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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
Monitor device (any structure that optically monitors a plasma state, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0079]) in at least claims 1-7.
Reflected waver generator (notches, circular waveguide, para. [0092], [0107]) in at least claims 1-8.
Circularly polarized wave generator (any structure that optically monitors a plasma state, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0082]) in at least claims 1-8.
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a radio frequency power supply configured to supply, via a circular waveguide" in the claim. It is unclear how the RF power supply supplies power via a circular waveguide specifically, when it is connected to the substrate via the automatic matching device, per the instant specification (para. 0084]). Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim limitations “monitor device,” “Circularly polarized wave generator” 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20160141151 to Tamura.
Claim 8: Tamura discloses a heating apparatus, comprising: a heating chamber (120 [processing chamber], Fig. 1) considered capable to be configured to heat a sample (111 [wafer], it is noted that microwave plasma intrinsically can used to heat samples as noted in applicant’s own disclosure); a radio frequency power supply (114 [RF power supply]) configured to supply, via a circular waveguide (105), radio frequency power of a microwave (para. [0061-0062]); a circularly polarized wave generator (201 [circularly polarized wave generator]) disposed inside the circular waveguide (105 [circular waveguide]) and configured to generate a circularly polarized wave (para. [0067]); wherein the heating apparatus further comprises a reflected wave generator (203 [dielectric stub] of 205 [circularly polarized wave correctors]) disposed between the circularly polarized wave generator (201) and the heating chamber (120) and inside the circular waveguide (105),
the reflected wave generator (203 of 205) generates a reflected wave that cancels, without inhibiting the circularly polarized wave, a reflected wave propagating from the processing chamber (para. [0089-0100]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160141151 to Tamura in view of US 20160336154 to Watanabe.
Claim 1: Tamura discloses a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a processing chamber (120 [processing chamber], Fig. 1) configured to plasma-process a sample (111 [wafer]); a radio frequency power supply (114 [RF power supply]) configured to supply, via a circular waveguide (105), radio frequency power of a microwave (para. [0061-0062]); a circularly polarized wave generator (201 [circularly polarized wave generator]) disposed inside the circular waveguide (105 [circular waveguide]) and configured to generate a circularly polarized wave (para. [0067]); and a sample stage (112 [sample stage]) allowing the sample to be placed thereon, wherein the plasma processing apparatus further comprises a reflected wave generator (203 [dielectric stub] of 205 [circularly polarized wave correctors]) disposed between the circularly polarized wave generator (201) and the processing chamber (120) and inside the circular waveguide (105),
the reflected wave generator (203 of 205) generates a reflected wave that cancels, without inhibiting the circularly polarized wave, a reflected wave propagating from the processing chamber (para. [0089-0100]).
However Tamura does not disclose a monitor device configured to optically monitor a plasma state via the circular waveguide; and an optical path for optically monitoring the plasma state is formed in the reflected wave generator.
Watanabe discloses a monitor device (32/31, Fig. 5) configured to optically monitor a plasma state via the circular waveguide (24 [circular waveguide], para. [0094]); and an optical path (path from 31 down through 24 to the chamber) for optically monitoring the plasma state is formed in the wave generator (24/25) for the purpose of monitoring light intensity of light emission resulting from the plasma (para. [0096]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monitor device and configuration as taught by Watanabe with motivation to monitor light intensity of light emission resulting from the plasma.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Tamura in view of Watanabe discloses wherein a central axis of the reflected wave generator (central axis of tip of 203 can move as necessary to match central axis) is the same as a central axis of the circular waveguide (105, para. [0073]).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Tamura in view of Watanabe does not disclose wherein an inner diameter of the reflected wave generator is defined based on a reflection coefficient of a load.
However Tamura teaches that the changes in axial ratio of the polarized wave and the changes of the reflection coefficient changes with to the change of the phase of the reflection coefficient of the load with the insertion length of the reflected wave generator (dielectric stub 203 of 205) as a parameter in the plasma processing apparatus (para. [0103-0105]), for the purpose of maintaining high uniformity even when there is a reflection wave from the plasma load side, by optimally adjusting the axial ratio of the circularly polarized wave by the adjusting the insertion amount of the dielectric stub (para. [0105]).
It is noted that Tamura is solving the same problem of defining a property based on the reflection coefficient of a load, with motivation to maintain high uniformity even when there is a reflection wave from the plasma load side, by optimally adjusting the axial ratio of the circularly polarized wave by the adjusting the insertion amount of the dielectric stub.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate
Claim 4: The apparatus of Tamura in view of Watanabe discloses wherein a position of the reflected wave generator (203 of 205) in a direction of a central axis of the reflected wave generator is defined based on a reflection coefficient of a load (para. [0103-0105]).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Tamura in view of Watanabe discloses wherein a position of the reflected wave generator (203 of 205) in a direction of a central axis of the reflected wave generator is defined based on a reflection coefficient of a load (para. [0103-0105]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20040261717 discloses detectors (18, Fig. 2) projecting from an inner wall surface of a cylindrical waveguide (14, para. [0073]) which extracts the portion of the microwave power and outputs the reactance from the reflection coefficient of the load (para. [0091]). US 20230352274 discloses phase adjusting units (109, Fig. 2) to a reduce a mismatch of a microwave electromagnetic field distribution (para. [0048-0049]).
US 20220359162 discloses a circularly polarized wave generator (208, Fig. 2) is built in a circular waveguide (2011), a waveguide path (210) is formed by a waveguide path forming portion (2044) in a space surrounded by the cavity portion (212) and the flange portion (2041, para. [0080]). US 20200286715 discloses a camera (119, Fig. 1) for ECR height measurement is attached where the plasma light emission (111) is generated above the sample stage (113) in the processing chamber (101, para. [0050]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718