DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 5/17/2026.
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 (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.
Claim Status
Claims 8-10, 12-25, and 27-29 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 26 are cancelled.
Claims 28-29 are new.
Claims 8, 19, 21, and 24 are currently amended.
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 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303).
Regarding claims 8, 12, 24, and 27, Lubomirsky teaches a plasma processing apparatus ([0072] and Fig. 10, entirety), comprising:
a chamber including a lower region and an upper region above the lower region ([0053] and Fig. 10, first chamber #684 and second chamber #681), the upper region being a region in which a plasma including ions and radicals is generated ([0058] and Fig. 10, plasma #692), and the lower region being a region in which a vapor deposition process is performed on a substrate ([0035] details deposition operation; Fig. 10: substrate #302);
a lower electrode inside the lower region of the chamber ([0050]: chuck #650 acts as lower electrode), the substrate being supported by the lower electrode (see Fig. 10);
a shower head inside the chamber ([0051] and Fig. 10, showerhead #625), the shower head separating the lower region and the upper region (see Fig. 10);
plasma inlet holes penetrating the shower head in a vertical direction ([0053] and Fig. 10, apertures #682), the plasma inlet holes being configured to allow the ions and the radicals generated in the upper region to flow to the lower region of the chamber ([0062]);
process gas supply holes in the shower head ([0053] and Fig. 10, apertures #683), the process gas supply holes being configured to supply a process gas to the lower region of the chamber ([0053]);
a process gas supply configured to supply the process gas to the process gas supply holes (Fig. 10, Ar source #690 and/or OMCTS source #695; [0037]); and
an antenna on the upper region of the chamber ([0073] and Fig. 10, coils #1052), the antenna being configured to generate a magnetic field and an electric field inside the upper region of the chamber ([0073]: uses an RF generator to generate inductively coupled plasma, thus necessarily has an EM-field influence),
wherein the chamber is configured to have the plasma generated only in the upper region among the lower region and the upper region, such that the ions and the radicals in the lower region are provided from the upper region through the plasma inlet holes ([0073] and Fig. 10, plasma #692 only in upper chamber passing through #682),
wherein each of the process gas supply holes is between two of the plasma inlet holes (Fig. 10, #682 between adjacent #683, see related embodiment in Fig. 5A detailing this configuration).
Regarding claim 14, Lubomirsky teaches a source gas supply line penetrating the antenna ([0053] and Fig. 10, gas inlet #676); and a source gas supply configured to supply a source gas to the upper region of the chamber through the source gas supply line (Fig. 10, Ar source #690 and/or OMCTS source #695; [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Lubomirsky teaches wherein: the shower head includes a central region vertically overlapping the lower electrode, and an edge region that surrounds the central region, the plasma inlet holes are in each of the central region and the edge region, and the process gas supply holes are only in the central region among the central region and the edge region (Fig. 10, #682 are present in any reasonable “edge region”, and #683 are present in only a “central region” such that an empty “edge region” exists).
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.
Claims 9-10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 above, further in view of Ravi (US Pub. 2021/0032753).
The limitations of claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 9 and 25, Lubomirsky does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Ravi teaches wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes is greater than a diameter of each of the process gas supply holes (Ravi – [0033]-[0034] and Fig. 2, size of openings #242 and #214 may differ).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the diameter of the inlet/supply holes of Lubomirsky in order to selectively pass radicals while restricting ions in the plasma flow (Ravi – [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Lubomirsky does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Ravi teaches wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes is within a range of 15 mm to 50 mm (Ravi – [0034]: ~12 mils to ~25 mils or larger).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the hole diameters of Lubomirsky to the range disclosed by Ravi since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 above, further in view of Chandrachood (US Pub. 2008/0102202).
The limitations of claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Lubomirsky teaches source gas supply lines penetrating a side wall of the chamber; and a source gas supply configured to supply a source gas to the upper region of the chamber through the source gas supply lines (Fig. 10).
Lubomirsky does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the source gas supply having an annular shape that surrounds an outer wall of the chamber.
However, Chandrachood teaches wherein a source gas supply has an annular shape that surrounds an outer wall of the chamber (Chandrachood – [0062] and Fig. 28, gas flow lines #358 and valves #350 formed in an annular shape outside the chamber; see Fig. 25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the source gas supply plenum of Lubomirsky to comprise that of Chandrachood in order to adjust gas distribution to correct non-uniformities (Chandrachood – [0062]) and facilitate easy removal/replacement of parts (Chandrachood – [0066]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 above, further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2009/0183833).
The limitations of claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, Lubomirsky does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches a plasma adjuster ([0032] and Fig. 1, plate #131) connected to an upper surface of the shower head (Fig. 1, each and every element is part of a rigidly constructed apparatus, thus can reasonably be considered as “connected to” each other part of the apparatus); and plasma adjusting holes in the plasma adjuster ([0033] and Fig. 2, holes #132), at least some of the plasma adjusting holes overlapping the plasma inlet holes in the vertical direction ([0034] and Fig. 4), respectively, wherein the plasma adjuster is moveable to adjust an overlap between the plasma adjusting holes and the plasma inlet holes to adjust sizes of the plasma inlet holes exposed to the upper region ([0034]: via driving unit #142).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Lubomirsky apparatus to comprise the plasma adjuster of Kim in order to selectively distribute plasma to the process chamber and reduce damage due to ion charge (Kim - [0034], [0042]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 above, further in view of Tahara (US Pub. 2009/0008034).
The limitations of claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Lubomirsky teaches wherein: the shower head includes a central region vertically overlapping the lower electrode, and an edge region that surrounds the central region, wherein the plasma inlet holes are in each of the central region and the edge region (see Fig. 10).
Lubomirsky does not explicitly teach wherein the process gas supply holes are only in the edge region among the central region and the edge region.
However, Tahara teaches this limitation (Tahara – [0082] and Fig. 6B, no #144a in central area #166).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the process gas supply hole arrangement of Lubomirsky with that of Tahara in order to tailor the distribution of deposition species to a substrate and increase uniformity (Tahara – [0083]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 above, further in view of Ogawa (US Pub. 2018/0245216).
The limitations of claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Lubomirsky teaches wherein: the shower head includes a central region vertically overlapping the lower electrode, and an edge region that surrounds the central region (see Fig. 10).
Lubomirsky does not teach wherein the plasma inlet holes are only in the edge region among the central region and the edge region, and the process gas supply holes are only in the central region among the central region and the edge region.
However, Ogawa teaches wherein gas holes can be present in only the center or only the edge region (Ogawa – [0068], [0076]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the plasma inlet holes and process gas supply holes of Lubomirsky to be only in the edge region and/or only in the central region since Ogawa teaches such an arrangement allows for tailored deposition profiles (Ogawa – [0065], [0068], [0072], [0076]).
Claims 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303) in view of Ravi (US Pub. 2021/0032753).
Regarding claim 19, Lubomirsky teaches a plasma processing apparatus ([0072] and Fig. 10, entirety), comprising: a chamber including a lower region and an upper region above the lower region ([0053] and Fig. 10, first chamber #684 and second chamber #681), the upper region being a region in which a plasma including ions and radicals is generated ([0058] and Fig. 10, plasma #692), and the lower region being a region in which a vapor deposition process is performed on a substrate ([0035] details deposition operation; Fig. 10: substrate #302); and the plasma generated only in the upper region among the lower region and the upper region, ([0073] and Fig. 10, plasma #692 only in upper chamber passing through #682), a lower electrode inside the lower region of the chamber ([0050]: chuck #650 acts as lower electrode), the substrate being supported by the lower electrode (see Fig. 10); a shower head inside the chamber ([0051] and Fig. 10, showerhead #625), the shower head separating the lower region and the upper region (see Fig. 10); plasma inlet holes penetrating the shower head in a vertical direction ([0053] and Fig. 10, apertures #682), the plasma inlet holes being configured to allow the ions and the radicals generated in the upper region to flow to the lower region of the chamber ([0062]); process gas supply holes in the shower head ([0053] and Fig. 10, apertures #683), the process gas supply holes being configured to supply a process gas to the lower region of the chamber ([0053]); a process gas supply configured to supply the process gas to the process gas supply holes (Fig. 10, Ar source #690 and/or OMCTS source #695; [0037]); and an antenna on the upper region of the chamber ([0073] and Fig. 10, coils #1052), the antenna being configured to generate a magnetic field and an electric field inside the upper region of the chamber ([0073]: uses an RF generator to generate inductively coupled plasma, thus necessarily has an EM-field influence), wherein each of the process gas supply holes is between two of the plasma inlet holes (Fig. 10, #682 between adjacent #683, see related embodiment in Fig. 5A detailing this configuration).
Lubomirsky does not teach wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes being greater than a diameter of each of the process gas supply holes.
However, Ravi teaches wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes is greater than a diameter of each of the process gas supply holes (Ravi – [0033]-[0034] and Fig. 2, size of openings #242 and #214 may differ).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the diameter of the inlet/supply holes of Lubomirsky in order to selectively pass radicals while restricting ions in the plasma flow (Ravi – [0033]).
Regarding claim 20, Lubomirsky teaches wherein each of the process gas supply holes is between two of the plasma inlet holes (Fig. 10, #682 between adjacent #683, see related embodiment in Fig. 5A detailing this configuration).
Regarding claim 21, Lubomirsky does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Ravi teaches wherein a diameter of each of the plasma inlet holes is within a range of 15 mm to 50 mm (Ravi – [0034]: ~12 mils to ~25 mils or larger).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the hole diameters of Lubomirsky to the range disclosed by Ravi since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 23, Lubomirsky teaches wherein: the shower head includes a central region vertically overlapping the lower electrode, and an edge region that surrounds the central region, the plasma inlet holes are in each of the central region and the edge region, and the process gas supply holes are only in the central region among the central region and the edge region (Fig. 10, #682 are present in any reasonable “edge region”, and #683 are present in only a “central region” such that an empty “edge region” exists).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303) in view of Ravi (US Pub. 2021/0032753), as applied to claims 19-21 and 23 above, further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2009/0183833).
Regarding claim 22, modified Lubomirsky does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches a plasma adjuster ([0032] and Fig. 1, plate #131) connected to an upper surface of the shower head (Fig. 1, each and every element is part of a rigidly constructed apparatus, thus can reasonably be considered as “connected to” each other part of the apparatus); and plasma adjusting holes in the plasma adjuster ([0033] and Fig. 2, holes #132), at least some of the plasma adjusting holes overlapping the plasma inlet holes in the vertical direction ([0034] and Fig. 4), respectively, wherein the plasma adjuster is moveable to adjust an overlap between the plasma adjusting holes and the plasma inlet holes to adjust sizes of the plasma inlet holes exposed to the upper region ([0034]: via driving unit #142).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Lubomirsky apparatus to comprise the plasma adjuster of Kim in order to selectively distribute plasma to the process chamber and reduce damage due to ion charge (Kim - [0034], [0042]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303), as applied to claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 above, further in view of Jeon (US Pub. 2019/0287766).
The limitations of claims 8, 12, 14, 16, 24, and 27 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 28, Lubomirsky does not teach a radio frequency (RF) plate below the lower electrode inside the lower region of the chamber and directly contacting a bottom surface of the lower electrode; and an RF rod below and directly contacting the RF plate (Lubomirsky teaches a conductive mesh with RF feed – Fig. 10, #649 coupled to #652/653).
However, Jeon teaches this limitation (Jeon – Fig. 1 and [0031]: power rod #60 coupled to base #22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Lubomirsky apparatus to comprise the RF rod connection structure of Jeon in order to allow for tunability of impedance characteristics resulting in increased etch uniformity and decreased arcing defects (Jeon – [0066]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky (US Pub. 2013/0105303) and Ravi (US Pub. 2021/0032753), as applied to claims 19-21 and 23 above, further in view of Jeon (US Pub. 2019/0287766).
The limitations of claims 19-21 and 23 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 29, modified Lubomirsky does not teach a radio frequency (RF) plate below the lower electrode inside the lower region of the chamber and directly contacting a bottom surface of the lower electrode; and an RF rod below and directly contacting the RF plate.
However, Jeon teaches this limitation (Jeon – Fig. 1 and [0031]: power rod #60 coupled to base #22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Lubomirsky apparatus to comprise the RF rod connection structure of Jeon in order to allow for tunability of impedance characteristics resulting in increased etch uniformity and decreased arcing defects (Jeon – [0066]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §102(a)(1) rejections of claims 8 and 24 (and claims dependent thereon) and the §103 rejection of claim 19 (and claims dependent thereon) regarding Lubomirsky have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
At particular issue are the functional limitations: “the plasma inlet holes being configured to allow the ions and the radicals generated in the upper region to flow to the lower inner region of the chamber” and “wherein the chamber is configured to have the plasma generated only in the upper region among the lower region and the upper region, such that the ions and the radicals in the lower region are provided from the upper region through the plasma inlet holes” recited in each of the claims above.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant is assigning too much patentable weight to the functional limitations of the claim. In the context of an apparatus claim, functional limitations can only be afforded patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. The courts have held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); and 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). See MPEP 2114(II).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the above functional limitations are not structural limitations, and should not be given structural patentable weight in the context of the claim as an apparatus.
Addressing Applicant’s rebuttal to the capability of the Lubomirsky apparatus (Remarks, pgs. 13-15), the Examiner submits the following:
Regarding First, the Examiner notes that the Applicant explicitly agrees that plasma can be generated in the “upper chamber” #681 (Lubomirsky, Fig. 10; Remarks, pg. 13).
The fact that Lubomirsky discloses an additional capability of the apparatus to generate plasma in lower region #684 does not negate its other capabilities. Additionally, nothing in the disclosure of Lubomirsky details where these two plasma generations must occur together – thus a PHOSITA would be fully apprised that plasma can be selectively generated in individual regions on their own. This conclusion is supported by the other figures of Lubomirsky, which depict other apparatus embodiments with plasma generation in differing areas (e.g. Fig. 6A – lower, Fig. 6B - middle, Fig. 9A – upper and lower) .
Since this “upper” and “lower” plasma generation capabilities can occur on their own, the apparatus is fully capable of meeting the limitation where plasma is only generated in the upper chamber.
Regarding Second, the Applicant is incorrectly seeking an explicit recitation of the claimed functionality of the claimed “apertures” in Lubomirsky, when no such recitation is required. The Examiner respectfully submits that a prima facie case of anticipation/obviousness can be established by explaining how the Lubomirsky apparatus would be capable of performing the claimed functionality.
The Examiner notes a PHOSITA would know that plasma fundamentally comprises ions and radicals, among other constituents. In support of this assertion, the Examiner submits Connell (US Patent 3,297,465) as an evidentiary reference (see col. 1, lines 31-43). The Applicant also appears to explicitly agree that the Lubomirsky plasma comprises these two constituents (Remarks, pg. 14, lines 11-12).
Lubomirsky teaches wherein plasma is generated in the upper chamber (Fig. 10, plasma #692). It has already been established that Applicant agrees with this assessment (Remarks, pg. 13). Therefore, Applicant must also agree that Lubomirsky teaches wherein ions and radicals are generated in the upper chamber.
With the above established, the Examiner notes Lubomirsky discusses where this “upper chamber” plasma is generated specifically for “soft ionization” (par. [0040]) for etching of a substrate. That is, plasma generated remote from the substrate and then supplied for processing, rather than directly generating the plasma directly above the substrate.
Lubomirsky teaches wherein the “soft ionization” processes the substrate, thus the ions and radicals generated in the upper plasma must reach the substrate, otherwise processing would not occur. If this plasma must reach the substrate, it must pass through the plate #625 via apertures #682 (Lubomirsky Fig. 10).
The Examiner respectfully submits the above disclosure from Lubomirsky adequately supports the Examiner’s position that the Lubomirsky apparatus (Fig. 10) would be fully capable of performing the functional limitations of the claim despite no explicit recitation (which is, again, not required).
The Examiner notes that if the operation of the claimed apparatus is viewed by Applicant as the key inventive concept of the instant application, the operation would be afforded considerably more patentable weight as a method claim, not an apparatus claim.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights