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 Interpretation
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: claims 2 and 11: first insulating member wherein no specific structure was located in the specification; claim 12: second and third insulating members wherein no specific structure(s) was located in the specification.
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.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
As discussed above, claims 2 and 11-12, “first insulating member”, “second insulating member” and “third insulating member” invoke interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference of “first insulating member”, “second insulating member” and “third insulating member” in the disclosure detail a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims reciting the limitations (and any claims dependent thereon) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In order to expedite examination, any feature capable of the claimed function has been interpreted as readable on the claimed limitation at issue. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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 2 and 11-12, limitations “first insulating member”, “second insulating member” and “third insulating member” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims (and any claims dependent thereon) are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See above for claim interpretation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0094997 to Yamazawa et al. (Yamazawa ‘997 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1: Yamazawa ‘997 discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (e.g., Fig. 1, 10); and a plasma generator (multiple structures) on the process chamber, wherein the plasma generator comprises: an inner antenna ring (e.g., Fig. 6, 62(1)); an outer antenna ring (62(3)) outside of and spaced apart from the inner antenna ring; and a floating ring (64(2)) between (e.g., diametrically) the inner antenna ring and the outer antenna ring, and wherein the floating ring is electrically isolated from the inner antenna ring and the outer antenna ring (by an appropriate separation distance (see, e.g. 63).
With respect to claim 2, in Yamazawa ‘997, the plasma generator further comprises a first insulating member (52) contacting the floating ring, and wherein the floating ring does not physically contact any other structural material other than the first insulating member.
With respect to claim 8, in Yamazawa ‘997, a radius of the floating ring may be in a range of 90mm to 155mm (see, e.g., para. 95).
Regarding claims 16-17: Yamazawa ‘997 discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (e.g., Fig. 1, 10); and a plasma generator (multiple structures) on the process chamber, wherein the plasma generator comprises: an inner antenna ring (e.g., Fig. 6, 62(1)) centered on a first axis (e.g., center vertical concentric axis of rings) extending in a first direction; an outer antenna ring (62(3)) outside of the inner antenna ring and centered on a second axis (e.g., center vertical concentric axis of rings) extending in the first direction; and a floating ring (64(2)) between (e.g., diametrically) the inner antenna ring and the outer antenna ring and centered on a third axis (e.g., center vertical concentric axis), and wherein the floating ring comprises a revolving body (i.e. floating ring itself) centered on the third axis (see, e.g., paras. 128-130). As detailed above, each of the first, second and third axis coincide with one another as they are disclosed as concentric (see, e.g., para. 63).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa ‘997 as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 16-17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,525,159 to Hama et al.
Regrading claims 3-4, Yamazawa ‘997 discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, while Yamazawa ‘997 do teach temperature control of the inner antenna ring, outer antenna ring and floating ring in the plasma generator (see, e.g., paras. 133-134), Yamazawa ‘997 fail to disclose the floating ring penetrates the first insulating member, and wherein the first insulating member encloses a portion of the floating ring; or the first insulating member comprises a plurality of first insulating members spaced apart from each other.
Hama et al. teach providing an antenna ring (Fig. 1, 106) located proximate a dielectric window (14) in a plasma generator with an intervening insulating member (104) contacting the antenna ring and supporting the antenna ring, wherein the floating ring does not contact any material other than the first insulating member, wherein the antenna ring penetrates the first insulating member, and wherein the first insulating member encloses a portion of the floating ring for the purposes of and limiting heat expansion of the antenna ring and protecting a dielectric plate from heat without adding any undesirable effect to the formation of plasma (see, e.g., column 6, rows 27-40 and column 7, rows 65 through column 8, row 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Yamazawa ‘997 a plasma generator arrangement wherein the floating ring located proximate the dielectric window in the plasma generator is provided with an intervening insulating member contacting the floating ring and supporting the floating ring, the floating ring penetrates the first insulating member, and wherein the first insulating member encloses a portion of the floating ring; and the first insulating member comprises a plurality of first insulating members (i.e. portions) spaced apart from each other in order to limit heat expansion of the floating ring and protect the dielectric plate from heat without adding any undesirable effect to the formation of plasma as taught by Hama et al.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa ‘997 as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 16-17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0047235 to Sun et al.
Regrading claim 5, Yamazawa ‘997 discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, while Yamazawa ‘997 do teach temperature control of the inner antenna ring, outer antenna ring and floating ring in the plasma generator (see, e.g., paras. 133-134) and the floating comprises copper (see, e.g., para. 65). Yamazawa ‘997 fail to disclose the first insulating member comprises polyether ether ketone.
Sun et al. disclose an antenna ring (Fig. 2, 170) located proximate a dielectric window (130) in a plasma generator with an intervening insulating member (150) that comprises polyether ether ketone between an antenna ring and a dielectric window for the purpose of isolating the antenna ring from plasma reaction and preventing or suppressing heat from being leaked to outside a dielectric window (see, e.g., paras. 44-45 and 50).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Yamazawa ‘997 an intervening first insulating member comprising polyether ether ketone in order to isolate the floating ring from plasma reaction and prevent or suppress heat from being leaked to outside the dielectric window as taught by Sun et al.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa ‘997 as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 16-17 above and as further set forth below.
Regarding claims 6 and 19-20, Yamazawa ‘997 disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Yamazawa ‘997 fail to explicitly disclose the first power delivery line and the second power delivery line as power delivery rods.
Elsewhere in Yamazawa ‘997, the use of power delivery rods is taught as a means for providing power to other apparatus structures (see, e.g., para. 56). Additionally, the courts have ruled an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have used power delivery rods in place of the power delivery lines in order to equivalently provide power to the inner antenna ring and the outer antenna ring as taught by Yamazawa ‘997.
With respect to claim 7, Yamazawa ‘997 disclose the first power delivery line and the second power delivery line extend upward from the inner antenna ring and the outer antenna ring, respectively, in an upward direction. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided the equivalent first power delivery rod and second power delivery rod also extending upwardly.
With respect to claim 18, Yamazawa ‘997 fail to explicitly disclose a plurality of inner antenna rings and a plurality of outer antenna rings. However, this is considered a duplication of parts and the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazawa ‘997.
Regarding claim 9: Yamazawa ‘997 discloses a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a process chamber (e.g., Fig. 1, 10); and a plasma generator (multiple structures) on the process chamber, wherein the plasma generator comprises: an inner antenna ring (e.g., Fig. 6, 62(1); an outer antenna ring 62(3) outside of the inner antenna ring; a floating ring 64(2) between (e.g., diametrically) and electrically isolated from the inner antenna ring and the outer antenna ring; a first power delivery line (60#1) connected to the inner antenna and configured to deliver a first RF power to the inner antenna ring; and a second power delivery line (60#3) connected to the outer antenna and configured to deliver a second RF power to the outer antenna ring, wherein the floating ring has a continuous (i.e. “endless”) ring shape (see, e.g., para. 64).
However, Yamazawa ‘997 fail to explicitly disclose the first power delivery line and the second power delivery line as power delivery rods.
Elsewhere in Yamazawa ‘997, the use of power delivery rods is taught as a means for providing power to other apparatus structures (see, e.g., para. 56). Additionally, the courts have ruled an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have used power delivery rods in place of the power delivery lines in order to equivalently provide power to the inner antenna ring and the outer antenna ring as taught by Yamazawa ‘997.
With respect to claim 10, in Yamazawa ‘997, the floating ring does not contact any conductive material, rather it only touches first insulating member (52).
With respect to claim 11, in Yamazawa ‘997, the plasma generator further comprises a first insulating member (52) contacting and supporting the floating ring.
With respect to claim 12, in Yamazawa ‘997, the plasma generator further comprises: a second insulating member (inner portion of 66) contacting and supporting the inner antenna ring; and a third insulating member (outer portion of 66) contacting and supporting the outer antenna ring.
With respect to claim 13, in Yamazawa ‘997, the first insulating member extends in a radial direction and is connected to the second insulating member and the third insulating member via outer walls of the antenna chamber.
With respect to claim 14, in Yamazawa ‘997, the floating ring and the inner antenna ring are spaced apart (e.g., vertically) by a distance less than or equal to 30mm (see, e.g., para. 96).
With respect to claim 15, in Yamazawa ‘997, a radius of the inner antenna ring may be in a range of 75mm to 100mm, and wherein a radius of the outer antenna ring is in a range of 160mm to 250mm (see, e.g., para. 95).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. 2011/0104902 discloses an apparatus comprising a plasma generator comprising inner and outer rings and a floating ring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights