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 05/22/2026.
4. Claims 1-6 and 10-22 are currently pending.
5. Claims 10-15 have been withdrawn.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-15, 17, and 19-20 have been amended.
7. Claims 7-9 have been cancelled.
8. Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claim 21 is 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.
Regarding claim 21:
The limitation “wherein a lower end of the partial structure is disposed above a lower end of the flange” finds no support in the specification at the time of filing. To the extent applicant may be attempting to rely on the drawings, it is noted that figure 2 appears to depict a lower end of the partial structure (290) being disposed at substantially the same height as a lower end of the flange (210b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claim(s) 1, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yasui et al (US 2022/0230846).
Regarding claim 1:
Yasui teaches a substrate processing apparatus (substrate processing apparatus, 100) [fig 1 & 0029] comprising: a quartz vessel (upper vessel, 210, is made of quartz) provided with a process chamber (process chamber, 201) in which a substrate (200) is arranged [fig 1 & 0029]; a gas supplier (gas supply head, 236) configured to supply a process gas to the process chamber (201) [fig 1 & 0036]; and a coil (resonance coil, 212) surrounding the quartz vessel (210) and configured to excite the process gas by a plasma generated by supplying a high frequency power (RF power) to the coil (212), wherein a distance (d2) between a lower end portion of the coil (212) and an outer peripheral surface of the quartz vessel (bottom portion of 210) is set to be greater than each of distances (d1) between portions of the coil (212) other than the lower end portion of the coil and the outer peripheral surface of the quartz vessel (see fig 4A-5B), and wherein the distances between the portions of the coil other than the lower end portion of the coil and the outer peripheral surface of the quartz vessel are identical to one another (see fig 4A-5B) [fig 1, 4A-5B & 0031, 0063].
Regarding claim 16:
Yasui teaches the substrate (200) is placed on a substrate mounting table (susceptor, 217) provided at a center of a bottom portion of the process chamber (201) [fig 1 & 0032].
Regarding claim 18:
Yasui teaches the quartz vessel (210) comprises: a plasma generation space (plasma generation space) in which the plasma is excited [fig 1 & 0029]; and a substrate processing space (substrate processing space) in which the substrate (200) is processed and which communicates with the plasma generation space (plasma generation space), and wherein a horizontal diameter of the plasma generation space (plasma generation space) and a horizontal diameter of the substrate processing space (substrate processing space) are substantially equal to each other (the diameters in the horizontal direction are substantially the same) [fig 1 & 0031].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US 2022/0230846) as applied to claims 1, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Chang et al (US 6,805,952).
The limitations of claims 1, 16, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 2-3:
Yasui does not specifically disclose a protection film formed on an inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel to protect the quartz vessel; and wherein the protection film comprises a silicon nitride film.
Chang teaches a protection film (coating) formed on an inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel (chamber wall can be made from quartz) to protect the quartz vessel (chamber wall) [fig 2, claim 1 & col 3, lines 48-59]; and wherein the protection film (coating) comprises a silicon nitride film (silicon nitride) [fig 2, claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate processing apparatus of Yasui to further comprise a silicon nitride protection film formed on an inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel, as in Chang, to reduce particle contamination [Chang – col 2, lines 46-59].
16. Claim(s) 4-5, 17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US 2022/0230846) as applied to claims 1, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2007/0145006) with substantiating evidence provided by Moyama et al (US 2017/0133204).
The limitations of claims 1, 16, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 4-5:
Yasui teaches a quartz vessel (upper vessel, 210, is made of quartz) [fig 1 & 0029].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel; and wherein the partial structure is provided along the inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel at a lower end thereof.
Kim teaches a partial structure (focus ring, 301) of a cylindrical shape (ring) provided in the process chamber (110/130) and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0011]; and wherein the partial structure (301) is provided along the inner peripheral surface of the vessel at a lower end thereof (radially outward of the substrate 200) [fig 1 & 0011].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify an inner peripheral surface of the lower end of the quartz vessel of Yasui to include the partial structure of Kim to enhance uniformity of the plasma processing [Moyama – 0025].
Regarding claim 17:
Yasui teaches a quartz vessel (upper vessel, 210, is made of quartz) [fig 1 & 0029], wherein the quartz vessel (210) comprises: a plasma generation space (plasma generation space) in which the plasma is excited [fig 1 & 0029]; and a substrate processing space (substrate processing space) in which the substrate (200) is processed and which communicates with the plasma generation space (plasma generation space) [fig 1 & 0031].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel; and wherein the partial structure is accommodated in a substrate processing region.
Kim teaches a partial structure (focus ring, 301) of a cylindrical shape (ring) provided in the process chamber (110/130) and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0011]; and wherein the partial structure (301) is accommodated in a substrate processing region (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0011].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify an inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel of Yasui to include the partial structure of Kim to enhance uniformity of the plasma processing [Moyama – 0025].
Regarding claim 19:
Yasui teaches a quartz vessel (upper vessel, 210, is made of quartz) [fig 1 & 0029].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel, wherein the partial structure is located below the lower end portion of the coil.
Kim teaches a partial structure (focus ring, 301) of a cylindrical shape (ring) provided in the process chamber (110/130) and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel (see fig 1), wherein the partial structure (301) is located below the lower end portion of the coil (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0011].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify an inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel of Yasui to include the partial structure of Kim to enhance uniformity of the plasma processing [Moyama – 0025].
Regarding claim 20:
Yasui teaches a quartz vessel (upper vessel, 210, is made of quartz), wherein a lower end of the quartz vessel (210) is fixed to a base plate (base plate, 248) [fig 1 & 0029, 0046].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel, and the partial structure is installed at the base plate.
Kim teaches a partial structure (focus ring, 301) of a cylindrical shape (ring) provided in the process chamber (110/130) and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel (see fig 1), and the partial structure (301) is installed at the base plate (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0011].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the base plate of Yasui to include the partial structure of Kim to enhance uniformity of the plasma processing [Moyama – 0025].
Regarding claim 21:
Yasui teaches a flange (lower flange of 210, not labeled) configured to protrude outward from a lower end of the quartz vessel (210) [fig 1 & 0029].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel.
Kim teaches a partial structure (focus ring, 301) of a cylindrical shape (ring) provided in the process chamber (110/130) and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0011].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify an inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel of Yasui to include the partial structure of Kim to enhance uniformity of the plasma processing [Moyama – 0025].
Furthermore, although Kim does not specifically disclose “a lower end of the partial structure is disposed above a lower end of the flange”, such is an obvious matter of design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that such a configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a lower end of the partial structure disposed below or at substantially the same height as a lower end of the flange [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding claim 22:
Yasui teaches the quartz vessel (210) comprises: a plasma generation space (plasma generation space) in which the plasma is excited [fig 1 & 0029]; and a substrate processing space (substrate processing space) in which the substrate (200) is processed and which communicates with the plasma generation space (plasma generation space) [fig 1 & 0031], wherein the substrate (200) is place on a substrate mounting table (217) provided at a center of a bottom portion of the process chamber (see fig 1) to be elevated and lowered by the substrate mounting table (raising and lowering 217) [fig 1 & 0032, 0035].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel.
Kim teaches a partial structure (focus ring, 301) of a cylindrical shape (ring) provided in the process chamber (110/130) and provided along a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the vessel (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0011].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify an inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel of Yasui to include the partial structure of Kim to enhance uniformity of the plasma processing [Moyama – 0025].
The claim limitations “wherein an upper end of the partial structure is provided higher than a position of the substrate in the substrate processing space after being elevated by the substrate mounting table” 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).
17. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US 2022/0230846) in view of Kim (US 2007/0145006) as applied to claims 4-5, 17, and 19-22 above, and further in view of Moyama et al (US 2017/0133204).
The limitations of claims 4-5, 17, and 19-22 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Yasui does not specifically teach the partial structure is made of quartz.
Moyama teaches a partial structure (28) is made of quartz (quartz) [fig 1 & 0025].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the partial structure of modified Yasui to be made of quartz, as in Moyama, because such is a suitable material for a focus ring [Moyama – 0025]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 7-9, 16, an 18 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 2-6, 17, and 19-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference [Yasui et al (US 2022/0230846)] being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ni et al (US 6,257,168) and Honda (US 2008/0236752) teach a partial structure (46) [fig 3 and 2, respectively].
20. 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.
21. 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