DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 05/20/2026.
4. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 10-18 have been withdrawn.
6. Claims 1, 5, and 19-20 have been amended.
7. Claims 4 and 6 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19:
Applicant added limitations reciting “wherein the showerhead and baffle comprise a ground electrode” [lines 9-10]. However, the claim already sets forth that the showerhead and baffle comprise a ground electrode [lines 13-14]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inazawa et al (US 5,772,833) in view of Lee (KR 20210002923A).
Regarding claim 1:
Inazawa teaches a substrate treating apparatus (plasma etching apparatus) [fig 1 & col 4, lines 49-51] comprising: a process chamber (vacuum container, 2) configured to perform plasma treatment in a treatment space (3) [fig 1 & col 4, lines 49-56]; a substrate support (first electrode, 13) in a lower portion of the process chamber (2) and configured to support a substrate (semiconductor wafer, 1) [fig 1 & col 5-6, lines 63-10]; a showerhead (top wall of 2) in an upper portion of the process chamber (2) and configured to supply (via a plurality of supplying holes 11) a process gas (process gas) for the plasma treatment toward the substrate (1) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 12-20]; a baffle (ring member, 17) surrounding the substrate support (13), wherein the showerhead showerhead (top wall of 2) and baffle (17) comprise a ground electrode (anode electrode) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54]; wherein the substrate support (13) functions as a first electrode (first electrode) for generating plasma (plasma is produced), the showerhead (top wall of 2) and the baffle (17) function as a second electrode (anode electrode) for generating the plasma, the baffle (17) has a variable height (moved vertically by means of the lifting mechanism 101), and an area of the second electrode (an area of the anode electrode) in contact with the treatment space varies as a height of the baffle varies (changed by vertically moving the lifting mechanism 101) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54].
Inazawa does not specifically teach a raising/lowering device configured to vertically raise and lower the baffle independently of the substrate.
Lee teaches a raising/lowering device (driving unit, 210) configured to vertically raise and lower the baffle (baffle unit, 180) independently of the substrate [fig 1-2 & 0085, 0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate treating apparatus of Inazawa to comprise a raising/lowering device configured to vertically raise and lower the baffle independently of the substrate, as in Lee, to move the baffle upward to improve cleaning efficiency by increasing the plasma density [Lee – 0098].
The claim limitations “wherein the raising/lowering device is configured to adjust the height of the baffle to a first height in one of a deposition process of depositing a layer on the substrate and an etching process of etching the substrate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 2-3:
Inazawa teaches radio-frequency (RF) power (via 20) is applied to the substrate support (13) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 11-32]; and wherein a frequency of the RF power is selected in a range of about 1 Mhz to about 60 Mhz (having a radio of 1MHz to 100 MHz) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 11-32].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “radio-frequency (RF) power (via 20) is applied to the substrate support” and “wherein a frequency of the RF power is selected in a range of about 1 Mhz to about 60 Mhz” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 5 and 20:
The claim limitations “the raising/lowering device is further configured to adjust the height of the baffle to a second height different from the first height in the other of the deposition process and the etching process, and the first height and the second height are each equal to or lower than a height of the substrate supported by the substrate support” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 7-8:
Inazawa teaches a liner (cylindrical member, 4) on side walls of the process chamber (2), wherein the liner (4) functions as the second electrode (anode electrode) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54]; and wherein the liner (4) comprises a ground electrode (anode electrode) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54].
Regarding claim 9:
The claim limitations “wherein the plasma treatment comprises plasma etching, plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition, or a combination thereof” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 19:
Inazawa teaches a substrate treating apparatus (plasma etching apparatus) [fig 1 & col 4, lines 49-51] comprising: a process chamber (vacuum container, 2) configured to perform plasma treatment in a treatment space (3) [fig 1 & col 4, lines 49-56]; a substrate support (first electrode, 13) in a lower portion of the process chamber (2) and configured to support a substrate (semiconductor wafer, 1) [fig 1 & col 5-6, lines 63-10]; a showerhead (top wall of 2) in an upper portion of the process chamber (2) and configured to supply (via a plurality of supplying holes 11) a process gas (process gas) for the plasma treatment toward the substrate (1) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 12-20]; a liner (cylindrical member, 4) on side walls of the process chamber (2) and configured to protect side walls of the process chamber (2) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54]; a baffle (ring member, 17) surrounding the substrate support (13), wherein the showerhead showerhead (top wall of 2) and baffle (17) comprise a ground electrode (anode electrode) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54]; wherein the substrate support (13) functions as a first electrode (first electrode), to which radio-frequency (RF) power having a frequency of 13.56 Mhz (13.56 MHz) is applied, to generate plasma (plasma is produced) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 11-54 and col 8, lines 1-6], the showerhead (top wall of 2), the baffle (17), and the liner (4) function as a second electrode (anode electrode), which includes a ground electrode (see fig 1), to generate the plasma, the baffle (17) has a variable height (moved vertically by means of the lifting mechanism 101), an area of the second electrode (an area of the anode electrode) in contact with the treatment space varies as a height of the baffle varies (changed by vertically moving the lifting mechanism 101) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 33-54].
Inazawa does not specifically teach a raising/lowering device configured to vertically raise and lower the baffle independently of the substrate.
Lee teaches a raising/lowering device (driving unit, 210) configured to vertically raise and lower the baffle (baffle unit, 180) independently of the substrate [fig 1-2 & 0085, 0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate treating apparatus of Inazawa to comprise a raising/lowering device configured to vertically raise and lower the baffle independently of the substrate, as in Lee, to move the baffle upward to improve cleaning efficiency by increasing the plasma density [Lee – 0098].
The claim limitations “wherein the raising/lowering device is configured to adjust the height of the baffle to a first height in one of a deposition process of depositing a layer on the substrate and an etching process of etching the substrate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-9 and 19-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Honda et al (JP 2011228694), Yen et al (US 6,527,911), Oyabu (US 6,673,196), Higashiura et al (US 2004/0255863), and Hayashi et al (US 2005/0000442) teach a substrate treating apparatus [fig 1, 5, 1, 1, and 1, respectively].
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights