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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (apparatus), drawn to claims 1-9 and 16-20, in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 02/05/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 10-15:
Claims 10-15 have been provided with an improper status identifier, and as such, the individual status of each claim cannot be identified.
MPEP 714(II)(C)(A) sets forth “For any amendment being filed in response to a restriction or election of species requirement and any subsequent amendment, any claims which are non-elected must have the status identifier (withdrawn). Any non-elected claims which are being amended must have either the status identifier (withdrawn) or (withdrawn – currently amended) and the text of the non-elected claims must be presented with markings to indicate the changes. Any non-elected claims that are being canceled must have the status identifier (canceled).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasui et al (US 2020/0219699).
Regarding claim 1:
Yasui teaches a substrate processing apparatus (processing apparatus, 100) [fig 1 & 0019-0020] comprising: a quartz vessel (upper vessel, 210, includes quartz) provided with a process chamber (process chamber, 201) in which a substrate (200) is arranged [fig 1 & 0020]; a gas supplier (gas supply head, 236) configured to supply a process gas to the process chamber (201) [fig 1 & 0027]; and a coil (spiral 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 the coil (212) and an outer peripheral surface of a first portion of the quartz vessel (bottom portion of 210) is set to be greater than a distance (d1) between the coil (212) and an outer peripheral surface of a second portion of the quartz vessel (see fig 11) [fig 1, 11 & 0033, 0098].
The claim limitations “wherein a silicon hydroxide film is formed on an inner peripheral surface of the first portion and the silicon hydroxide film is not formed on an inner peripheral surface of the second portion” 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). Since the structure of the prior art coil is the same as that which is claimed, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Regarding claims 7-9:
The claim limitations “wherein a distance between a peripheral surface of the coil close to the first portion and the outer peripheral surface of the quartz vessel is set to be equal to or greater than a predetermined value set in advance”, “wherein a distance between the peripheral surface of the coil close to a portion of the quartz vessel whereat a temperature change is large and the outer peripheral surface of the quartz vessel is set to be equal to or greater than the predetermined value set in advance”, and “wherein a distance between the peripheral surface of the coil close to a lower end portion of the quartz vessel and the outer peripheral surface of the quartz vessel is set to be equal to or greater than the predetermined value set in advance” 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). Since the structure of the prior art coil is the same as that which is claimed, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
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 & 0023].
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 & 0020]; 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 (configured to have substantially the same horizontal diameter) [fig 1 & 0022].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US 2020/0219699) as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Chang et al (US 6,805,952).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-9, 16, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 2-3:
Yasui does not specifically disclose a protection film formed on the 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 the 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 the inner peripheral surface of the quartz vessel, as in Chang, to reduce particle contamination [Chang – col 2, lines 46-59].
Claim(s) 4-5, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US 2020/0219699) as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 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, 7-9, 16, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 4-5:
Yasui teaches a quartz vessel (upper vessel, 210, includes quartz) [fig 1 & 0020].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of the inner peripheral surface of the vessel; and wherein the partial structure is provided along the inner peripheral surface of the first portion.
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 the 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 first portion (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 the inner peripheral surface of the first portion 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, includes quartz) [fig 1 & 0020], wherein the quartz vessel (210) comprises: a plasma generation space (plasma generation space) in which the plasma is excited [fig 1 & 0020]; 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 & 0022].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of the inner peripheral surface of the vessel; and wherein the partial structure is accommodated in the 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 the inner peripheral surface of the vessel (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0011]; and wherein the partial structure (301) is accommodated in the 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 the inner peripheral surface of the first portion 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, includes quartz) [fig 1 & 0020].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of the inner peripheral surface of the vessel, wherein the partial structure is located below a lower end 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 the inner peripheral surface of the vessel (see fig 1), wherein the partial structure (301) is located below a lower end 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 the inner peripheral surface of the first portion 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, includes quartz), wherein a lower end of the quartz vessel (210) is fixed to a base plate (base plate, 248) [fig 1 & 0020, 0039].
Yasui does not specifically teach a partial structure of a cylindrical shape provided in the process chamber and provided along a portion of the 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 the 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].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al (US 2020/0219699) in view of Kim (US 2007/0145006) as applied to claims 4-5, 17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Moyama et al (US 2017/0133204).
The limitations of claims 4-5, 17, and 19-20 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].
Conclusion
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].
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