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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The withdrawal of claims 1-9 and 19-20, and amendments made to claims 10, 16 and 18, as filed on January 2, 2026, are acknowledged.
The amendment made to claim 16 has overcome the previous rejection to the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the Office Action mailed on October 6, 2025.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed on January 2, 2026, with respect to amended claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Tabata or Mizutani fails to teach or suggest the added features of amended independent claim 10. However, as shown in the annotated figure below (from Fig. 15 of Tabata and Fig. 2 of Mizutani), the cited references do discloses the new features added to claim 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the figure above, the gas supply conduit located near the center of the upper electrode reads on a first gas supply line, while the gas supply conduit located near the periphery of the upper electrode reads on a second gas supply line. During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim (see MPEP 2111).
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.
Claims 10-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tabata (US20200035503).
Regarding claim 10, Tabata discloses a substrate processing method (abstract) comprising: a gas supply operation of supplying process gas to a processing space through one or more gas supply lines (paragraphs 0070 and 0130, Fig. 15); a plasma forming operation of forming plasma in the processing space (paragraphs 0057-0060, Fig. 15); and an operation of exhausting an inside of the processing space (paragraph 0131 and Fig. 15), wherein the gas supply operation includes: a first gas supply operation of supplying a flow rate less than an average flow rate for a first time, during the first time in which the process gas is supplied through at least one of the gas supply lines, and a second gas supply operation of supplying a flow rate greater than the average flow rate, and the first gas supply operation and the second gas supply operation are performed alternately (supplying O2 in the first step reads on a first gas supply operation, supplying O2 in the second step reads on a second gas supply operation, see annotated Figs. 5 and 9 below), wherein the gas supply line includes a first gas supply line providing gas to a center portion of the substrate and a second gas supply line providing gas to an edge portion of the substrate (see the annotated Fig. 15 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Tabata discloses wherein, in at least one of the first and second gas supply operations, a supply amount of the process gas is continuously changed (supplying O2 as in annotated Fig. 9 above).
Regarding claim 12, Tabata discloses wherein, in the gas supply operation, a supply flow rate of the process gas changes periodically during the first time (supplying O2 as in annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 16, Tabata discloses wherein the gas supply operation includes the first gas supply operation of supplying a flow rate less than the average flow rate and the second gas supply operation of supplying a flow rate greater than the average flow rate, and in a flow rate graph over time, the first gas supply operation and the second gas supply operation are symmetrical based on a point at which the first and second gas supply operations intersect (supplying O2 in the first step reads on a first gas supply operation, supplying O2 in the second step reads on a second gas supply operation, see annotated Fig. 9 above).
Claims 10, 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizutani et al. (US20150228460).
Regarding claim 10, Mizutani discloses a substrate processing method (abstract) comprising: a gas supply operation of supplying process gas to a processing space through one or more gas supply lines (paragraph 0063, Fig. 2); a plasma forming operation of forming plasma in the processing space (paragraph 0044, Fig. 2); and an operation of exhausting an inside of the processing space (paragraph 0103 and Fig. 2), wherein the gas supply operation includes: a first gas supply operation of supplying a flow rate less than an average flow rate for a first time, during the first time in which the process gas is supplied through at least one of the gas supply lines, and a second gas supply operation of supplying a flow rate greater than the average flow rate, and the first gas supply operation and the second gas supply operation are performed alternately (paragraph 0015, Fig. 3, and annotated Fig. 5 below), wherein the gas supply line includes a first gas supply line providing gas to a center portion of the substrate and a second gas supply line providing gas to an edge portion of the substrate (see the annotated Fig. 2 below).
.
PNG
media_image4.png
613
877
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Mizutani discloses wherein, in the gas supply operation, a supply flow rate of the process gas changes periodically during the first time (see annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 13, Mizutani discloses wherein, in the gas supply operation, the flow rate is adjusted by a flow control valve disposed in the gas supply line, and the supply flow rate of the process gas is supplied, while changing in a sine wave form (paragraphs 0063 and 0070, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Mizutani discloses wherein the gas supply operation includes the first gas supply operation of supplying a flow rate less than the average flow rate and the second gas supply operation of supplying a flow rate greater than the average flow rate, and in a flow rate graph over time, the first gas supply operation and the second gas supply operation are symmetrical based on a point at which the first and second gas supply operations intersect (see annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
511
849
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Mizutani discloses wherein the process gas includes an etching gas (paragraph 0074).
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tabata (US20200035503) as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 14, Tabata is silent about wherein, in the gas supply operation, a maximum flow rate is 1.5 times the average flow rate or less, and a minimum flow rate is 0.5 times the average flow rate or more during the first time. However, Tabata teaches that the O2 flow rate impacts the etch rates of the films deposited in the two steps, and the flow rates are selected to achieve desired etching selection ratio (paragraph 0068 and Figs. 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the flow rates at the two steps to achieve desirable etching selection ratio based on the teaching of Tabata. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 15, Tabata discloses wherein a difference between the maximum flow rate and the average flow rate is equal to a difference between the rate and the minimum flow rate, and the average flow difference between the maximum flow rate and the average flow rate is 1000 sccm or less (Figs. 4-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method wherein in the gas supply operation, the first gas supply line and the second gas supply line supply process gas in different sine wave forms, in the context of the instant claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713