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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, apparatus claims 1-16 and 20 in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/29/2025.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 20, line 2-4 of the claim recite “a first space disposed between an upper electrode and an ion blocker, a second space disposed between the ion blocker and a shower head”. In limitation is interpreted inclusive of requiring the apparatus to have an upper electrode, an ion blocker, and a shower head because the spaces are defined by the structures. Applicant is kindly encouraged to amend the claim to ensure the claim clearly conveys this applied interpretation by first reciting that the apparatus includes the structures and then defining the spaces as between them to remove any potential for ambiguity as to whether the apparatus requires the structures. Such suggested language includes reciting “a processing chamber having an upper electrode, an ion blocker, a shower head, a first space disposed between the upper electrode and the ion blocker, and a second space disposed between the ion blocker and the shower head”
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:
“substrate support unit” in claim 1-16 interpreted as an electrostatic chuck [0026], and equivalents thereof.
“gas supply unit” in claim 1-10 interpreted as a first gas supply module 310 and a second gas supply module 320 [0027], and equivalents thereof.
“filter unit” in claim 1, 3-4 interpreted as a filter circuit such as a low pass filter [0034-0035], and equivalents thereof.
“gas feeding unit” in claim 3 interpreted as a feeding block 610, a supply pipe 620, and a wire 630 [0038], and equivalents thereof.
“fastening member” in claim 6-16 for which no corresponding structure has been identified.
“sealing member” in claim 9-16 for which no corresponding structure has been identified.
“first gas supply module” in claim 11-16 and 20 for which no corresponding structure has been identified.
“second gas supply module” in claim 11-16 and 20 for which no corresponding structure has been identified.
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.
For the term “plasma generation unit”, claim 1 and 20 recite sufficient structure within the claim to avoid invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For the terms “substrate support unit”, “gas feeding unit”, “filter unit”, claim 20 recites sufficient structure within the claim to avoid invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 6-8, the term “fastening member” invokes an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but no corresponding structure was identified because no structure was shown in the drawings and no corresponding structure is recited in the specification. The specification (see [0039-0041]) merely refers to a fastening member without providing a specific structure or corresponding structures. Because there is no corresponding structure, the instant claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined using an interpretation as explained in the rejection of the claims and term under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below. This is not an indication that the written description requirement has been met.
In claim 9, the term “sealing member” invokes an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but no corresponding structure was identified because no corresponding structure is recited in the specification. The specification (see [0040]) merely refers to a sealing member without providing a specific structure or corresponding structures. The drawings label a structure 640 as the sealing member but it is not shown with sufficient detail to understand what the structure or corresponding structures are. Because there is no corresponding structure, the instant claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined using an interpretation as explained in the rejection of the claims and term under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below. This is not an indication that the written description requirement has been met.
In claim 11, 16, and 20, the term “first gas supply module” invokes an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but no corresponding structure was identified because no corresponding structure is recited in the specification. The specification (see [0027]) merely refers to a first gas supply module without providing a specific structure or corresponding structures. The drawings label a structure 310 as the first gas supply module but it is not shown with sufficient detail to understand what the structure or corresponding structures are (note it is shown as a box). Because there is no corresponding structure, the instant claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined using an interpretation as explained in the rejection of the claims and term under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below. This is not an indication that the written description requirement has been met.
In claim 13 and 20, the term “second gas supply module” invokes an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but no corresponding structure was identified because no corresponding structure is recited in the specification. The specification (see [0027]) merely refers to a second gas supply module without providing a specific structure or corresponding structures. The drawings label a structure 320 as the second gas supply module but it is not shown with sufficient detail to understand what the structure or corresponding structures are (note it is shown as a box). Because there is no corresponding structure, the instant claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined using an interpretation as explained in the rejection of the claims and term under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below. This is not an indication that the written description requirement has been met.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and 20, the term “high-frequency” in claim 1 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-frequency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because “high-frequency” is not defined, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine what constitutes a “high-frequency power source”. It is noted that there is no standard in the art for what constitutes “high-frequency” power sources because there are a wide range of frequencies that may be used and some processes or substrates may have lower or higher frequencies as the typical range such that a specific frequency may be considered “high” for some processes or substrates and “low” for other processes or substrates. Also note that the instant specification does not provide any working examples of frequencies that are used or are considered “high-frequency” and therefore there is no way to understand what values may be considered “high-frequency”. For purpose of examination on the merits, any frequency will be considered to meet the “high-frequency” limitation because no value has been taught. This is not an indication that there is a clear value for “high-frequency”.
Claim 6-8 limitation “fastening member” 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. No structure was shown in the drawings and no corresponding structure is recited in the specification. The specification (see [0039-0041]) merely refers to a fastening member without providing a specific structure or corresponding structures. 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. For purpose of examination on the merits consistent with the instant specification, any structure which performs a “fastening” function will be interpreted as being a “fastening member” this is not an indication that the specification or prior art provides a clear standard for the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function.
Claim 9 limitation “sealing member” 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 specification (see [0040]) merely refers to a sealing member without providing a specific structure or corresponding structures. The drawings label a structure 640 as the sealing member but it is not shown with sufficient detail to understand what the structure or corresponding structures are. 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. For purpose of examination on the merits consistent with the instant specification, any structure which performs a “sealing” function will be interpreted as being a “sealing member” this is not an indication that the specification or prior art provides a clear standard for the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function.
Claim 11, 16, and 20 limitation “first gas supply module” 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 specification (see [0027]) merely refers to a first gas supply module without providing a specific structure or corresponding structures. The drawings label a structure 310 as the first gas supply module but it is not shown with sufficient detail to understand what the structure or corresponding structures are (note it is shown as a box). 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. For purpose of examination on the merits consistent with the instant specification, any structure which performs a “gas supplying” function will be interpreted as being a “first gas supply module” this is not an indication that the specification or prior art provides a clear standard for the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function.
Claim 13 and 20 limitation “second gas supply module” 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 specification (see [0027]) merely refers to a second gas supply module without providing a specific structure or corresponding structures. The drawings label a structure 320 as the second gas supply module but it is not shown with sufficient detail to understand what the structure or corresponding structures are (note it is shown as a box).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. For purpose of examination on the merits consistent with the instant specification, any structure which performs a “gas supplying” function will be interpreted as being a “second gas supply module” this is not an indication that the specification or prior art provides a clear standard for the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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 § 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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2011/0214813 of Koshiishi et al., hereinafter Koshiishi, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0350251 of Lubomirsky et al., hereinafter Lubomirsky.
Regarding claim 1, Koshiishi teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (Fig 1) comprising: a processing chamber (10 Fig 1 and [0062]) including an upper chamber (62 Fig 1 [0070]) and a lower chamber having a treatment space for treating a substrate (space within 10 Fig 1 having substrate W Fig 1); a substrate support unit (electrostatic chuck 18 Fig 1 [0064]) provided in the treatment space (Fig 1), the substrate support unit fixing the substrate [0064]; a gas supply unit ( one gas module 66 Fig 1) [0071], [0078] supplying a process gas to the inside of the upper chamber and the treatment space [0071], [0078]; a plasma generation unit including an upper electrode (38 Fig 1) [0066] provided in the upper chamber (note it includes the upper chamber space, Fig 1) and a high-frequency power source (52 Fig 1 [0068], see rejection of “high-frequency” under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above and note teaching of 13.5 MHz or more, indicating higher frequencies than 13.5 MHz may be used) connected to the upper electrode [0068], the high-frequency power source supplying high-frequency power through an impedance matcher (44 Fig 1) [0068]; and a filter unit (low pass filter 92 Fig 1 [0077]) connected to the upper electrode (Fig 1 and [0077]), the filter unit removing charges accumulated on one surface of the upper electrode [0150]. Koshiishi fails to teach the gas supply unit includes a second gas supply module (see claim interpretation for “gas supply unit” above)) and the gas supply module of Koshiishi does not appear to be a functional equivalent because it cannot supply gas at two locations as the gas supply unit of the instant application does. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate treatment apparatus (abstract, Fig 1), Lubomirsky teaches a second gas supply module (142 Fig 1) [0047] in addition to a first gas supply module (136 Fig 1) [0042]. 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 the showerhead and gas supply structure of Koshiishi to include the second gas supply module as taught by Lubomirsky because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (gas supply of Lubomirsky) for another (gas supply of Koshiishi) to achieve predictable results (supply of gas to the processing chamber).
Regarding claim 2, Koshiishi teaches the filter unit includes a filter circuit (92 LPF, which is “low pass filter”, Fig 1) connected between the upper electrode and a ground (Fig 1) [0077], and the filter circuit includes a low pass filter [0077].
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiishi in view of Lubomirsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0139321 of Higashiura, hereinafter Higashiura.
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 and 2 above. Koshiishi further teaches a gas feeding unit (10a and 50 Fig 1) installed on one surface of the upper electrode (Fig 1), the gas feeding unit receiving the process gas from the gas supply unit (66 Fig 1, not receives via line 68 which is within the feeding unit 10a) and transmitting the process gas to the inside of the processing chamber through the upper electrode (Fig 1). Koshiishi fails to teach the filter unit is inserted into the gas feeding unit because Koshiishi appears to teach the filter unit (92 Fig 1) is outside of the gas feeding unit. The specific positioning of the filter unit represents a mere rearrangement of parts. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, Higashiura teaches a low pass filter (50 Fig 5 and [0086]) within the gas feeding unit (17 Fig 8). 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 Koshiishi to include the filter unit is within the gas feeding unit because Higashiura demonstrates this parts arrangement allows for the presence of a low pass filter attached to the upper electrode (Fig 8).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 3 above. Koshiishi teaches the gas feeding unit includes: a feeding block (10a Fig 1) installed on one surface of the upper electrode; a supply pipe provided in the feeding block (68 Fig 1), the supply pipe having one end formed to communicate with the gas supply unit (Fig 1, communicates with 66) and the other end formed to communicate with the upper electrode (Fig 1, communicates with upper electrode 38); Koshiishi as applied in the combination as applied to claim 3 teaches a wire inserted into the feeding block (wire is the line connecting the electrode to the filter 92 LPF and connecting the filter 92 LPF to ground Fig 1), the wire having one end grounded and the other end electrically connected to the upper electrode (Fig 1). Note that if applicant argues the line is not a wire, Higashiura teaches the low pass filter uses a wire (52 Fig 9A and 9B) to provide the electrical connections) and therefore 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 Koshiishi to use a wire for the electrical connection because Higashiura teaches the structure for this function and Koshiishi demonstrates electrical connection without explicitly reciting the structure to provide the connection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. In the combination as applied to claim 3 and 4 above, the filter unit includes a filter circuit inserted into the feeding block, the filter circuit connected between the wire and the ground(see rejections of claim 3 and 4 for citations). Koshiishi teaches the filter circuit includes a low pass filter (92 LPF, which is “low pass filter”, Fig 1) [0077].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiishi in view of Lubomirsky and Higashiura as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0022735 of Breitung et al., hereinafter Breitung.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Koshiishi fails to teach the feeding block has one surface in which a coupling groove, into which a fastening member is insertable, is formed such that the gas supply unit is coupled thereto. In the same field of endeavor of a processing apparatus (abstract, Fig 3), Breitung teaches a feeding block (205 Fig 3) has one surface in which a coupling groove (hole in 205 aligned with 212 Fig 3), into which a fastening member is insertable [0032], is formed such that the gas supply unit is coupled thereto (142, which is the gas supply line is coupled to the surface). 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 the feeding block of Koshiishi to include the coupling groove because Breitung teaches this allows for gas supply connection [0032] and Koshiishi is silent as to the gas supply connection structure.
Claim(s) 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiishi in view of Lubomirsky, Higashiura, and Breitung as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,633,506 of Blake, hereinafter Blake.
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Koshiishi and the combination as applied to claim 6 fails to teach the wire has one end connected to the coupling groove so as to be in contact with the fastening member. Initially it is noted that this appears to be an obvious arrangement in view of the teachings as applied above regarding the wire and being grounded and that the feeding block (10a) of Koshiishi is grounded. Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract, Fig 1-2), Blake teaches grounding via a wire connected to a screw (140 Fig 3) that is inserted in a coupling groove (Fig 3) (col 8, ln 54 to col 9 ln 5). 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 Koshiishi and the combination to include grounding via the wire being connected to the coupling groove to be in contact with the fastening member because Koshiishi has taught the filter grounded via a wire and Blake teaches a wire grounding may include attachment to a fastener (screw) in a coupling groove.
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above. In the combination as applied to claim 8, the wire includes a contact auxiliary portion (note this is inclusive of an end of the wire) provided at one end of the coupling groove (note this is inclusive of any end of the coupling groove), the contact auxiliary portion for contact with the fastening member (note Blake as cited above regarding claim 7 teaches the wire contacting the fastening member).
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. Breitung as applied in the combination further teaches a sealing member (O-ring 220 Fig 3) [0033] inserted into at least one of a surface on which the gas supply unit and the supply pipe are in contact with each other (Fig 3) or a surface on which the supply pipe and the upper electrode are in contact with each other (Fig 3), so as to prevent leakage of the process gas [0033]. 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 Koshiishi to include the sealing member as positioned because Breitung teaches avoids gas leakage [0033].
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 9 above. Koshiishi teaches the plasma generation unit further includes: a shower head (lower portion of 58 Fig 1 that has a plate with holes [0070]) dividing the treatment chamber into the upper chamber and the lower chamber (Fig 1) and a treatment space is positioned below the shower head (treatment space contains wafer W). Koshiishi fails to tach an ion blocker provided in the upper chamber, the ion blocker provided between the upper electrode and the shower head, and a first space is disposed between the upper electrode and the ion blocker, a second space is disposed between the ion blocker and the shower head. Lubomirsky teaches an ion blocker (110 Fig 2 [0043]) provided in the upper chamber (Fig 1-2), the ion blocker provided between the upper electrode (106 Fig 2 [0043]) and the shower head (112 Fig 2 [0044] note the plate including holes is a shower head gas distributor), and a first space (space 210 Fig 2 [0045]) is disposed between the upper electrode and the ion blocker (space 210 Fig 2 [0045]), a second space (space 212 Fig 2 [0056]) is disposed between the ion blocker and the shower head (space 212 Fig 2 [0056]). 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 the gas inlet structure of Koshiishi to include the dual gas and multiple plate arrangement of Lubomirsky because Lubomirsky teaches the structure allows for formation of plasma and introduction of plasma and gas to the chamber [0047].
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 10 above. Lubomirsky as applied in the combination as applied to claim 1 and 10 above further teaches the gas supply unit includes: a first gas supply module (136 Fig 1) connected to the gas feeding unit, the first gas supply module supplying a first process gas to the first space (Fig 1-2); and a second gas supply module (142 Fig 2) connected to the shower head (Fig 2, connected to shower head 112), the second gas supply module supplying a second process gas to the treatment space (Fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to claim 11 above. Lubomirsky as applied in the combination teaches the upper electrode has a first gas supply hole (208 Fig 2) to communicate with the supply pipe of the feeding block, and the first process gas is supplied to the first space through the supply pipe and the first gas supply hole [0055] (note that 102 is equivalent to the gas supply pipe of Koshiishi).
Regarding claim 13, the combination remains as applied to claim 12. Lubomirsky as applied in the combination as applied to claims 1 and 10-12 above further teaches the shower head further includes: a second gas supply hole (214 Fig 2 [0047]) formed to receive the second process gas from the second gas supply module and to supply the second process gas to the treatment space [0047]; and a second through-hole (216 Fig 2 [0047]) formed to communicate with the second space so as to supply a plasma effluent provided in the second space to the treatment space [0047].
Regarding claim 14, the combination remains as applied to claim 13. Lubomirsky as applied in the combination as applied to claims 1 and 10-13 above further teaches the ion blocker (110 Fig 1-2) is connected to a constant voltage [0076], filters a plasma formed in the first space [0043], and has a first through-hole to supply a plasma effluent to the second space ([0043] and through holes shown in 110 Fig 2 that are shown but not numbered).
Regarding claim 15, the combination remains as applied to claim 14 above. Regarding the process gases recited, the instant claims are directed to apparatus claims. The specific process gases are directed to the intended contents of the apparatus during operation. 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).
Regarding claim 16, the combination remains as applied to claim 15 above. Lubomirsky as applied above to teach the first gas supply module fails to teach supplying more than one gas because Lubomirsky is silent as to whether the gas source (136 Fig 1) includes more than one gas. Initially it is noted that providing a plurality of gases as the gas source including an inert gas is obvious because it allows for control of the concentration of the process gas by providing a dilution gas. Further, Breitung demonstrates it is known to use more than one gas source (72 and 64 Fig 1) to supply to the gas inlet. Inclusion of additional gas sources in the gas source represents a simple substitution of one known element (single gas source) for another (multiple gas sources) to achieve predictable results (supply of gas to a process chamber).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiishi, in view of Lubomirsky and Higashiura.
Regarding claim 20, Koshiishi teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (Fig 1) comprising: a processing chamber (10 Fig 1 and [0062]) including a shower head ( lower plate of 58 and/or plate 56 Fig 1) and a treatment space for treating a substrate positioned below the shower head (space within 10 Fig 1 having substrate W Fig 1); a substrate support unit (electrostatic chuck 18 Fig 1 [0064]) provided in the treatment space (Fig 1), the substrate support unit in which an electrostatic chuck (18 Fig 1 [0064]) fixing the substrate [0064], is installed (Fig 1); a gas supply unit ( one gas module 66 Fig 1) [0071], [0078] supplying a process gas to the inside of the upper chamber and the treatment space [0071], [0078]; a plasma generation unit connected to an upper electrode (38 Fig 1) , the plasma generation unit having a high-frequency power source (52 Fig 1 [0068], see rejection of “high-frequency” under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above and note teaching of 13.5 MHz or more, indicating higher frequencies than 13.5 MHz may be used) connected to the upper electrode [0068], the high-frequency power source supplying high-frequency power through an impedance matcher (44 Fig 1) [0068]; a gas feeding unit (10a and 50 Fig 1) installed on one surface of the upper electrode (Fig 1), the gas feeding unit receiving the process gas from the gas supply unit (66 Fig 1, not receives via line 68 which is within the feeding unit 10a) and transmitting the process gas to the inside of the processing chamber through the upper electrode (Fig 1); and a filter unit (low pass filter 92 Fig 1 [0077]) connected to the upper electrode (Fig 1 and [0077]), the filter unit blocking high-frequency power supplied from the plasma generation unit and allowing charges accumulated on one surface of the upper electrode to pass therethrough [0150], wherein the gas feeding unit includes: a feeding block (10a Fig 1) provided to be in contact with an upper surface of the upper electrode; a supply pipe provided in the feeding block (68 Fig 1), the supply pipe having one end formed to communicate with the gas supply unit (Fig 1, communicates with 66) and the other end formed to communicate with the upper electrode (Fig 1, communicates with upper electrode 38). Koshiishi teaches a wire inserted into the feeding block (wire is the line connecting the electrode to the filter 92 LPF and connecting the filter 92 LPF to ground Fig 1), the wire having one end grounded and the other end electrically connected to the upper electrode (Fig 1). Koshiishi teaches the filter unit includes a filter circuit (92 LPF, which is “low pass filter”, Fig 1) [0077] electrically connected to the wire, and the filter circuit includes a low pass filter [0077]. Koshiishi fails to teach the gas supply unit includes a second gas supply module and fails to teach the arrangement of the first space disposed between the electrode and an ion blocker and a second space disposed between the ion blocker and the shower head, fails to teach the first process gas is transmitted to the first space, fails to teach the filter unit is provided in the gas feeding unit, and does not explicitly recite the line showing electrical connection is a wire.
Regarding the gas supply unit, Lubomirsky teaches a second gas supply module (142 Fig 1) [0047] in addition to a first gas supply module (136 Fig 1) [0042]. 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 the showerhead and gas supply structure of Koshiishi to include the second gas supply module as taught by Lubomirsky because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (gas supply of Lubomirsky) for another (gas supply of Koshiishi) to achieve predictable results (supply of gas to the processing chamber).
Regarding the ion blocker and the first and second spaces, Koshiishi teaches the plasma generation unit further includes: a shower head (lower portion of 58 Fig 1 that has a plate with holes [0070]) dividing the treatment chamber into the upper chamber and the lower chamber (Fig 1) and a treatment space is positioned below the shower head (treatment space contains wafer W). Lubomirsky teaches an ion blocker (110 Fig 2 [0043]) provided in the upper chamber (Fig 1-2), the ion blocker provided between the upper electrode (106 Fig 2 [0043]) and the shower head (112 Fig 2 [0044] note the plate including holes is a shower head gas distributor), and a first space (space 210 Fig 2 [0045]) is disposed between the upper electrode and the ion blocker (space 210 Fig 2 [0045]), a second space (space 212 Fig 2 [0056]) is disposed between the ion blocker and the shower head (space 212 Fig 2 [0056]). 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 the gas inlet structure of Koshiishi to include the dual gas and multiple plate arrangement of Lubomirsky because Lubomirsky teaches the structure allows for formation of plasma and introduction of plasma and gas to the chamber [0047]. Note that as part of this arrangement Lubomirsky teaches the first gas supply module (136 Fig 1) connected to the gas feeding unit, the first gas supply module supplying a first process gas to the first space (Fig 1-2).
Regarding the filter unit is provided in the gas feeding unit, Koshiishi fails to teach the filter unit is inserted into the gas feeding unit because Koshiishi appears to teach the filter unit (92 Fig 2) is outside of the gas feeding unit. The specific positioning of the filter unit represents a mere rearrangement of parts. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, Higashiura teaches a low pass filter (50 Fig 5 and [0086]) within the gas feeding unit (17 Fig 8). 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 Koshiishi to include the filter unit is within the gas feeding unit because Higashiura demonstrates this parts arrangement allows for the presence of a low pass filter attached to the upper electrode (Fig 8).
Regarding the wire, it is noted that if applicant argues the line of Koshiishi as cited above is not a wire, Higashiura teaches the low pass filter uses a wire (52 Fig 9A and 9B) to provide the electrical connections) and therefore 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 Koshiishi to use a wire for the electrical connection because Higashiura teaches the structure for this function and Koshiishi demonstrates electrical connection without explicitly reciting the structure to provide the connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0126405 teaches an RF choke (78 Fig 3) on the gas inlet line (Fig 3 see line 28). US 2021/0287877 demonstrates a multiple plate shower head with more than one gas source for each gas inlet line (see 311, 321, 331, 451, 461 Fig 3) and teaches the gases recited in claim 15 [0024]. US 2012/0037315 teaches low pass filters (33, 31 Fig 1) connected to the showerhead (Fig 1). US 5,522,937 teaches a grounding wire (123 Fig 14) with a terminal lug (129 Fig 14) for grounding and teaches the connection may be made via a screw (col 7, ln 67 to col 8 ln 4).
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
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716