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 .
Status
The amendment filed 06/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are pending. In the amendment filed 06/19/2026, claims 1-5 were amended, claim 6 was canceled, and no new claims were added.
Priority
Applicant’s translation of the certified copy of the foreign priority application KR 10-2022-0036416 having a filing date of 03/24/2022 is noted and acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 2, the limitations regarding the metal combining with polymer material deposited on the substrate and being deposited on the substrate are directed to the article worked upon and the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed. The instant claims are directed to an apparatus. Applicant is kindly reminded that [i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Applicant is further reminded that [i]t has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). Additionally, if the claims is interpreted as requiring polymer forming gases during operation, applicant is reminded that Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
In claim 3, “and having one or more gas outlet holes” is interpreted as modifying the shower head of line 2 of the claim such that the shower head is “located at an upper part of the chamber and having one or more gas outlet holes”. This interpretation is consistent with the grammar of the claim language and the instant specification [0065-0066].
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.
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.
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, 2, 5, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (prev. presented US 2019/0385908) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2001/0001190 of Leiphart et al., hereinafter Leiphart.
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches an etching plasma processing apparatus (Fig 1-2 [0044], [0054-0055]) comprising: a vacuum chamber (100 Fig 1, 200 Fig 2 see pump 112 Fig 1-2 [0030] and [0023-0025]); a substrate support member (108 Fig 1-2 [0028]) arranged inside the chamber [0028]; a gas supply member (110 Fig 1-2 [0029]) for injecting gas into the chamber [0029]; a consumable part (114 Fig 1-2 or 142 Fig 1-2) arranged inside the chamber (Fig 1-2) and generating a metallic byproduct containing ions or radicals of a first metal when plasma is generated inside the chamber ([0031-0032], [0040], [0045], [0053]); a first electrode for applying power to generate plasma inside the chamber (one of 114, 142 [0043-0044], [0053] note that 114 or 142 are both a target and an electrode); a second electrode facing the first electrode (unlabeled biasing component in substrate support 108 [0033], [0053]); and a power supply supplying power to the first and second electrodes (117, 150, 180 Fig 1-2). Xie fails to teach the consumable part comprising a silicon (Si) compound or mixture, the silicon (Si) compound or mixture containing the first metal, because Xie teaches only using a target (consumable part) containing metal. Xie does suggest other materials may be used [0022] but does not explicitly teach a silicon compound or mixture. In the same field of endeavor of a plasma etching apparatus with sputtering (abstract), Leiphart teaches a target that is a combination of silicon (Si) and metals such as titanium (Ti), platinum (Pt), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), gold (Au), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), or tantalum (Ta) [0017]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to include the target is a combination (mixture or alloy) of silicon and the first metal because Leiphart teaches this is a functional alternative target [0017].
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. As indicated above, the limitations of claim 2 are directed to the article worked upon (e.g. a substrate with a polymer layer) and the intended use of the apparatus. The apparatus of Xie is capable of being operated with a substrate containing polymer and is capable of being operated with polymer forming gases because the apparatus contains a gas inlet to which polymer forming gases may be supplied. Xie teaches metal ions or radicals will form and the reaction of the metal ions or radical with polymer on the substrate is a function of the specific substrate being treated (i.e. article worked upon) and/or a function of the specific plasma gases (i.e. contents during operation).
Regarding claim 5, Xie teaches the consumable part (142 Fig 1-2) is installed on the inner wall of the chamber (Fig 1-2 [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Xie teaches the first metal comprises one or more of niobium (Nb), tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W), titanium (Ti), and manganese (Mn) [0031].
Regarding claim 8, Xie teaches a consumable part connection power supply (one of 150 or 117, Fig 1-2 [0041]) applying power to the consumable part to facilitate the generation of ions or radicals of the first metal [0041].
Regarding claim 9, Xie teaches an apparatus that is capacitively coupled (see electrodes 108 and 114 Fig 1-2) [0053]. Xie also teaches inductively coupled plasma (coil 142 Fig 1-2 [0053]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Leiphart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokoyama (prev. presented US 2020/0144034).
Regarding claim 3, Xie fails to teach the consumable part is installed on a shower head, the shower head located at an upper part of the chamber and having one or more gas outlet holes because Xie teaches the consumable part arranged at the top of the chamber (114 Fig 1) but fails to teach this is a shower head. In the same field of endeavor of a plasma etching apparatus with sputtering (abstract), Yokoyama teaches the target to be sputtered may be above the substrate (layer 36 Fig 1 and 2A [0040], [0043]) as a layer on a shower head (38 Fig 1, 2A [0023]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to include the upper target is on a shower head, the shower head located at an upper part of the chamber and having one or more gas outlet holes because Yokoyama teaches this arrangement ([0023], [0040-0043] Fig 2A) and teaches it allows for sputtering of material from above the substrate to on the substrate (Fig 2A and [0040-0043]) and teaches this allows for gas introduction to the chamber [0023] (note that Xie teaches a different gas introduction structure of gas supply member (110 Fig 1-2 [0029])). This represents a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Xie fails to teach the consumable part is installed on an edge ring located at the bottom of the chamber to surround an edge of a substrate arranged on the substrate support member. In the same field of endeavor of a plasma etching apparatus with sputtering (abstract), Yokoyama teaches the target to be sputtered may be above the substrate (layer 36 Fig 1 and 2A [0040]) or may be an edge ring located at the bottom of the chamber to surround an edge of a substrate arranged on the substrate support member (24 Fig 1, 2B [0040], [0044]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie to include the consumable part is installed on an edge ring located at the bottom of the chamber to surround an edge of a substrate arranged on the substrate support member because Yokoyama teaches this is a functional alternative to a target arranged above the substrate (teaching of Xie, see claim 1 rejection for mapping) for the purpose of incorporating sputtered material onto the etched substrate [0040-0043]. This represents a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Xie (reply p7) does not teach an etching plasma apparatus because Xie also performs PVD sputtering. Xie does teach etching while sputtering [0041]. Applicant appears to be arguing directed to the specific reactions occurring in the chamber with the article worked upon. Applicant may wish to consider pursuing a divisional application directed to the method claims because, as previously explained, the article worked upon does not define the apparatus. The arguments regarding Xie and Yokoyama (reply p8-9) to teach the combined target material are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection including Leiphart which was necessitated by amendment. Leiphart teaches a combination of Silicon and metal as the target, as cited above. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Applicant has overcome the rejection including Park by filing the certified translation of the foreign priority document (reply p9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2009/0045044 teaches metal and silicon sputter targets as alternatives to just metal sputter targets [0032-0034].
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
