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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18, drawn to an apparatus) in the reply, filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/08/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the primary electrode and the secondary electrode are arranged along a stacking direction of a plurality of substrates accommodated in a process vessel” of Claims 8 and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s), see the details in the 112 rejections below. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
(1) Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
-a. The “times or more of” and “times or less of” of Claims 2 and 10 would have a better form if amended to be:
The “times or more than” and “times or less than”.
-b. The “wherein the primary electrode and the secondary electrode are arranged along a stacking direction of a plurality of substrates comprising the substrate accommodated in the process vessel” of Claim 16 would have a better form if amended to be:
“wherein the substrate further comprising a plurality of substrates, and
the primary electrode and the secondary electrode are arranged along a stacking direction of the plurality of substrates accommodated in the process vessel”.
(2) Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 13. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 and 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Claims 8 and 16 recite the “wherein the primary electrode and the secondary electrode are arranged along a stacking direction of a plurality of substrates accommodated in a process vessel”.
The claim 8 is constructed to be interpreted, such that the primary electrode and the secondary electrode are arranged to be stacked in a stacking direction of a plurality of substrates.
However, the examiner does not find a proper support from the applicants’ disclosures, and further, the disclosures clearly state that:
“In addition, as shown in FIG. 2, the electrodes 300 (that is, the primary electrodes 300-1 and the secondary electrodes 300-2) are arranged in a direction perpendicular to the process vessel (that is, the vertical direction or a direction in which the wafers 200 are stacked)”, see the paragraph [0034] of the published instant application.
Therefore, the feature of Claims 8 and 16, as recited, is a new matter.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “an appropriate electric potential” of Claims 1 and 9 is not clear, because of the term “appropriate”.
The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of “an electric potential”.
(2) The “further comprising: one or more primary electrodes; and one or more secondary electrodes, wherein a plurality of primary electrodes constituted by the one or more primary electrodes and the primary electrode and a plurality of secondary electrodes constituted by the one or more secondary electrodes and the secondary electrode are arranged alternately” of Claims 6 and 14 is not clear.
First, it is not clear what the “the one or more primary electrodes and the primary electrode” means. They are differently recited? If so, what structural difference is required between them?
The later recited “primary electrode” is also considered a part of the one or more primary electrodes. If they are same electrode, why the same limitations are repeated?
Second, “the one or more secondary electrodes and the secondary electrode” raises the same issue as the “First” above.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“the primary electrode further comprising a plurality of primary electrodes; and
the secondary electrode further comprising a plurality of secondary electrodes,
wherein the plurality of primary electrodes and the plurality of secondary electrodes are arranged alternately”.
(3) Claims 7 and 15 raise the same issue as the item (2) above.
Furthermore;
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 7 and 15 recite the broad recitation “electrodes”, and the claim also recites “primary electrodes” and “secondary electrodes” which are the narrower statement of the “electrodes”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“the primary electrode further comprising a plurality of primary electrodes; and
the secondary electrode further comprising a plurality of secondary electrodes,
wherein the plurality of primary electrodes and the plurality of secondary electrodes are arranged at an equal interval”.
(4) To be continued from 112 1st above,
Claims 8 and 16 are also not clear, because the applicants’ disclosures do not support the feature, as recited, thus the metes and bounds cannot be clearly determined.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“wherein each of the primary electrode and the secondary electrode extends along a stacking direction of a plurality of substrates accommodated in a process vessel”,
OR
“wherein the primary electrode and the secondary electrode are arranged in a direction perpendicular to a stacking direction of a plurality of substrates accommodated in a process vessel”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-2, 5-10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda et al. (US 20200083067, hereafter ‘067).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘067 teaches:
electrodes 300 of a plasma generating part (Figs. 1-2, [0020], the claimed “An electrode structure capable of generating a plasma”);
the first electrodes 300-1 to which a plurality of arbitrary potentials are applied (Fig. 3, [0042], the claimed “comprising: a primary electrode to which an appropriate electric potential is applied”);
the second electrodes 300-2 to which a reference potential is applied ([0042], the claimed “and a secondary electrode to which a reference potential is applied”);
a surface area of the at least one electrode to which the predetermined potential is applied is two times or more than a surface area of the at least one electrode to which the reference potential is applied ([0007], the claimed “wherein an area of the primary electrode is set to be greater than an area of the secondary electrode”);
Fig. 3 shows each electrode is an integrated structure (the claimed “and the primary electrode is configured as an integrated structure”).
Regarding to Claim 2,
‘067 teaches a surface area of the at least one electrode to which the predetermined potential is applied is two times or more than a surface area of the at least one electrode to which the reference potential is applied ([0007], the claimed “wherein the area of the primary electrode is set to be 1.5 times or more of the area of the secondary electrode and 3.5 times or less of the area of the secondary electrode”).
Regarding to Claim 5,
‘067 teaches the first electrodes 300-1 to which a plurality of arbitrary potentials are applied with an electrode pitch (center-to-center distance) of 20 mm and the second electrodes 300-2 to which a reference potential is applied are arranged on the outer wall of the reaction tube ([0042], the claimed “wherein the primary electrode and the secondary electrode are provided outside a process vessel in which a substrate is processed, and are configured such that the plasma is generated in the process vessel”).
Regarding to Claim 6,
‘067 teaches three hot electrodes to which the high-frequency power source is connected via a matcher and three ground electrodes are alternately arranged ([0016], the claimed “further comprising: one or more primary electrodes; and one or more secondary electrodes, wherein a plurality of primary electrodes constituted by the one or more primary electrodes and the primary electrode and a plurality of secondary electrodes constituted by the one or more secondary electrodes and the secondary electrode are arranged alternately”).
Regarding to Claim 7,
‘067 teaches In the electrodes 300, first electrodes (hot electrodes) 300-1 to which a high-frequency power source 320 is connected via a matcher (not shown) and second electrodes (ground electrodes) 300-2 grounded to a reference potential of 0 V are arranged at equal intervals ([0037], the claimed “further comprising: one or more primary electrodes; and one or more secondary electrodes, wherein a plurality of electrodes constituted by the one or more primary electrodes, the primary electrode, the one or more secondary electrodes and the secondary electrode are arranged at an equal interval”).
Regarding to Claim 8,
Figs. 1-3 of ‘067 shows the electrodes 300-1/300-2 are arranged along a direction perpendicular to the vertical stacking direction of a plurality of substrates (the claimed “wherein the primary electrode and the secondary electrode are arranged along a stacking direction of a plurality of substrates accommodated in a process vessel”).
Regarding to Claim 9, ‘067 teaches:
Substrate processing apparatus (title, the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus”);
A process chamber 201 is formed in a hollow cylindrical portion of the process vessel. The process chamber 201 is configured to accommodate a plurality of wafers 200 as substrates. The reaction tube 203 forms the process chamber 201 in which the wafers 200 are processed (Fig. 1, [0020], the claimed “comprising: a process vessel in which a substrate is processed”);
electrodes 300 of a plasma generating part ([0020], the claimed “and a plasma generator comprising an electrode structure capable of generating a plasma in the process vessel”);
the first electrodes 300-1 to which a plurality of arbitrary potentials are applied (Fig. 3, [0042], the claimed “wherein the electrode structure comprises: a primary electrode to which an appropriate electric potential is applied”);
the second electrodes 300-2 to which a reference potential is applied ([0042], the claimed “and a secondary electrode to which a reference potential is applied”);
a surface area of the at least one electrode to which the predetermined potential is applied is two times or more than a surface area of the at least one electrode to which the reference potential is applied ([0007], the claimed “and wherein an area of the primary electrode is set to be greater than an area of the secondary electrode”);
Fig. 3 shows each electrode is an integrated structure (the claimed “and the primary electrode is configured as an integrated structure”).
Regarding to Claims 10 and 13-16,
Claims 10 and 13-16 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 2 and 5-8 rejection above.
Regarding to Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 13 rejection above.
Regarding to Claim 18,
‘067 teaches wafer heating by the heater 207 ([0047], the claimed “further comprising a heater capable of heating the substrate”);
The electrodes 300 are arranged between the reaction tube 203 and the heater 207 ([0038], the claimed “wherein the plasma generator is installed between the process vessel and the heater”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘067.
Regarding to Claims 3 and 11,
Figs. 2-3 and 8-10 of ‘067 show that there exists a center-to-center distance between the electrodes, thus, ‘067 teaches all the limitations of Claims 3 and 11 (the claimed “wherein a distance between a center of the primary electrode and a center of the secondary electrode is set to”); and
It is merely silent about the number range, which is the “13.5 mm or more and 53.5 mm or less”.
However, ‘067 teaches:
The electrode 300 may be configured to have a range of… a width of 5 mm or more and 30 mm or less ([0041]), and an electrode having a length of 1 m, a width of 10 mm ([0042], in other words, each of the electrodes 300-1/300-2 may have a range of a width of 5 mm or more and 30 mm or less and same length);
the first electrodes 300-1 to which a plurality of arbitrary potentials are applied with an electrode pitch (center-to-center distance) of 20 mm ([0041]), and In the electrodes 300, first electrodes (hot electrodes) 300-1 to which a high-frequency power source 320 is connected via a matcher (not shown) and second electrodes (ground electrodes) 300-2 grounded to a reference potential of 0 V are arranged at equal intervals ([0037]);
Consequently, when the electrode 300-1 has 10mm width and 20mm electrode pitch between the electrodes 300-1,
It would have been obvious that the interval between the electrodes 300-1 become 10mm, see the first illustration at left below, and as a result, the equal interval between the electrodes 300-2 also become 10mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘067 also teaches a surface area of the at least one electrode to which the predetermined potential is applied is two times or more than a surface area of the at least one electrode to which the reference potential is applied ([0007]);
Therefore, when the electrode 300-1 has 10mm width,
It would have been obvious that the width of the electrode 300-2 adopts 5mm, for the purpose of meeting the two times of the surface area difference.
Furthermore, as discussed in above, when the electrode 300-1 has 10mm width and the electrode 300-2 has 5mm width, and the electrodes 300-1/300-2 have equal 10mm interval,
It would have been obvious that the electrode pitch between the electrodes 300-1/300-2 becomes 17.5mm, see the second illustration at right above.
Claims 4 and 12, and alternatively, claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘067 in view of Takeda (US 20170268105, hereafter ‘105).
Regarding to Claims 4 and 12,
‘067 further teaches Plasma active species 302 are generated in the reaction tube 203 by inputting a high frequency of, e.g., 13.56 MHz, from the high-frequency power source 320 to the electrodes 300 via the matcher ([0038]), thus, ‘067 teaches all the limitations of Claims 4 and 12 (the claimed “wherein a frequency of a high frequency power supply applied to the primary electrode is set to”); and
It is merely silent about the number range, which is the “25 MHz or more and 35 MHz or less”.
‘105 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing apparatus (title). ‘105 teaches the frequency of the high frequency power supply is set to fall within a range of 2 to 60 MHz ([0037]).
Consequently, the frequency of the high frequency power supply is an adjustable parameter to control the electric field, in other words, it is a result effective parameter.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted an appropriate range of the frequency of the high frequency power supply, as recited, for the purpose of controlling an electric field depending on a desired application of the process, and/or further since it has been held that discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to Claims 3 and 11 in an alternative way,
Again, ‘067 teaches all the limitations of Claims 3 and 11, and is merely silent about the number range, which is the “13.5 mm or more and 53.5 mm or less”.
‘105 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing apparatus (title). ‘105 teaches An electric field 304 is established between the first electrode portion 301 and the second electrode portion 302… an electrode pitch (a distance between the centers of the first electrode 301 and the second electrode 302)... In other words, the minimum electric field 304-1 is formed due to an influence by the inter-electrode distance D and the maximum electric field 304-2 is formed due to an influence by the electrode pitch ([0034]), and the electrode may be formed with the electrode pitch set to fall with a range of 10 to 110 mm ([0041]).
Consequently, the electrode pitch is an adjustable parameter to control the electric field, in other words, it is a result effective parameter.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted an appropriate range of the electrode pitch, as recited, for the purpose of controlling an electric field between the electrodes, and/or further since it has been held that discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights