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
Claim interpretation
(1) The “pendulum manner” of Claims 1 and 13 will be examined inclusive of a manner of “A body suspended from a fixed support so that it swings freely back and forth”.
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.
Claim 9 is 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) Claim 9 recites “the main-coil” and “the sub-coil”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be examined inclusive of “a main-coil” and “a sub-coil”.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (US 20140367045, hereafter ‘045) in view of Yamazawa et al. (US 20110094995, hereafter ‘995).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘045 teaches:
plasma processing system (Fig. 1, [0042], the claimed “A plasma processing apparatus”);
a chamber 102 that includes a chuck 104... The chuck 104 can be an electrostatic chuck for supporting the substrate ([0042], the claimed “comprising: a processing container; a stage arranged inside the processing container and configured to place a substrate to be processed on the stage”);
The TCP coil is connected to RF power ([0047], the claimed “a plasma excitation antenna arranged above the processing container” and “and a radio-frequency power supply configured to supply radio-frequency power to the plasma excitation antenna”);
a ceramic support 200, used to support the inner coil 123 and the outer coil 122 ([0047], note Fig. 2A shows four beam like members, each extending from a center, the claimed “a coil holder configured to hold the plasma excitation antenna; wherein the coil holder includes a plurality of beam-like members arranged radially to protrude outward from a center of the coil holder”);
The ceramic support 200 is configured to attach to the coils using screws, shown by way of example as 223, 222, 224 and others ([0047], note Figs. 2C, 2D and 3D show a clamp-like member extending downward from the beam-like members, further, the lower end is attached to the coil, thus it can be interpreted as a gripper, the claimed “and a clamp-like member attached to each of the plurality of beam-like members and suspended downward from each of the plurality of beam-like members, wherein the clamp-like member has an upper end supported by each of the plurality of beam-like members with a screw member and wherein a gripper configured to grip and hold the plasma excitation antenna is formed in a lower end of the clamp-like member”).
‘045 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: and a clamp-like member attached to each of the plurality of beam-like members and suspended downward from each of the plurality of beam-like members, wherein the clamp-like member has an upper end supported by each of the plurality of beam-like members with a screw member and is configured to move in a pendulum manner.
‘995 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (abstract). ‘995 teaches Each of the joints 202A, 202B and 202C is used to conform to the inclined posture of the correction coil 70 (90) (Fig. 18, [0135], note the joint enables pendulum movement).
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 added the joints, to the clamp like member of ‘045, for the purpose of providing position change capability.
Regarding to Claim 13, ‘045 teaches:
plasma processing system (Fig. 1, [0042]), and a ceramic support 200, used to support the inner coil 123 and the outer coil 122 ([0047], the claimed “A coil holder that holds a plasma excitation antenna used in a plasma processing apparatus”);
The coil holder of Claim 13 is the same as the coil holder of Claim 1 and the teaching was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, therefore, The coil holder of Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding to Claim 2,
’045 further teaches the inner coil (IC) 123, and outer coil (OC) 122 ([0046], note a spiral shaped coil is commonly well-known in the art, for instance, see Fig. 11 of JP 2017-085161, filed in IDS, disclosing “inner and outer antenna elements 142A, 142B formed in a spiral coil shape”, thus adopting spiral coil for the coil of ‘045 is mere obvious matter, the claimed “wherein the plasma excitation antenna is an antenna assembly including a main-coil and a sub-coil, wherein an outer shape of each of the main-coil and the sub-coil is formed in a substantially circular spiral shape in a plan view, wherein the main-coil and the sub-coil are arranged such that the outer shapes of the main-coil and the sub-coil are in a concentric relationship with each other, and wherein the sub-coil is provided radially inward of the main-coil”).
Regarding to Claims 4 and 10,
Fig. 1 of ‘045 shows the coil 120 is over the window 106 by a gap, further because of the gap, the gap intrinsically has a gap size (the claimed “wherein a gap is formed in a height direction between a lid of the processing container and both the plasma excitation antenna and the coil holder, and wherein the gap is designed to be”);
Thus, ‘045 teaches all the limitation and merely silent about the number range, “2 mm or more”.
However, it is well-known in the art that the gap size is a parameter to control a plasma inside the chamber, for instance, see Fig. 11 and corresponding paragraph [0104] of US 20100269980 disclosing “a distance d1 between the high frequency antenna 140 and the plate-shaped dielectric member 104 and, further, a distance d2 between the antenna elements 142A and 142B and the plasmas PA and PB can be adjusted by vertically moving the high frequency antenna 140”, therefore, the gap size is a result effective variable.
Consequently, even if ‘045 and ‘995 are silent about the size as recited,
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 found an appropriate gap size, as recited, for the purpose of providing plasma control capability, and/or since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to Claims 5-6,
Fig. 2A of ‘045 shows the inner and outer coils are hold by the clamp like member of each beam like member, note once the coils are hold by the hold structure of ‘045, it reads into the claims 5-6 (the claimed “wherein the clamp-like member includes at least one or more clamp-like members attached to each of the plurality of beam-like members, and wherein the at least one or more clamp-like members hold the main coil at at least one or more places of the main-coil and hold the sub-coil at at least one or more places of the sub-coil” of Claim 5, and “wherein the at least one or more clamp-like members are arranged at positions to hold the main-coil on all of the plurality of beam-like members, and are arranged at positions to hold the sub-coil on some of the plurality of beam-like members” of Claim 6).
Further note, the selection of the hold position number is mere result of the rearrangement of parts, see also MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding to Claims 8 and 12,
‘045 is silent about the “creeping distance”. However, as disclosed by the applicants, the “creeping discharge” means a phenomenon that, when a high voltage is applied to a conductor placed on an insulator, discharge occurs along a surface of the insulator. This is not an applicants’ invention, rather it is natural phenomenon that can be occurred in the plasma processing apparatus, therefore, a person of an ordinary skill in the art that uses the plasma processing apparatus would have possibly experienced the creeping discharge between adjacent components of the plasma processing apparatus.
Consequently, even if ‘045 and ‘995 do not explicitly teach the feature as recited,
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 considered an appropriate distance between components of the plasma processing apparatus, for the purpose of preventing any unexpected arcing between the adjacent components.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘045 and ‘995, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Todorow et al. (US 20140367046, hereafter ‘046).
Regarding to Claims 3 and 9,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the inner coil (IC) 123 and outer coil (OC) 122 of ‘045 are gripped to by the imported joint (the claimed “wherein the gripper includes gripping members, and wherein the gripping members hold a conductor constituting the main-coil and the sub-coil by gripping the conductor”).
‘045 and ‘995 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claims 3 and 9: wherein the gripper includes gripping members that are paired at left and right sides, and wherein the gripping members hold a conductor constituting the main-coil and the sub-coil by gripping the conductor from the left and right sides.
‘046 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (abstract). ‘046 teaches clamp 402 (Fig. 4, [0036], note the clamp 402 has finger shaped members that are paired at left and right sides and they hold the coil from the left and right sides).
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 modified the lower end of the imported joints, so to have finger shaped members, for the purpose of easily holding the coil, and/or for its suitability as a coil hold feature with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘045 and ‘995, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Karazim et al. (US 6192829, hereafter ‘829).
Regarding to Claims 7 and 11,
‘045 teaches a ceramic support 200 ([0047], the claimed “wherein the coil holder is formed of”).
‘045 and ‘995 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claims 7 and 11: wherein the coil holder is formed of polyimide.
‘829 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (title). ‘829 teaches clamp 160 comprises a polymide, a ceramic, or the like (lines 64-65 of col. 7, note the polymide is considered being a typo of polyimide, because polyimide is well-known by brands like Vespel, see the “Vesepel” in line 62 of the same col. 7).
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 formed the coil support of ‘045, with polyimide, for the purpose of providing low thermal expansion, and/or for its suitability as a coil hold material with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
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