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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I-Figure 3 (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on February 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Note. Claims 11 and 13 are withdrawn since they depend on withdrawn claims 8 and 12.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application would not place a serious burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the search and examination of the entire application would place a serious burden on the Examiner since the search required for the features of the elected species is not co-extensive with the search required for the features of the non-elected species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. (U.S. 5,015,330) in view of Morisako (U.S. 6,033,586).
Referring to Figures 1-2 and column 4, line 40-column 5, line 52, Okumura et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container 40 (col. 4, lines 45-48); a substrate holder 43, 44 configured to dispose a plurality of substrates 52 in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container (col. 4, lines 48-56); a rotary shaft 45 configured to rotate the substrate holder (col. 4, lines 57-64); a gas supply 46 configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container (col. 4, lines 65-68); an exhaust 48 configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container (col. 5, lines 5-9); a plurality of electrodes 50, 51 disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container (col. 5, lines 14-57); and a radio-frequency power supply 53 configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container (col. 6, lines 11-22).
Okumura et al. disclose a radio-frequency power supply; however, is silent on a plurality of radio-frequency power supplies each provided for a respective one of the plurality of electrodes and supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the respective electrode plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container, wherein the radio-frequency power supplies are configured to vary, for each of the plurality of electrodes, a voltage and a phase of the radio-frequency power applied to the respective electrode to adjust an in-plane electric field intensity distribution.
Referring to Figure 2 and column 2, line 64-column 3, line 32, Morisako teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a plurality of radio-frequency power supplies 16, 18 each provided for a respective one of the plurality of electrodes 15, 17 and supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the respective electrode plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container, wherein the radio-frequency power supplies are configured to vary, for each of the plurality of electrodes, a voltage and a phase of the radio-frequency power applied to the respective electrode to adjust an in-plane electric field intensity distribution in order to effectively improve plasma generation and uniformity (col. 1, line 44-col. 2, line 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the radio-frequency power supply of Okumura et al. with a plurality of radio-frequency power supplies each provided for a respective one of the plurality of electrodes and supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the respective electrode plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container, wherein the radio-frequency power supplies are configured to vary, for each of the plurality of electrodes, a voltage and a phase of the radio-frequency power applied to the respective electrode to adjust an in-plane electric field intensity distribution as taught by Morisako in order to effectively improve plasma generation and uniformity. Note. By varying the voltage and/or phase, the resulting apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako would yield adjusting an in-plane electric field intensity distribution.
With respect to claim 3, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. further includes wherein the plurality of electrodes 50, 51 are disposed in a wider range than a range in a height direction of the plurality of substrates disposed in the substrate holder 43, 44 (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 4, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. further includes wherein the plurality of electrodes 50, 51 are arranged at equal intervals in the circumferential direction of the processing container (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. further comprising: a heater 49 configured to surround the processing container 40 and the plurality of electrodes 50, 51 (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 10-13).
With respect to claim 14, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako further includes wherein the electric field intensity distribution is adjusted in at least one of a radial direction and a circumferential direction of the substrates (As stated above, by varying the voltage and/or phase, the resulting apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako would yield adjusting an in-plane electric field intensity distribution. Additionally, the arrangement of the electrodes 50, 51in Okumura et al. along the peripheral side and circumference of the container would yield the electric field intensity distribution is adjusted in at least one of a radial direction and a circumferential direction of the substrates.).
With respect to claim 15, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako further includes wherein the electric field intensity distribution changes based on a plurality of phase sets (i.e. phase controller 22) of the radio-frequency powers applied to the plurality of electrodes (Morisako-Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. (U.S. 5,015,330) in view of Morisako (U.S. 6,033,586) as applied to claims 6-7 above, and further in view of Gallagher et al. (U.S. 4,576,698) or Shimada et al. (U.S. 5,383,984).
The teachings of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako have been discussed above.
Okumura et al. in view of Morisako fail to teach a shield configured to surround the processing container, the plurality of electrodes, and the heater.
Referring to Figure 1 and column 3, lines 23-30, Gallagher et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a shield 14 configured to surround the processing container, the plurality of electrodes, and the heater to act as a thermal shield and as a ground path. Referring to Figure 1 and column 3, lines 64-67, Shimada et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a shield 10 configured to surround the processing container, the plurality of electrodes, and the heater. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako with a shield configured to surround the processing container, the plurality of electrodes, and the heater as taught by Gallagher et al. or Shimada et al. since it provides a thermal shield and as a ground path during plasma processing.
With respect to claim 7, the plasma processing apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako, and Gallagher et al. or Shimada et al. further includes wherein the shield is grounded (Gallagher et al.-col. 3, lines 25-30, Shimada et al.-col. 3, lines 64-67).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/388,974 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Referring to claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/388,974, copending Application No. 18/388,974 disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container; a substrate holder configured to dispose a plurality of substrates in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container; a rotary shaft configured to rotate the substrate holder; a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container; an exhaust configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container; a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container; and a radio-frequency power supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container.
With respect to claim 5, the plasma processing apparatus of copending Application No. 18/388,974 further comprising: a heater configured to surround the processing container and the plurality of electrodes (claim 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/935,537 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Referring to claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/935,537, copending Application No. 18/935,537 discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container; a substrate holder configured to dispose a plurality of substrates in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container; a rotary shaft configured to rotate the substrate holder; a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container; an exhaust configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container; a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container; and a radio-frequency power supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/935,538 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Referring to claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/935,538, copending Application No. 18/935,538 disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container; a substrate holder configured to dispose a plurality of substrates in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container; a rotary shaft configured to rotate the substrate holder; a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container; an exhaust configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container; a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container; and a radio-frequency power supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/242,912 in view of Okumura et al. (U.S. 5,015,330).
Referring to claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/242,912, copending Application No. 19/242,912 disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a processing container; a substrate holder configured to dispose a plurality of substrates in multiple tiers and be inserted into the processing container; a rotary shaft configured to rotate the substrate holder; a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container; and a radio-frequency power supply configured to apply a radio-frequency power to the plurality of electrodes and generate capacitively coupled plasma in the processing container.
copending application No.19/242,912 is silent on a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container; an exhaust configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container;
Referring to Figure 1 and column 4, line 65-column 5, line 9, Okumura et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art to use a gas supply 46 configured to supply a processing gas into the processing container (col. 4, lines 65-68); an exhaust 48 configured to exhaust an inside of the processing container (col. 5, lines 5-9) since they are essential components used in plasma processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of copending application No.19/242,912 since they are essential components used in plasma processing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that amended claim 1 requires adjusting an in-plane electric field intensity distribution by varying the voltage and phase of radio-frequency power respectively applied to the plurality of electrodes arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container, which is neither disclosed nor suggested by Morisako.
However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, primary reference Okumura et al. disclose all the structural limitations of claim 1 and specifically a plurality of electrodes 50, 51 arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container 40 (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 14-57) and a radio-frequency power supply 53 (col. 6, lines 11-22). Secondary reference Morisako was simply applied for the teaching and benefits of using a plurality of radio-frequency power supplies 16, 18 each provided for a respective one of the plurality of electrodes and wherein the radio-frequency power supplies are configured to vary, for each of the plurality of electrodes, a voltage and a phase of the radio-frequency power applied to the respective electrode to adjust an in-plane electric field intensity distribution (Morisako-col. 1, line 44-col. 2, line 15). In other words, only the radio frequency power supply of Okumura et al. is modified and hence the resulting apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako would yield a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container and a plurality of radio-frequency power supplies each provided for a respective one of the plurality of electrodes and wherein the radio-frequency power supplies are configured to vary, for each of the plurality of electrodes, a voltage and a phase of the radio-frequency power applied to the respective electrode to adjust an in-plane electric field intensity distribution.
Additionally, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the advantage of a plurality of radio-frequency power supplies is to effectively improve plasma generation and uniformity (Morisako-col. 1, line 44-col. 2, line 15).
Thus, the resulting apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako would yield adjusting an in-plane electric field intensity distribution by varying the voltage and phase of radio-frequency power respectively applied to the plurality of electrodes arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container. Therefore, the apparatus of Okumura et al. in view of Morisako satisfies the claimed requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hur et al.’17, Ko et al.’128, Takeda et al.’067, Takeda et al.’705, Masuyama et al.’529, Takashima et al.’396, Kurono et al.’560, and Takeda et al.’212 teach a plurality of electrodes disposed on an outer side of the processing container and arranged in a circumferential direction of the processing container. Kawamura et al.’768, Nakahata et al.’502, Setoyama et al.’482, Yamazaki et al.’508, Chu’939, and Nishio’206 teach a voltage and phase control. Watanabe et al.’690 teach a plurality of radio-frequency power supplies each provided for a respective one of the plurality of side electrodes.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights