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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 14-17 is/are amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected previously relied on references below.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nagaseki does not teach or suggest the drive member lifts and moves the baffle plate in a movement region between an upper surface of the substrate support member and a lower surface thereof.
The claim nor disclosure of the instant application does not require for the newly described “movement region” to only begin and end at the upper and lower surfaces respectively, of the substrate support member. The claim (and disclosure) requires vertical lifting and lowering with a drive member at various positions which include the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate support member, which Nagaseki reads on.
Due to the explanations above, Applicant’s arguments are rendered not persuasive.
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:
Drive member (any structure that drives the baffle plate, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0089-0090]) in at least claims 1-20.
Substrate support unit (electrostatic chuck, base component, chucking component, para. [0042]) in at least claims 1-20.
Gas supply unit (gas supply source, gas supply line, para. [0047]) in at least claims 7-13.
Movement region (any structure that moves in a region, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification).
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.
Claim limitation “movement region” invokes 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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190172689 to Nagaseki in view of US 20110049100 to Han, as evidenced by US 20150228462 to Yoshimura.
Claim 1: Nagaseki discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a housing (102 [processing chamber], Fig. 8A/8B) configured to provide a processing space (space above 13) therein (para. [0025]); a substrate support unit (13 [stage]) including a substrate support member (13) configured to support a substrate (W [wafer]) within the processing space (para. [0025]); and a baffle unit (22/41) provided to surround a circumference of the substrate support unit (13), wherein the baffle unit (22/41) comprises: a baffle plate (22 [baffle plate]) provided to surround the circumference of the substrate support unit (13) and having at least one slit therein (slits of 22);
and a drive member (“lifting mechanism”) that lifts and moves the baffle plate (22, para. [0079]) in a movement region between an upper surface of the substrate support member and a lower surface thereof (interpreted as capable of moving up and down in that region as shown in Fig. 8A and Fig. 8B), wherein the baffle plate (22) is configured to surround the circumference of the substrate support member (13) in the movement region (interpreted as surrounding the substrate support member).
However Nagaseki does not disclose wherein the housing is provided in a shape capable of changing a distance between an inner wall of housing and the baffle plate (22) according to a lifting movement of the baffle plate in the movement region (Fig. 8A/8B).
Han teaches that a housing (100 [chamber], Fig. 1-2) may have any shape (para. [0052]). This is evidenced by Yoshimura which teaches for example that an inclined shape of the housing inner wall (inner wall of 12 [process chamber], Fig. 4,) which is defined by volume (V) can between a baffle (54) the inner wall of 12) can change in distance within a movement of the driving mechanism (70, para. [0065] which reads on changing an exhaust space volume) increases the volume of evacuation for the purpose of obtaining excellent uniformity of evacuation (para. [0080]).
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 optimization of shapes of the housing as taught by Han as evidence by Yoshimura with motivation to obtain excellent uniformity of evacuation.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaseki in view of Han as evidenced by Yoshimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20170092513 to Hosaka.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Nagaseki in view of Han as evidenced by Yoshimura does not disclose further comprising: a position sensor configured to detect a position of the baffle plate; and a controller configured to control the position of the baffle plate.
Hosaka discloses further comprising: a position sensor (90 [displacement gauge], Fig. 9, para. [0064]) configured to detect a position of the baffle plate (60 [baffle structure]); and a controller (Cnt [control unit], Fig. 5-9) configured to control the position of the baffle plate (60 [baffle structure]) for the purpose of controlling conductance between the first space and the second space (para. [0065]).
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 position sensor and controller as taught by Hosaka with motivation to control controlling conductance between the first space and the second space.
Claims 3-4: The apparatus of Nagaseki in view of Han as evidenced by Yoshimura and further in view of Hosaka does not disclose (claim 3) wherein an inner wall of the housing has an inclined shape with a circumference thereof widening from bottom to top with respect to a region corresponding to the movement region in which the baffle plate moves up and down; (claim 4) wherein an inner wall of the housing has an inclined shape with a circumference thereof narrowing from bottom to top with respect to a region corresponding to a section in which the baffle plate moves up and down.
Han teaches that a housing (100 [chamber], Fig. 1-2) may have any shape (para. [0052]). This is evidenced by Yoshimura which teaches for example that an inclined shape of the housing (12 [process chamber], Fig. 4) increases the volume of evacuation for the purpose of obtaining excellent uniformity of evacuation (para. [0080]).
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 optimization of shapes of the housing as taught by Han as evidence by Yoshimura with motivation to obtain excellent uniformity of evacuation.
Claims 5-6: The apparatus of Nagaseki in view of Han as evidenced by Yoshimura and further in view of Hosaka does not explicitly disclose (claim 5) wherein the controller controls a pressure or plasma density inside the processing space by controlling a height of the baffle plate; (claim 6) wherein a residence time of a process gas in the processing space is controlled according to the height of the baffle plate.
Hosaka discloses (claim 5) wherein the controller controls a pressure or plasma density inside the processing space by controlling a height of the baffle plate (para. [0071], [0093-0095]); (claim 6) wherein a residence time of a process gas in the processing space is controlled according to the height of the baffle plate (para. [0094-0096]) for the purpose of increasing or decreasing the pressure greatly at a high frequency (para. [0094]).
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 limitations above as taught by Hosaka with motivation to increase or decrease the pressure greatly at a high frequency.
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170092513 to Hosaka in view of US 20110049100 to Han, as evidenced by US 20150228462 to Yoshimura.
Claims 7, 9-10: Hosaka discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a housing (12 [processing chamber], Fig. 1) configured to provide a processing space (S1 [first space]) therein (para. [0045]); a substrate support unit (14 [mounting table]) including a substrate support member (13) configured to support a substrate (W [wafer]) within the processing space (S1, para. [0045]); a gas supply unit (GS [gas supply unit]) configured to supply a process gas to the processing space (para. [0041]); a plasma generation unit (18/HFS/LFS/30) configured to generate plasma from the process gas (para. [0075]); and
a baffle unit (60 [baffle structure]) provided to surround a circumference of the substrate support unit (14), wherein the baffle unit (60) comprises: a baffle plate (61a/62a) provided to surround the circumference of the substrate support unit (14) and having at least one slit (61h [through-holes], para. [0049]) therein; and
a drive member (70 [driving unit]) that lifts and moves the baffle plate (60) in a movement region between an upper surface of the substrate support member and a lower surface thereof (interpreted as capable of moving up and down in that region as shown in Fig. 8A and Fig. 8B), wherein the baffle plate (22) is configured to surround the circumference of the substrate support member (13) in the movement region (interpreted as surrounding the substrate support member).
However Hosaka does not disclose and an inner wall of the housing includes an inclined surface so that a distance between the inner wall of the housing and the baffle plate changes according to a lifting movement of the baffle plate in the movement region; (claim 9) wherein the inner wall of the housing has an inclined shape with a circumference thereof widening from bottom to top with respect to a region corresponding to the movement region in which the baffle plate moves up and down; (claim 10) wherein the inner wall of the housing has an inclined shape with a circumference thereof narrowing from bottom to top with respect to a region corresponding to the movement region in which the baffle plate moves up and down.
Han teaches that a housing (100 [chamber], Fig. 1-2) may have any shape (para. [0052]). This is evidenced by Yoshimura which teaches for example that an inclined shape of the housing inner wall (inner wall of 12 [process chamber], Fig. 4,) which is defined by volume (V) can between a baffle (54) the inner wall of 12) can change in distance within a movement of the driving mechanism (70, para. [0065] which reads on changing an exhaust space volume) increases the volume of evacuation for the purpose of obtaining excellent uniformity of evacuation (para. [0080]).
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 optimization of shapes of the housing as taught by Han as evidence by Yoshimura with motivation to obtain excellent uniformity of evacuation.
Claim 8: The apparatus of Hosaka in view of Han, Yoshimura discloses further comprising: a position sensor (90 [displacement gauge], Fig. 9, Hosaka) configured to detect a position of the baffle plate (60); and a controller (Cnt [control unit]) configured to control the position of the baffle plate (para. [0064]).
Claim 11: The apparatus of Hosaka in view of Han, Yoshimura discloses wherein the controller controls a pressure or plasma density inside the processing space by controlling a height of the baffle plate (para. [0071], [0093-0095], Hosaka).
Claim 12: The apparatus of Hosaka in view of Han, Yoshimura discloses wherein a residence time of the process gas in the processing space is controlled according to the height of the baffle plate plate (para. [0093-0096], Hosaka).
Claim 13: The apparatus of Hosaka in view of Han, Yoshimura discloses wherein the plasma generation unit (18/HFS/LFS/30, Fig. 1, Hosaka) comprises: an upper electrode (30 [upper electrode]) disposed above the substrate (W); a lower electrode (18 [lower electrode]) disposed below the substrate (W) to face the upper electrode (30) in a vertical direction (Fig. 1); an upper power source (HFS [high frequency power source], para. [0075]) configured to apply power to the upper electrode (30); and a lower power source (LFS [second high frequency power source], para. [0032]) configured to apply power to the lower electrode (18, para. [0032]).
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170092513 to Hosaka in view of US 20110049100 to Han, as evidenced by US 20150228462 to Yoshimura.
Claims 14, 16-17: Hosaka discloses a substrate processing method comprising: supplying plasma onto a substrate (w [wafer], Fig. 1) placed on a substrate support unit (14 [mounting table]) to treat the substrate (para. [0029-0034]) in a housing (12), is provided, plasma density above the baffle plate is controlled by adjusting a vertical position of a baffle plate (60 [baffle structure]) that surrounds a substrate support member of the substrate support unit (14), thereby controlling a plasma density above the baffle plate (para. [0064], 0094-0096]), wherein a vertical position of the baffle plate is ina a movement region between an upper surface of the substrate support member and a lower surface thereof (Fig. 1).
However Hosaka does not disclose (claim 14) wherein at least a portion of an inner surface of a processing space is formed as an inclined surface so that a distance between the baffle plate and the inner wall of the housing is variable according to a lifting movement of the baffle plate; (claim 16) wherein an inner wall of the housing has an inclined shape with a circumference thereof widening from bottom to top with respect to a region corresponding to the movement region in which the baffle plate moves up and down; (claim 17) wherein an inner wall of the housing has an inclined shape with a circumference thereof narrowing from bottom to top with respect to a region corresponding to the movement region in which the baffle plate moves up and down.
Han teaches that a housing (100 [chamber], Fig. 1-2) may have any shape (para. [0052]). This is evidenced by Yoshimura which teaches for example that an inclined shape of the housing inner wall (inner wall of 12 [process chamber], Fig. 4,) which is defined by volume (V) can between a baffle (54) the inner wall of 12) can change in distance within a movement of the driving mechanism (70, para. [0065] which reads on changing an exhaust space volume) increases the volume of evacuation for the purpose of obtaining excellent uniformity of evacuation (para. [0080]).
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 optimization of shapes of the housing as taught by Han as evidence by Yoshimura with motivation to obtain excellent uniformity of evacuation.
Claim 15: The method of Hosaka in view of Han, Yoshimura discloses further comprising monitoring the vertical position of the baffle plate (62a of 60) using a position sensor (90 [displacement gauge], para. [0064], Hosaka), wherein the baffle plate (62a [second cylindrical part] of 60 [baffle structure], Fig. 1-2, Hosaka) is moved up and down by a drive member (70 [driving unit]).
Claim 18: The method of Hosaka in view of Han, Yoshimura discloses wherein conductance above the baffle plate is controlled by moving a position of the baffle plate up and down (para. [0062], Hosaka).
Claim 19: The method of Hosaka in view of Han, Yoshimura discloses wherein a residence time of a process gas above the baffle plate is controlled by controlling the conductance above the baffle plate (para. [0093-0096], Hosaka).
Claim 20: The method of Hosaka in view of Han, Yoshimura discloses wherein a residence time of a process by-products above the baffle plate is controlled by controlling the conductance above the baffle plate (60, para. [0067], Hosaka).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230114104 discloses a baffle (440, Fig. 4A-4B) into the processing region may include utilizing an actuator (445) to drive the baffle into the chamber (410), operated by a system controller (210, para. [0043]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights