DETAILED ACTION
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A, drawn to claims 1-3, 8, 11, and 13 in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-7, 9-10, 12, and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/16/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 2006/0162661) in view of van Schravendijk (US 2014/0179114).
Regarding claim 1:
Jung teaches a film forming apparatus (apparatus depicted in figure 1) that includes a processing vessel (substrate processing chamber, 80) accommodating a substrate (32) and having therein a processing space (process zone, 100) evacuated to a vacuum atmosphere (via pump 188) [fig 1, 2C, 12 & 0029], the film forming apparatus comprising: a plasma generation chamber (remote chamber, 158) provided with a plasma generation mechanism (172) configured to activate the second processing gas (first process gas) [fig 1, 2C 12, & 0032, 0078]; a first flow path (228/261b/264b) disposed in the processing vessel to supply the first processing gas (a single non-energized second process gas of the combination of gases in the second process gas) to the processing space (100) [fig 1, 2C, 12 & 0065-0067, 0078]; a second flow path (224/261a/264a) that is partitioned from the first flow path (228/261b/264b) such that a downstream end is opened to the processing space (100) and an upstream end is connected to the plasma generation chamber (154) [fig 1, 2C, 12 & 0032, 0065-0067]; a gas supply mechanism (128a/128b – wherein the first and second process gas may be a combination of gases) [fig 1 & 0030, 0078].
Jung does not specifically disclose an evacuation mechanism configured to evacuate the plasma generation chamber; and a supply destination changing valve that is disposed at any position on an evacuation path that connects the plasma generation chamber and the evacuation mechanism.
van Schravendijk teaches an evacuation mechanism (238) configured to evacuate the plasma generation chamber (298) [fig 2G & 0073, 0077]; and a supply destination changing valve (vacuum port valve, 236) that is disposed at any position on an evacuation path (vacuum pump port, 206) that connects the plasma generation chamber (298) and the evacuation mechanism (238) [fig 2G & 0073, 0077].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the film forming apparatus of Jung to comprise an evacuation mechanism connected to the plasma generation chamber via a supply destination changing valve, as in van Schravendijk, to allow excess pressure build-up in the plasma generation chamber to be relieved, thus preventing over-pressurization [van Schravendijk – 0073, 0077].
The claim limitations “forms a film on a substrate by performing multiple times a cycle of supplying to the processing space a first processing gas, a substitution gas for replacing an atmosphere of the processing space, and a plasma-activated second processing gas, and the substitution gas in that order”, “is not opened or closed by a valve”, “configured to supply the first processing gas, the second processing gas, and the substitution gas to the first flow path, the plasma generation chamber, and a substitution gas flow path configured to supply the substitution gas to the processing space, respectively”, and “configured to be opened and closed during repetitive execution of the cycle so that a supply destination of the plasma-excited second processing gas switches between a downstream side of the position on the evacuation path and the processing space” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the substation gas flow path is not structurally different from the first flow path [see claim 8].
Regarding claim 2:
Jung teaches a gas shower head (dual channel gas distributor, 108) forming a ceiling portion of the processing vessel [fig 1 & 0030], the first flow path (228/261b/264b) has a plurality of first injection holes (264b) formed in a longitudinal direction to open to the processing space (100), and a first gas diffusion space (261b) formed at an upstream side of the plurality of first injection holes (264b) and commonly connected to the plurality of first injection holes (264b), the second flow path (224/261a/264a) has a plurality of second injection holes (264a) formed in the longitudinal direction to open to the processing space (100), and a second gas diffusion space (261a) formed at an upstream side of the plurality of second injection holes (264a) and commonly connected to the plurality of second injection holes (264a), and the plurality of first injection holes (264b), the plurality of second injection holes (264a), the first gas diffusion space (261b), and the said second gas diffusion space (261a) are formed in the gas shower head (108) [fig 1, 2C, 12 & 0030, 0065-0067].
Regarding claim 3:
Jung teaches the plasma generation chamber (158 of 124a) is stacked on the gas shower head (see location of 124a relative to 108 depicted in figure 1 ) [fig 1, 2C & 0030, 0032].
Regarding claim 8:
The claim limitations “wherein the substitution gas flow path serves as the first flow path, and the first processing gas and the substitution gas are sequentially supplied from the gas supply mechanism to the first flow path during a period in which the supply destination changing valve is opened” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the substation gas flow path is not structurally different from the first flow path [see claim 8].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 2006/0162661) in view of van Schravendijk (US 2014/0179114) as applied to claims 1-3 and 8 above, and further in view of Choi (KR 100798351B1) and Leu et al (US 2011/0203610).
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 8 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Jung teaches an evacuation space (space within 206) used for the plasma generation chamber (202) is provided above the plurality of plasma generation chamber (202), and an upstream side of the evacuation path (206) is connected to the evacuation space (space within 206) [van Schravendijk - fig 2A & 0073].
Modified Jung does not specifically teach a plurality of the plasma generation chambers are provided.
Choi teaches a plurality of the plasma generation chambers are provided (multiple remote plasma generators, 300) [fig 1, 4 & 0011].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plasma generation chamber of modified Jung to be a plurality of plasma generation chambers, as in Choi, to effectively process large size substrates [Choi – 0011].
Jung modified by van Schravendijk and Choi does not specifically disclose the evacuation space commonly used for the plurality of plasma generation chambers.
Leu teaches an evacuation space commonly used for the plurality of plasma generation chambers (single pump is being used) [fig 3 & 0020].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of plasma generation chambers of modified Jung to have a common evacuation space, as in Leu, because the principle remains the same [Leu – 0020] (i.e. to allow excess pressure build-up in the plasma generation chamber to be relieved, thus preventing over-pressurization [van Schravendijk – 0073, 0077]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 2006/0162661) in view of van Schravendijk (US 2014/0179114) as applied to claims 1-3 and 8 above, and further in view of Choi (KR 100798351B1).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Jung does not specifically disclose the plasma generation chamber includes a pipe body forming an annular space, the plasma generation mechanism includes: an annular magnetic body surrounding a partial wall of the pipe body; a radio frequency (RF) power supply; and a coil to which a power from the RF power supply is supplied and wound around the magnetic body.
Choi teaches a plasma generation chamber (310) includes a pipe body forming an annular space (annular discharge tube, 310), the plasma generation mechanism includes: an annular magnetic body (annular core, 330) surrounding a partial wall of the pipe body (see fig 1) [fig 1, 4 & 0008-0009]; a radio frequency (RF) power supply (400) [fig 1, 4 & 0010]; and a coil (primary winding, 330) to which a power from the RF power supply (400) is supplied and wound around the magnetic body (320) [fig 1, 4 & 0009-0010].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plasma generation chamber of modified Jung with the plasma generation chamber of Choi to produce a very uniform and large amount of plasma [Choi – page 4, last paragraph].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wi (KR 20050100880A), Okumura (US 6,267,074), Ramaswamy et al (US 10,957,518), and Yamasaki et al (US 2006/0124151) teach a film forming apparatus [fig 15b, 1, 1A, and 10, respectively].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896