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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 02/27/2026.
4. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-19 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, and 13-19 have been amended.
6. Claims 2, 12, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11, 14-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (KR 10-2265339) in view of Inazawa et al (US 5,772,833).
Regarding claim 1:
Gu teaches a substrate treating apparatus (substrate processing apparatus, 1000) [fig 2 & 0040] comprising: a housing (housing, 100) having a treating space (processing space, 102) [fig 2 & 0044]; a support unit (support unit, 300) configured to support a substrate (substrate, W) in the treating space (102) [fig 2 & 0045]; a gas supply unit (gas supply unit, 700) configured to supply a gas (gas), the gas (gas) being excited to a plasma (plasma, P) in the treating space (102) [fig 2-3 & 0055-0058]; a dielectric plate (dielectric plate, 500) facing the support unit (300) [fig 2 & 0043]; and a top edge electrode (upper electrode, 620) having a shape surrounding the dielectric plate (may have a shape surrounding the dielectric plate 500) [fig 2 & 0054], wherein the support unit (300) includes, a chuck (chuck, 310) configured to support a center region of the substrate (W) [fig 2 & 0045-0046]; an edge electrode (350/400) in a ring shape (ring shape); and a ring member (insulating ring, 300) between the chuck (310) and the edge electrode (350/400) [fig 2 & 0045], wherein the top edge electrode (620) and the edge electrode (350/400) face each other and are configured as a plasma source that is configured to excite the gas to generate the plasm at an edge region of the substrate supported by the chuck (plasma P may be generated from the process gas G2) [fig 3 & 0058], wherein the edge electrode (350/400) includes, a body portion (350) surrounding the chuck (310) at an outer side of the chuck (310) [fig 2 & 0049, 0051]; and a protrusion portion (400) that protrudes from an outer side of the body portion (350), and the protrusion portion (400) defines at least one hole (at least one hole) that penetrates the protrusion portion (400) and is configured to exhaust an atmosphere of the treating space [fig 2 & 0051].
Gu does not specifically teach the protrusion portion and the body portion are integral with each other.
Inazawa teaches a protrusion portion (ring member, 17) and a body portion (16) are integral with each other (see fig 1) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protrusion portion and body portion of Gu to be integral, as in Inazawa, to increase the intensity of the sputtering while etching is performed [Inazawa - col 6, lines 33-54]. Furthermore, it has been held that making a formerly separable structure integral involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claims 3-5:
Gu teaches the protrusion portion (400) is along a circumferential direction of the body portion (350) [fig 2 & 0051]; an outer circumference of the protrusion portion (400) extends to a sidewall of the housing (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0051]; and wherein the housing (100) defines an exhaust hole (exhaust hole, 104) that is configured to exhaust the atmosphere of the treating space (102), and the atmosphere of the treating space is exhausted through the at least one hole (at least one hole) and the exhaust hole (104) [fig 2 & 0044, 0051].
Regarding claim 11:
Gu teaches a substrate treating apparatus (substrate processing apparatus, 1000) [fig 2 & 0040] comprising: a housing (housing, 100) having a treating space (processing space, 102) [fig 2 & 0044]; a support unit (support unit, 300) configured to support a substrate (substrate, W) in the treating space (102) [fig 2 & 0045]; and a plasma source (upper electrode unit, 600) configured to generate a plasma at an edge region of the substrate that is supported on the support unit (see fig 3) [fig 2-3 & 0053, 0058], wherein the support unit (300) includes, a chuck (chuck, 310) configured to support a center region of the substrate (W) [fig 2 & 0045-0046]; and an edge electrode (350/400) in a ring shape (ring shape) and below the edge region (see fig 2), wherein the edge electrode (350/400) includes, a body portion (350) surrounding the chuck (310) at an outer side of the chuck (310) [fig 2 & 0049, 0051]; and a protrusion portion (400) defining a through hole (at least one hole) that is configured to exhaust an atmosphere of the treating space, the through hole (at least one hole) protruding to an outer side of the body portion (350) [fig 2 & 0051].
Gu does not specifically teach the protrusion portion and the body portion are integral with each other.
Inazawa teaches a protrusion portion (ring member, 17) and a body portion (16) are integral with each other (see fig 1) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protrusion portion and body portion of Gu to be integral, as in Inazawa, to increase the intensity of the sputtering while etching is performed [Inazawa - col 6, lines 33-54]. Furthermore, it has been held that making a formerly separable structure integral involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claims 14-15:
Gu teaches a top surface of the protrusion portion (400) is at a different height (see fig 2) from a top surface of the body portion (350) [fig 2 & 0051]; and wherein the top surface of the protrusion portion (400) is lower than the top surface (see fig 2) of the body portion (350) [fig 2 & 0051].
Regarding claim 18:
Gu teaches the plasma source (upper electrode unit, 600) includes a top edge electrode (upper electrode, 620) above the edge region [fig 2-3 & 0053, 0058].
Regarding claim 19:
Gu teaches a substrate treating apparatus (substrate processing apparatus, 1000) [fig 2 & 0040] comprising: a housing (housing, 100) having a treating space (processing space, 102) [fig 2 & 0044]; a support unit (support unit, 300) configured to support a substrate (substrate, W) in the treating space (102) [fig 2 & 0045]; and a gas supply unit (gas supply unit, 700) configured to supply a gas (gas) to an edge region of the substrate (W) that is supported on the support unit (300) [fig 2-3 & 0055-0058]; and a top edge electrode (upper electrode, 620) above the edge region [fig 2-3 & 0053, 0058], and wherein the support unit (300) includes, a chuck (chuck, 310) configured to support a center region of the substrate (W) [fig 2 & 0045-0046]; and an edge electrode (350/400) in a ring shape (ring shape) and below the edge region (see fig 2), wherein the edge electrode (350/400) includes, a body portion (350) surrounding the chuck (310) at an outer side of the chuck (310) [fig 2 & 0049, 0051]; and a protrusion portion (400) protruding from an outer side of the body portion (350), and the protrusion portion (400) defining at least one hole (at least one hole) that penetrates the protrusion portion (400), an atmosphere of the treating space being exhausted through the at least one hole (at least one hole) [fig 2 & 0051].
Gu does not specifically teach the protrusion portion and the body portion are integral with each other.
Inazawa teaches a protrusion portion (ring member, 17) and a body portion (16) are integral with each other (see fig 1) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protrusion portion and body portion of Gu to be integral, as in Inazawa, to increase the intensity of the sputtering while etching is performed [Inazawa - col 6, lines 33-54]. Furthermore, it has been held that making a formerly separable structure integral involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
10. Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (KR 10-2265339) in view of Inazawa et al (US 5,772,833) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 11, 14-15, and 18-19 above, with substantiating evidence provided by Takebayashi et al (JP 2000-058518).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 11, 14-15, and 18-19 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 6:
Gu does not specifically teach a top surface of the protrusion portion is at a same height as a top surface of the body portion.
Inazawa teaches a top surface of the protrusion portion (17) is at a same height (see fig 1) as a top surface of the body portion (16) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protrusion portion of Gu to be at a same height as a top surface of the body portion, as in Inazawa, because such a configuration effectively makes the gas flow uniform thereby uniform plasma processing becomes possible [Takebayashi – 0009]. Furthermore, it has been held that mere rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see Takebashi – fig 4 vs fig 3) [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claim 13:
Gu does not specifically teach a top surface of the protrusion portion is at substantially a same height as a top surface of the body portion.
Inazawa teaches a top surface of the protrusion portion (17) is at substantially a same height (see fig 1) as a top surface of the body portion (16) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protrusion portion of Gu to be at substantially a same height as a top surface of the body portion, as in Inazawa, because such a configuration effectively makes the gas flow uniform thereby uniform plasma processing becomes possible [Takebayashi – 0009]. Furthermore, it has been held that mere rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see Takebashi – fig 4 vs fig 3) [MPEP 2144.04].
11. Claim(s) 7-10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (KR 10-2265339) in view of Inazawa et al (US 5,772,833) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 11, 14-15, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Moon et al (US 2005/0224179).
The limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 11, 14-15, and 18-19 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 7-8:
Modified Gu teaches the top surface of the protrusion portion (400) is lower than a top surface (see fig 2) of the body portion (350) [Gu - fig 2 & 0051].
Modified Gu does not specifically teach the protrusion portion is at a top end of the body portion, and a top surface of the protrusion portion and the top end of the body portion are stepped with respect to one another.
Moon teaches a protrusion portion (baffle plate, 10) is at a top end of the body portion (120), and a top surface of the protrusion portion and the top end of the body portion are stepped with respect to one another (baffle plate is bent downward in the form of a stair) [fig 1, 7D & 0028, 0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protrusion portion of modified Gu to be stepped with respect to the body portion, as in Moon, to improve the performance of the plasma process by allowing for a larger amount of gas to be discharged [Moon – 0046].
Regarding claims 9-10:
Modified Gu does not specifically teach a top surface of the protrusion portion is inclined; and wherein the top surface of the protrusion portion is downwardly inclined toward a sidewall of the housing.
Moon teaches a top surface of a protrusion portion is inclined (see fig 7A) [fig 1, 7A & 0028, 0038]; and wherein the top surface of the protrusion portion is downwardly inclined toward a sidewall of the housing (see fig 7A) [fig 1, 7A & 0028, 0038].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protrusion portion of modified Gu to be downwardly inclined, as in Moon, to improve the performance of the plasma process by allowing for a larger amount of gas to be discharged [Moon – 0046].
Regarding claims 16-17:
Modified Gu does not specifically teach a top surface of the protrusion portion is inclined; and wherein the top surface of the protrusion portion is upwardly inclined toward the body portion.
Moon teaches a top surface of a protrusion portion is inclined (see fig 7B) [fig 1, 7B & 0028, 0038]; and wherein the top surface of the protrusion portion is upwardly inclined toward the body portion (see fig 7B) [fig 1, 7B & 0028, 0038].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protrusion portion of modified Gu to be upwardly inclined, as in Moon, to improve the performance of the plasma process by allowing for a larger amount of gas to be discharged [Moon – 0046].
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn in view of the amended drawings received 03/02/2026.
13. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 11-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 11-20 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 11 and 19.
14. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 11, and 18-19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 2-10, 12-17, and 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The teachings of Inazawa et al (US 5,772,833) remedy anything lacking in Gu (KR 10-2265339) as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
15. 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.
16. 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