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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 06/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 6-20 are pending. Claims 17-19 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/29/2025. Claims 1-2, 6-16, and 20 are under examination on the merits.
In the amendment filed 06/09/2026, claims 1-2, 6-9, 11, 13, and 16-20 were amended, claims 3-5 were canceled, and no claims were newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-19 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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
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:
“first gas supply assembly” in claim 1-2, 6-16 and 20 interpreted as a first gas supply module 310 [0027], and equivalents thereof.
“second gas supply assembly” in claim 1-2, 6-16 and 200 interpreted as a second gas supply module 320 [0027], and equivalents thereof.
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(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 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 “fastener” is not in the specification as originally filed and no fastener is shown in the drawings. The specification (see [0039-0041]) merely refers to a fastening member without providing a specific structure or corresponding structures. Applicant amended to recite “fastener” to avoid invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); however there is no support of the use of fastener and because there is no disclosure of corresponding structures for the “fastening member” is not clear that the term was intended to be used to include fasteners because “fastening member” may be inclusive of adhesive or solder. Because the term “fastener” was not in the original specification, the term represents new matter. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined on the merits over the prior art. This is not an indication that the limitation does not represent new matter.
In claim 9, the term “seal” is not in the specification as originally filed. 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. Applicant amended to recite “seal” to avoid invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); however there is no support of the use of seal because a seal is different than a sealing member or structure (note seal as a noun is typically used to refer to the close positioning without a break and is not typically a structure or a structure that may be inserted into another structure) and because there is no disclosure of corresponding structures for the “sealing member” is not clear that the term was intended to be used to include a seal vs forming a seal. Because the term “seal” was not in the original specification as a structure to be inserted, the term represents new matter. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claims will be examined on the merits over the prior art. This is not an indication that the limitation does not represent new matter.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiishi (prev. presented US 2011/0214813) in view of Lubomirsky (prev. presented US 2022/0350251) and Higashiura, hereinafter Higashiura (prev. presented US 2005/0139321).
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 (electrostatic chuck 18 Fig 1 [0064]) provided in the treatment space (Fig 1), the substrate support fixing the substrate [0064]; a first gas supply assembly ( one gas module 66 Fig 1) [0071], [0078] configured to supply a first 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 power source (52 Fig 1 [0068]) connected to the upper electrode [0068], the power source supplying 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 second gas supply assembly Lubomirsky teaches a second gas supply assembly (142 Fig 1) [0047] in addition to a first gas supply assembly (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). Koshiishi further teaches a gas feeding assembly (10a and 50 Fig 1) installed on one surface of the upper electrode (Fig 1), the gas feeding assembly receiving the process gas from the first gas supply assembly (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 circuit is inserted into the gas feeding unit because Koshiishi appears to teach the filter circuit (92 Fig 1) is outside of the gas feeding unit. The specific positioning of the filter circuit 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). Koshiishi teaches the gas feeding assembly 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 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. In the combination as applied above, the filter circuit is connected between the wire and the ground.
Regarding claim 2, Koshiishi teaches the filter circuit includes a low pass filter [0077].
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 (electrostatic chuck 18 Fig 1 [0064]) provided in the treatment space (Fig 1), the substrate support in which an electrostatic chuck (18 Fig 1 [0064]) fixing the substrate [0064], is installed (Fig 1); a first gas supply assembly ( 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 power source (52 Fig 1 [0068]) connected to the upper electrode [0068], the power source supplying power through an impedance matcher (44 Fig 1) [0068]; a gas feeding assembly (10a and 50 Fig 1) installed on one surface of the upper electrode (Fig 1), the gas feeding assembly receiving the process gas from the first gas supply assembly (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 circuit(low pass filter 92 Fig 1 [0077]) connected to the upper electrode (Fig 1 and [0077]), the filter unit blocking power supplied from the plasma generation unit and allowing charges accumulated on one surface of the upper electrode to pass therethrough and be discharged to ground [0150], wherein the gas feeding assembly 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 first gas supply assembly (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) such that the filter circuit is connected between the wire and the ground (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 assembly (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.
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 1 above, and further in view of Breitung (prev. presented US 2005/0022735).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 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 fastener 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 Blake (prev. presented US 5,633,506).
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 fastener. 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 fastener (note Blake as cited above regarding claim 7 teaches the wire contacting the fastener).
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. Breitung as applied in the combination further teaches a seal (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 seal 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 second gas supply assembly (142 Fig 2) connected to the shower head (Fig 2, connected to shower head 112).
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 assembly 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 assembly 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/26, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (reply p8-9), the amendment to recite “fastener” no longer invokes the interpretation. However, the amendment represents new matter for the reasons explained above. The use of “seal” also invokes new matter as explained above. Regarding “gas supply module”, while applicant’s use of “assembly” allows for “module” to be only applied from the specification, Examiner strongly encourages applicant to amend the claims to merely recite “gas supply” so that there is no potential for interpretation that the term include a generic placeholder. Gas supply is a term of the art.
Applicant argues (reply p12-15) that the structure 17 is not part of the gas feeding assembly. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the structure is around the gas feeding line 28 (see Fig 2 and 3). The fact that the enclosure is illustrated differently than applicants does not negate that it meets the required structures and arrangement. The enclosure can have both the RF supply and the gas feeding supply. The circuit is also within structure 17 which has been identified as the gas feeding structure. If applicant believe the instant invention gas feeding structure is different, applicant is kindly requested to ensure those differences are presented in the claims. The argument (reply p15) regarding that it is more than rearrangement of parts does not address that the low pass filter of the combination is connected to the same structures as the instant claims require. Therefore this argument is also not persuasive.
The arguments regarding the remaining claims rely on the arguments presented regarding the gas feeding assembly, which have been addressed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220093372 teaches a showerhead shroud (Fig 2A-3B).
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 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
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights