shower plate, a middle area that surrounds the center area, and an edge area that surround the middle area.
‘085 teach the plurality of dielectric pads (4711-4714, 4731=4734) is located in any one of a center area including a center of the shower plate, a middle area that surrounds the center area, and an edge area that surround the middle area (Fig. 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of dielectric pads of Honda by providing the plurality of dielectric pads is located in any one of a center area including a center of the shower plate, a middle area that surrounds the center area, and an edge area that surround the middle area, as taught by ‘085, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Regarding claim 11, Honda teaches the density adjusting member (48, 54) contacts an upper area of the shower plate (39, 47, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Honda teaches the electrode plate (39) is grounded or a high-frequency electric power is applied thereto [0083].
Regarding claim 19, Honda teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising:
a housing (11) defining a treatment space, in which a substrate (W) is treated;
a support unit (12) configured to support the substrate (W) in the treatment space; a gas supply unit (28) configured to supply a process gas;
a shower plate (34) defining a through-hole (37), the through hole being through which a process gas flows in a first direction to the treatment space;
an electrode plate (39) disposed on an upper side of the shower plate, and the electrode plate being grounded or to which high-frequency electric power is applied;
a lower electrode disposed in an interior of the support unit, the lower electrode being grounded or to which the high-frequency electric power is applied [0066];
and a density adjusting member (54) located between the shower plate (39) and the electrode plate (38), the density adjusting member being configured to adjust a density of plasma generated in the treatment space by shielding an electric field generated in the treatment space by the electrode plate and the lower electrode [0032].
the density adjusting member including a plurality of dielectric pads (relative dielectric constant [0115]) the plurality of dielectric pads having different dielectric permittivities at the upper side of the shower plate (34, fig. 3), wherein the through-hole (37) is located in a space between the plurality of dielectric pads( 48, fig. 2; 54, fig. 3).
Honda does not teach the plurality of dielectric pads being spaced apart from each other in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
Honda does not teach the plurality of dielectric pads being spaced apart in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction. Honda does teach the use of a plurality of dielectric pads (54).
‘085 is directed to plasma processing reactor with a ceiling electrode that uses spaced apart members (4711-4714, 4731-4734, fig. 9) to adjust the electromagnetic field to achieve a uniform plasma density inside the reactor. ‘085 teach the plurality of pads being spaced apart in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 9). ‘085 teaches that it was well known in the plasma arts to use a plurality of pads spaced apart as shown in figure 9. Because ‘085 teach that spaced apart pads are operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventio to have used a plurality of spaced apart pads as the plurality of dielectric pads in Honda with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of dielectric pads of Honda by providing the plurality of dielectric pads being spaced apparat in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, as taught by ‘085, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Regarding claim 20, Honda teaches wherein the dielectric pad includes at least one center pad (48 or 54) and at least one edge pad edge (Fig. 2 and 3), the center pad has a first dielectric permittivity (relative dielectric constant), and is located in a circular center area including a center of the shower plate,
the edge has a second dielectric permittivity, and is located in a ring- shaped edge area that surrounds the center area, and the first dielectric permittivity is higher than the second dielectric permittivity (Fig. 1-3, [0033-0035],[0115]).
Regarding claim 21, Honda teaches a hole (37) to allow the process gas to flow into the treatment space but doesn’t explicitly show that it is not formed in each of a plurality of dielectric pads.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the hole to allow the process gas to flow into the treatment space is not formed in each of a plurality of dielectric pads since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USP! 70. MPEP 2144.04 (VI. C).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2007/0068798) as applied to claim 15 above in view of ‘085 (KR 2015/0044085 see translation).
Regarding claim 18, Honda teach a plurality of center pads (48 or 54, fig. 2 or 3, [0033-0036]) are disposed in the center area,
a plurality of middle pads are disposed in the middle area,
a plurality of edge pads are disposed in the edge are, wherein the plurality of center pads, the plurality of middle pads, or the plurality of edge pads have different dielectric permittivities because Honda teaches progressively increasing the relative dielectric constant using different materials towards the center of the shower head [0115].
Honda does not teach the plurality of dielectric pads being spaced apart in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
‘085 is directed to plasma processing reactor with a ceiling electrode that uses spaced apart members (4711-4714, 4731-4734, fig. 9) to adjust and electromagnetic field to achieve a uniform plasma density inside the reactor. ‘085 teach the plurality of dielectric pads being spaced apart in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of dielectric pads of Honda by providing the plurality of dielectric pads being spaced apparat in at least one second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, as taught by ‘085, because it would provide a uniform plasma for processing the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13 and 19 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection as set out above.
Applicant argues that Honda does not teach at least a plurality of dielectric pads.
This requirement is not part of claim 13. Applicant is directed above for new grounds of rejection for amended claims 1, 13 and 19.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues claim 7 depends on claim 1 and is therefore patentable.
The Examiner disagrees because claim 1 stands rejected as set out above.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights