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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 16-20 directed to an apparatus in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/23/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/23/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. As indicated in the signed copy of the IDS provided herewith, the Office Action from the Korean Intellectual Property Office dated June 26, 2024 was not considered because no translation or concise explanation of the relevance was provided.
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:
“inspection unit” in claim 1, 5-6, and 16 interpreted as camera (510) and inspection part (520) [0051-0054], and equivalents thereof.
“gas supply unit” in claim 16-20 interpreted as a gas storage part (310), a gas supply line (320), and a gas introduction port (330) [0078], and equivalents thereof.
“plasma generating unit” in claim 16-20 interpreted as upper electrode (410), a distribution plate (420), and upper power supply [0079], and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0221482 of Yoshida et al., hereinafter Yoshida, in view of KR 10-2021-0016848 (citing machine translation provided herewith) of Lee, hereinafter Lee, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0005837 of Ansell et al., hereinafter Ansell, and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0271194 of Okita et al., hereinafter Okita.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches an inspection device (Fig 1-2) for inspecting a focus ring (18 Fig 1-2), the inspection device comprising: a housing (10 Fig 1-2) having inspection space to accommodate the focus ring (Fig 1-2, volume within 10), with a predetermined area of an upper wall of the housing being formed of a transparent material (window 102 is an area of an upper wall, Fig 1-2); a temperature plate (12 Fig 1-2) provided in the inspection space (Fig 1-2) and configured to adjust the temperature the focus ring while the plate supports the focus ring (12 Fig 1-2 [0032], note the path 70 allows for flow of temperature adjusting fluid which is capable of adjusting the temperature of the plate and therefore the temperature of the ring); and an inspection unit (radiation thermometer 100 and computer 150 Fig 1-2 [0023]) configured to measure the temperature of the focus ring [0023]. Yoshida fails to teach the focus ring comprises a heat transfer member; a hot plate provided in the inspection space and configured to heat the focus ring while the hot plate supports the focus ring; and an inspection unit configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member by obtaining a thermal image of the focus ring after the focus ring is completely heat treated.
Regarding the focus ring comprises a heat transfer member, addressing the same problem of monitoring and controlling a focus ring temperature (abstract), Lee teaches the focus ring (280 Fig 4) comprises a heat transfer member (281 Fig 4, final paragraph of p9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshida to include the focus ring comprises a heat transfer member because Lee teaches this allows for efficient transmission of heat (first paragraph of p10).
Regarding a hot plate provided in the inspection space and configured to heat the focus ring while the hot plate supports the focus ring, Lee further teaches a hot plate (240 with thermoelectric elements 245 Fig 4, final paragraph of p9) in the inspection space (chamber, see Fig 1) and configured to heat the focus ring while the hot plate supports the focus ring (final paragraph of p9 to first paragraph of p10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshida to include a hot plate provided in the inspection space and configured to heat the focus ring while the hot plate supports the focus ring because Lee teaches this allows for control and correction of the temperature of the focus ring (bottom half of p9).
Regarding an inspection unit configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member by obtaining a thermal image of the focus ring after the focus ring is completely heat treated. Yoshida teaches a radiation thermometer (100 Fig 1-2) [0036] but fails to teach this is a camera and inspection part and fails to teach it is configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member by obtaining a thermal image of the focus ring. Regarding the camera, Ansell teaches an infrared camera is an alternative to a radiation thermometer (pyrometer) [0028-0029] for monitoring the temperature or infrared emission of a structure in a processing chamber [0028-0029]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshida to use an infrared camera in place of the sensor 100 because Ansell teaches the infrared camera is a functional alternative. Regarding an inspection part and the structure being configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member, Yoshida teaches a computer (150 Fig 1-2) but fails to teach it is configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract) and addressing the same problem of thermal contact monitoring [0104], Okita teaches determining the contact state of a substrate (analogous to a focus ring) and a stage (heating surface) based on a measured temperature [0104] and surface temperature uniformity [0104-0108]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Yoshida to be configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member based on the monitored temperature because Okita teaches this allows for ensuring good thermal contact and correction if good thermal contact isn’t present [0104-0108].
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. In the combination as applied above, Ansell teaches the infrared camera to photograph the target (focus ring in Yoshida); and Yoshida in view of Okita as applied in the combination teaches the inspection part (computer of Yoshida) is configured to monitor the connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member on a basis of an image of the focus ring photographed by the infrared camera (Okita [0104-0108]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. The infrared camera of the combination is able to operated to obtain a thermal image of an inside of the focus ring which is heat treated (Ansell as applied in the combination teaches the infrared camera).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida in view of Okita as applied in the combination teaches the inspection part (computer of Yoshida) is configured to monitor the connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member on a basis of the thermal image of the focus ring photographed by the infrared camera (Okita [0104-0108]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Lee as applied in the combination teaches the heat transfer member (281 Fig 1) is disposed between the focus ring (280 Fig 1) and the hot plate (240 with 245 Fig 1) and comprises one or more heat transfer members (Fig 2 and final paragraph of p9), each of the heat transfer members having a shape of a pad or sheet (Fig 2 and final paragraph of p9).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Lee as applied in the combination teaches the focus ring is heat treated by the hot plate, heat of the hot plate is transferred through the heat transfer member to the focus ring (final paragraph of p9 to first paragraph of p10).
Regarding claim 7, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Lee as applied in the combination teaches at least one groove is formed in a lower surface of the focus ring, and the heat transfer member is inserted into the groove (Fig 1-2, see 281 inserted into 280).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida teaches a substrate processing device (Fig 1) for processing a substrate (wafer W Fig 1), the device comprising: a chamber (10 Fig 1) having a processing space therein (Fig 1) and comprising an area formed of a transparent material (102 Fig 1); a substrate support unit (12 Fig 1) configured to support the substrate in the processing space (Fig 1); a gas supply unit (gas sources 62, pipe 64, and outlet 60a Fig 1) configured to supply gas into the processing space [0031]; a plasma generating unit (upper electrode 58 Fig 1, outlet plate 56 and power supplies 31, 32 Fig 1) for exciting the gas into a state of plasma in the processing space [0028]; a focus ring (18 Fig 1) configured to focus the plasma onto the substrate [0029]; and an inspection unit (radiation thermometer 100 and computer 150 Fig 1-2 [0023]) configured to measure the temperature of the focus ring [0023]. Yoshida fails to teach the focus ring comprising a heat transfer member provided on a lower surface thereof and fails to teach the inspection unit is configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member on a basis of a thermal image of the focus ring.
Regarding the focus ring comprises a heat transfer member provided on a lower surface thereof, addressing the same problem of monitoring and controlling a focus ring temperature (abstract), Lee teaches the focus ring (280 Fig 4) comprises a heat transfer member (281 Fig 4, final paragraph of p9) provided on a lower surface thereof (Fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshida to include the focus ring comprises a heat transfer member provided on a lower surface thereof because Lee teaches this allows for efficient transmission of heat (first paragraph of p10).
Regarding an inspection unit configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member on a basis of a thermal image of the focus ring. Yoshida teaches a radiation thermometer (100 Fig 1-2) [0036] but fails to teach this is a camera and inspection part and fails to teach it is configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member on a basis of a thermal image of the focus ring. Regarding the camera, Ansell teaches an infrared camera is an alternative to a radiation thermometer (pyrometer) [0028-0029] for monitoring the temperature or infrared emission of a structure in a processing chamber [0028-0029]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshida to use an infrared camera in place of the sensor 100 because Ansell teaches the infrared camera is a functional alternative. Regarding an inspection part and the structure being configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member, Yoshida teaches a computer (150 Fig 1-2) but fails to teach it is configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate processing apparatus (abstract) and addressing the same problem of thermal contact monitoring [0104], Okita teaches determining the contact state of a substrate (analogous to a focus ring) and a stage (heating surface) based on a measured temperature [0104] and surface temperature uniformity [0104-0108]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Yoshida to be configured to inspect a connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member on a basis of a thermal image of the focus ring because Okita teaches this allows for ensuring good thermal contact and correction if good thermal contact isn’t present [0104-0108].
Regarding claim 17, the combination remains as applied to claim 16. In the combination as applied the infrared camera (taught by Ansell) is configured to photograph the focus ring through the area formed of a transparent material (Yoshida teaches temperature monitoring through the transparent area 102 Fig 1); and the inspection part of the combination as applied is configured to monitor the connection state between the focus ring and heat transfer member on a basis of an image of the focus ring photographed by the infrared camera (see applied teaching of Okita to claim 16 above).
Regarding claim 18, the combination remains as applied to claim 17 above. The infrared camera of the combination is able to operated to obtain a thermal image of an inside of the focus ring which is heat treated (Ansell as applied in the combination teaches the infrared camera).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida in view of Okita as applied in the combination teaches the inspection part (computer of Yoshida) is configured to monitor the connection state between the focus ring and the heat transfer member on a basis of the thermal image of the focus ring photographed by the infrared camera (Okita [0104-0108]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination remains as applied to claim 19 above. Okita as applied in the combination teaches the connection state is determined on the basis of uniformity of the thermal image obtained (Okita [0104-0108]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2009/0000552 teaches detecting the state of contact based on the substrate temperature [0033]. US 2018/0254208 teaches monitoring the edge ring temperature (Fig 1 see detector 119 and edge ring 110). US 2008/0236746 teaches a heat transfer sheet (38) below the focus ring (24) (Fig 2 and [0046]). US 2018/0240651 teaches a heat transfer (25) below the focus ring (14) (Fig 2 and [0027]). US 2024/0167879 teaches a camera (5) for imaging a substrate (100) and determining the temperature (6) (Fig 1). US 5,200,023 teaches using an IR camera (20) to monitor a substrate (26) (Fig 5). US 2018/0047607 teaches a camera to monitor a substrate temperature (169 Fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights