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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Jingboa et al. (US 20030192645 A1) in view of Campbell; Gregor A. et al. (US 5122251 A). Liu teaches a plasma post-processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (51; Figure 6A; [0040]); a stage (52; Figure 6A; [0040]) disposed inside of the chamber (51; Figure 6A; [0040]), wherein a work substrate (53; Figure 6A; [0040]) is disposed on the stage (52; Figure 6A; [0040]); diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) each of which increases in width in a direction away from the work substrate (53; Figure 6A; [0040]) and each of the diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) having holes (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]), and disposed above the stage (52; Figure 6A; [0040]); transfer pipes (62; Figure 4, 5A, 6A; [0041]-Applicant’s DL1-DL3; DF1-DF3; Figure 7) respectively connected to the diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7), a plurality of diffusers (56-”injectors” throughout; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) arranged around and proximate to corners of the work substrate (53; Figure 6A; [0040]) – claim 1. The above and below italicized claim text are considered intended use claim requirements in the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Liu further teaches:
diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) with optimized hole (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]) dimensions and distributions [0018] – claim 1
The plasma post-processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) includes an outer surface (outer surface of 56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]), an inner surface (inner surface of 56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]) opposite to the outer surface (outer surface of 56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]), and a connecting surface (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]) disposed between the outer surface (outer surface of 56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]) and the inner surface (inner surface of 56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]), the holes (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]) are defined through the inner surface (inner surface of 56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]) from the outer surface (outer surface of 56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]), and an internal space is defined inwardly of the inner surface (inner surface of 56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]), as claimed by claim 5
The plasma post-processing apparatus of claim 5, wherein each of the diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) has a substantially hemispherical shape substantially convex in a direction toward the work substrate (53; Figure 6A; [0040]), as claimed by claim 6
The plasma post-processing apparatus of claim 5, wherein each of the diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) has a substantially conical shape substantially convex in a direction toward the work substrate (53; Figure 6A; [0040]), as claimed by claim 7
The plasma post-processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the process gases provided to the pipes are at least one of water vapor (H2O), oxygen (O2), carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), argon (Ar), nitrogen (N2), and helium (He), as claimed by claim 8
The plasma post-processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) includes a first portion (first portion 56 where 31,41 are; Figure 4,5A) where the holes (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]) are defined and a second portion (second portion 56 where 31,41 are not; Figure 4,5A) extending from the first portion (first portion 56 where 31,41 are; Figure 4,5A) and where the holes (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]) are not defined, and the second portion (second portion 56 where 31,41 are not; Figure 4,5A) is connected to a corresponding transfer pipe (62; Figure 4, 5A, 6A; [0041]-Applicant’s DL1-DL3; DF1-DF3; Figure 7), as claimed by claim 11
Liu does not teach:
plasma generators (Applicant’s RPG1-RPG3; Figure 7) respectively connected to pipes that supply process gases and are respectively connected to Liu’s transfer pipes (62; Figure 4, 5A, 6A; [0041]-Applicant’s DL1-DL3; DF1-DF3; Figure 7), wherein a diameter of Liu’s holes (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]) defined in a diffuser (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) disposed at a center of Liu’s work substrate (53; Figure 6A; [0040]) among Liu’s diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) is less than a diameter of the holes (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]) defined in each of remaining diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) among Liu’s diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7), wherein Liu’s diffusers (56-”injectors” throughout; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) include a first diffuser at a center of the work substrate (53; Figure 6A; [0040]) – claim 1
The plasma post-processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a diameter of each of the holes (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]) increases gradually in the direction away from the work substrate (53; Figure 6A; [0040]), as claimed by claim 3
Campbell also teaches plasma generators (12’,18,19; Figure 3,4-Applicant’s RPG1-RPG3; Figure 7) respectively connected to pipes (10’, 11; Figure 3,4) that supply process gases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Liu to add Campbell’s plasma generators (12’,18,19; Figure 3,4-Applicant’s RPG1-RPG3; Figure 7) to Liu’s connected pipes as taught by Campbell at optimized hole size/distribution as taught by Liu ([0018]), and number of Liu’s diffusers.
Motivation for Liu to add Campbell’s plasma generators (12’,18,19; Figure 3,4-Applicant’s RPG1-RPG3; Figure 7) to Liu’s connected pipes as taught by Campbell at optimized hole size/distribution as taught by Liu ([0018]) is for using a “high density ionized plasma” to “..make the plasma as dense as possible” as taught by Campbell (column 1; lines 58-66; column 3; lines 1-23).
Motivation for Liu to optimize the size/distribution of Liu’s hole (31,41; Figure 4,5A; [0039]-[0040]) is for “…achieving the results described for different processing schemes” as taught by Liu ([0018]-[0019]).
Motivation for Liu to add additional of Liu’s diffusers (56-”injectors” throughout; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) is “Any number of injectors can be mounted in the gas feed chamber and the chamber will equalize pressure. It would therefore be a simple matter to add injectors.” as taught by Liu ([0041]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Jingboa et al. (US 20030192645 A1) and Campbell; Gregor A. et al. (US 5122251 A) in view of McMillin; Brian et al. (US 6013155 A). Liu and Campbell are discussed above. Liu and Campbell do not teach the plasma post-processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) contains an aluminum oxide.
McMillin also teaches diffusers (“injectors” 180; throughout) in a plasma reactor system (Figure 2A) made from “…any suitable material such as aluminum, anodized aluminum, quartz or ceramics such as Al.sub.2 O.sub.3.” (column 7; lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Liu to use McMillin’s material of construction for Liu’s diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7).
Motivation for Liu to use McMillin’s material of construction for Liu’s diffusers (56; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) is for preferred materials in plasma environments as taught by McMillin (column 7; lines 5-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, and 12-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: See the Examiner’s December 8, 2025 office action pages 7-9 for prior, and current, reasons for allowance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Liu also discloses a gas plasma injector 40 including apertures 41 arranged "on only one side of each injector" such that "the process gas from the process gas supply 43 will exit the apparatus aperture as a directed spray having a directional spray vector toward the sidewall of the chamber and away from the wafer center" as noted by arrows marking the boundary of the spray 20 from injectors 21. Accordingly, Liu discloses four gas injectors 21 arranged in a circumferential (circular) direction, rather than "a first diffuser at a center of the work substrate and a plurality of diffusers arranged around the first diffuser and proximate to corners of the work substrate," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
“
In response, the Examiner IS NOT assigning the argued “apertures” to the claimed “diffusers”. As a result, the claimed diffusers are equivalent to Liu’s diffusers (56-”injectors” throughout; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) with the above noted lacking feature of a central diffuser (56-”injectors” throughout; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7) to meet the amended claim feature. Notably, Liu provides motivation, as stated above, for adding additional diffusers (56-”injectors” throughout; Figure 4,5A,6A; [0040]-Applicant’s DF1-DF3; Figure 7).
Applicant states:
“
Additionally, although Liu discloses "[t]he number, exact position and size of the apertures can vary as needed to achieve the results described for different processing schemes" (Paragraph [0018]), it fails to disclose or even suggest that the diameters of the apertures may vary between different diffusers, let alone that that the diameter of holes in one diffuser centered on the wafer is smaller than the holes in the other diffusers that are not centered on the wafer.
“
In response, Liu has identified nothing less than Liu’s aperture sizes and distributions as result-effective variables at [0018]:
“
Each gas distribution apparatus has at least one process gas flow aperture. (The number, exact position and size of the apertures can vary as needed to achieve the results described for different processing schemes.)
“
And …
“
The exact number and type of gas distribution apparatus and apertures therein, as well as their location will vary according to the size of the chamber and wafer, the gas flow pressure, the size, shape, and orientation of the apertures in the apparatus, in the ceiling, floor or sidewall required to achieve substantially circumferential gas flow but from the disclosure of applicant, can be determined by one skilled in the art.
“ ([0019])
Only result-effective variables can be optimized (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP2144.05.
Applicant states:
“
Accordingly, Campbell discloses three plasma generators arranged in a straight line, rather than "a first diffuser at a center of the work substrate and a plurality of diffusers arranged around the first diffuser and proximate to corners of the work substrate," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
“
And..
“
Moreover, McMillin fails to remedy the deficiencies of Liu and Campbell. For the aforementioned reasons, neither Liu, nor Campbell, nor McMillin, whether taken alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or even suggest at least the abovementioned features of independent claim 1, and there is no apparent reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have, upon reviewing the cited prior art references as a whole, combined or modified their disclosures in such a way as to arrive at the claimed features of independent claim 1. For at least these reasons, independent claim 8 would not have been obvious over the art of record at the time the invention was made. See CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int'l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim."), citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of independent claim 1 be withdrawn and that this claim be allowed.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plasma systems utilizing nozzles for gas delivery include US 20070187363 A1; US 20020088545 A1; US 20220020563 A1; US 20070163996 A1; US 9663856 B2; US 5122251 A
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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights