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 .
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.
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:
Support unit in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10; and
Lift unit in claims 2-5, 9, and 10 .
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. Specifically,
Support unit is interpreted as the support unit 200 may include a support plate 210, a power supply unit 220, an insulating ring 230, a bottom edge electrode 240, and a lift unit 260 and 270 as seen in Figure 1 and discussed in Paragraph 0046; and
Lift unit is interpreted as being a shaft support and shaft driver as seen in Figure 1 and discussed in Paragraph 0054.
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.
The Examiner notes that the term “plasma control unit” is not being interpreted under 112(f) because claims 1 and 9 include further structure, specifically, the plasma control unit includes: a gap control plate positioned above the support unit; and a plate driver changing a position of the gap control plate, and the plate driver maintains a gap between a bottom surface of the gap control plate and a top surface of the support plate while changing a characteristic of the plasma by changing the position of the gap control plate. Step (C) of the three-prong test requires that the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. This additional structure performs the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation “plasma control unit” does not meet the three-prong test and the phrase is not interpreted under 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8 recite the limitation "the support plate" in line 11 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also it is not clear if the support plate of line 11 is part of the support unit or if it is an additional part.
In claim 3 and its dependent claims 4-6, it is not clear if the “bottom edge electrode” is part of the support unit or if it is an additional part.
Claim 9 and its dependent claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the support plate" in line 12 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also it is not clear if the support plate of line 12 is part of the support unit or if it is an additional part.
In claim 11, it is not clear if the “bottom edge electrode” is part of the support unit or if it is an additional part.
The Examiner recommends amending claims 1 and 9 to change “support unit” to ”support plate”. This will remove the 112(f) interpretation of support element and resolve all of the 112(b) problems.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al, US 2014/0020708 A1.
Kim et al teaches:
Regarding claim 1, a substrate treating apparatus 128 comprising: a housing 143, 145 having a treating space; a support unit 110 positioned within the treating space and configured to apply a power 152 and to support a substrate 116; and a plasma control unit configured to change a characteristic of a plasma formed in the treating space, and wherein the plasma control unit includes: a gap control plate 122 positioned above the support unit 110; and a plate driver 238 changing a position of the gap control plate 122, and the plate driver 238 maintains a gap 115a between a bottom surface of the gap control plate 122 and a top surface of the support plate 110 while changing a characteristic of the plasma by changing the position of the gap control plate. (Figure 1 and 3)
Regarding claim 12, a substrate treating method comprising: treating a substrate by generating a plasma in an edge region of a substrate due to an electrical interaction between a top edge electrode in a ring shape positioned above the edge region, a bottom edge electrode in a ring shape positioned below the edge region, and a support plate applying a power and supporting the substrate; changing a characteristic of the plasma by changing a top/down position of a gap control plate positioned at an inner side of the top edge electrode; and maintaining a gap between a top surface of the support plate and a bottom surface of the gap control plate to a reference gap set according to a recipe while the plasma is generated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, US 2014/0020708 A1, in view of Kim, US 2008/0277064 A1.
Regarding claims 2-6, 9-11, and 13-15, Kim et al was discussed above. Kim et al also teaches: the plate driver 238 couples with the gap control plate 122 to move the gap control plate in a top/down direction; and a bottom edge electrode 114 positioned to surround the support plate 112 and positioned below an edge region of a substrate 116 supported on the support plate 110; and a top edge electrode 126 positioned to face the bottom edge electrode 114 and positioned above the edge region of the substrate 116 supported on the support plate 110; a position of the top edge electrode is fixed within the treating space; and the bottom edge electrode is attached to the support plate. (Figure 1)
Kim et al differs from the present invention in that Kim et al does not teach that: the support unit further includes a lift unit configured to move the support plate in the top/down direction; the lift unit moves the support unit in a same direction as the gap control plate moves in a same distance as the gap control plate moves in the top/down direction so the gap between the bottom surface of the gap control plate and the top surface of the support plate is maintained.
Kim teaches a lift unit 1552 configured to move the support plate 1510 in the top/down direction; the lift unit 1552. Kim also teaches moving the support unit and the gap control plate so that they are in the desired position for processing
The motivation for adding the lift unit of Kim to the apparatus of Kim et al is to enable the apparatus of Kim et al to move the substrate support so that the position of the substrate support and lower electrode are in the desired processing position as taught by Kim. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the lift unit of Kim to the apparatus of Kim et al, and to position the gap control plate, substrate support plate, and outer electrode such that they are in the desired position for processing.
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al teaches that the bottom edge electrode and the top edge electrode are grounded. (Figure 1)
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 16, Kim et al was discussed above, and Kim et al teaches that the support plate is made of aluminum.
Kim et al does not teach what the gap control plate is made of a dielectric or a dielectric plate and a metal plate.
Kim teaches that the gap control plate is of a material which includes a dielectric and is supported by a plate made of an undisclosed material.
The motivation for making the gap control plate of Kim et al out of a dielectric or a dielectric plate and a metal plate is to provide a specific known material of construction out of which to make the gas control plate of Kim et al as required but not disclosed by Kim et al. Furthermore, it has been held that: the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the gap control plate of Kim et al out of a dielectric or a dielectric plate and a metal plate as taught by Kim et al and Kim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. US 7943007 B2 and US 7858898 B2 teach material of construction. KR 10-2009-105530 could be used in place of Kim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716