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 .
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 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “theoretical wavelength multiple point” which is indefinite because the metes and bounds of this term are unknown. The term is no defined by Applicant’s specification nor is it well known in the art. As such a comparison cannot be made.
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.
Claims 1 , 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omi (JP 3792089) in view of Suguro (US 2017/0263420).
Regarding claim 1, 089 teaches a plasma processing apparatus comprising:
a chamber (1, Fig. 1) configured to place a substrate (8) therein, including a plurality of microwave radiators (2a-2d, fig. 12) that is arranged while facing the substrate (8, Fig. 1);
a microwave source (6a/6b) configured to output microwaves; the microwave source (6a/6b) including a matching box (4a,4b) that performs a matching with load impedance ([0055], Fig. 10) in a microwave transmitter (4a, 5a, 6a; 4b, 5b, 6b, fig. 1, fig. 12) that outputs the microwaves ([0040] Fig. 1) and
a distributor (3a-3d, fig. 12) having one end connected to the matching box (4a-4b, fig. 1) and a plurality of other ends branched by being bifurcated one or more time (Fig. 12) to be connected to a microwave radiators (2a-2d, window), and configured to distribute and transmit the microwaves output from the matching box (4a-4b) to the plurality of microwave radiators (2a-2d).
‘089 does not explicitly teach a wavelength of the microwaves is k, a line length from the one end to each of the plurality of other ends falls within a range of n*lambda/2 +- lambda/8
Suguro directed to a plasma processing apparatus teaches microwave waveguides 50 having a rectangular cross section wherein the length of each side determines how the microwaves are transmitted through the waveguides. Suguro teaches that when length b is equal to or shorter than the wavelength (lambda) the microwave is not transmitted. Suguro teaches the length b is larger than half of the wavelength of the microwave. Therefore Suguro teaches a line length of the waveguide fulfill applicant’s formula of lambda/2 +lambda/8 [0033]. Suguro also teaches that this line length b is a result effective variable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the line length of ‘089 by providing a wavelength of the microwaves is k, a line length from the one end to each of the plurality of other ends falls within a range of n*lambda/2 +- lambda/8, as taught by Suguro, because it would transmit the microwave into the reaction chamber. [0033].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to “a wavelength of the microwaves is k, a line length from the one end to each of the plurality of other ends falls within a range of n*lambda/2 +- lambda/8 ” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, ‘089 teaches a plasma producing chamber that uses multiple microwave generator sources attached to bifurcated waveguides to compensate for uneven impedances in the plasma chamber allowing for uniform plasma to be created throughout the plasma chamber.
‘089 teach the chamber (1, fig. 1) is configured such that the plurality of microwave radiators (2a-2d, fig. 1 and 12) are provided on a wall surface facing the substrate (8) to surround a position corresponding to a center of the substrate (8, Fig. 1),
the microwave transmitter is one of a plurality of microwave transmitters (6a, 5a, 6b, 5b fig. 3, s1-s2, fig. 12) provided in the microwave source, the total number of the plurality of microwave transmitters being half or less than half a number of the plurality of microwave radiators (2a, 2b, Fig. 3; 2a-2d, 12),
the distributer is one of a plurality of distributors (3a, 3b, Fig. 1, 3, 3a-3d, fig. 12) provided corresponding to the total number of the microwave transmitters (6a, 5a, 6b, 5b, Fig. 1 and 3; S1-S4, fig. 12[0049], each of the plurality of distributors (3a, 3b Fig. 1 and 3; 3a-3d, fig. 12) having one end connected to the microwave transmitter (6a, 5a, 6b, 5b, Fig. 3; S1-s4 Fig. 12) and connecting each of the microwave transmitters to two or more microwave radiators (2a, 2b, fig. 3; 2a-2d Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 8, ‘089 teaches the chamber is configured such that the plurality of microwave radiators (2a-2d, fig. 11, 12) are provided on the wall surface with a plurality of diameters differing from a position corresponding to the center of the substrate (8, Fig. 1, 12, 17. The Examiner notes that the claim does not require different diameters. The Examiner notes no specific shape is required and takes the position that a diameter is a straight line through the center of an object).
and are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction (Fig. 11 and 12, 17), the number of the microwave transmitters (s1-s4, fig. 12 [0049]) provided for each of the plurality of diameters is half or less than half the number of the plurality of microwave radiators (2a-2d) provided in the circumferential direction of the plurality of diameters,
and the plurality of distributors (3a-3d, fig. 12) are provided for each of the plurality of diameters (2a-2d, fig. 11, 12) with the number of the microwave transmitters (s1-s4) of the width, and configured to connect the microwave transmitter ((s1-s4 fig. 12) of the width to two or more microwave radiators (2a-2d) adjacent in the circumferential direction of the diameter because it would input microwaves with different power to the chamber to provide a uniform plasma in the chamber even when load impedance of the plasma directly under each microwave introduction window is different [0094].
Regarding claim 10, ‘089 teaches one microwave transmitter (6a, 5a, 6b, 5b, fig. 3; s1-s4, fig. 12) is provided for each of the plurality of diameters (2a-2d), and one distributor (3a-3d) is provided for each of the plurality of diameters (2a-2d), thereby connecting the microwave transmitter of the diameter to the plurality of microwave radiators (2a-2d) of the diameter (Fig. 12). The Examiner takes the position that the requirement of “diameter” is used to describe the radiator and isn’t a separate claim element. As with claim 8 all diameters in claim 10 can be the same. Only shapes that can contain a diameter are required.
Regarding claim 11, ‘089 teaches the chamber (1) is configured such that the wall surface is provided with four microwave radiators (2a, 2b, fig. 3; 2a-2d, fig. 12) for each of a plurality of diameters differing from the position corresponding to the center of the substrate, at equal intervals in the circumferential direction (Fig. 1 and 3, [0038]) because it would provide a uniform plasma within the chamber [0094].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘089 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daio (CN 105714258).
Regarding claim 4, 089’ does not teach a ring-shaped transmission line.
Daio teaches the distributor (21) is configured such that a ring-shaped transmission line that transmits the microwaves is formed in a portion of the distributor (21), and a shortest line length from the one end to the other end falls within a predetermined range beginning from n* (lambda)/2 (see top of page 2 of translation).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the distributor of ‘089 by providing the distributor (21) is configured such that a ring-shaped transmission line that transmits the microwaves is formed in a portion of the distributor (21), and a shortest line length from the one end to the other end falls within a predetermined range beginning from n* (lambda)/2, as taught by Diao, because it would allow construction of a chamber where plasma will not directly contact the quartz window avoiding the generation of a conductive film on the window (top of page 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘089 and Suguro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirano (US 2017/0236690).
Regarding claim 6, ‘089 does not teach the distributor is configured with a coaxial line and a strip line.
Hirano teaches the distributor is configured with a coaxial line (16a) and a strip line (16b, [0038}.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the distributor of ‘089 by providing the distributor is configured with a coaxial line and a strip line, as taught by Hirano, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘089 and Suguro as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Fujino (US 2012/0247676).
Regarding claim 9, ‘089 teaches a power of the microwaves output by the microwave transmitter of the diameter [0065] but does not explicitly teach a controller configured to control, for each of the plurality of diameters.
Fujino directed to a microwave plasma processing apparatus teaches a controller 81 configured to control the power of the microwaves output by the microwave transmitter [0048].
Because Fujino teaches that a controller configured to control power levels of a microwave generator is operable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the controller microwaves transmitted to each of the plurality of diameters of Diao in view of ‘089 with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143.A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the controller of the microwaves output by the microwave transmitter of the diameter of ‘089 by providing a controller configured to control, for each of the plurality of diameters, power of the microwaves output, as taught by Fujino, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘089 and Suguro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toraguchi (US 6,284,674).
Regarding claim 12, ‘089 does not teach the matching box adjust the impedances at each of the plurality of microwave radiators within the range of nxX/2+X/8, corresponding to a number of branches at the plurality of other ends of the distributor but does not teach its configured to cancel a phase deviation of reflected waves.
Toraguchi directed to plasma processing with microwaves teaches a matching box (69) is configured to cancel a phase deviation of reflected waves (reflection waves) occurring at the radiator (49, fig. 2; col. 6, ln. 60-col. 7, ln. 6; clm. 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the matching box of ‘089 by providing it is configured to cancel a phase deviation of reflected waves occurring at each of the plurality of microwave radiators, as taught by Toraguchi, because it would reflection power of microwaves increasing reproducibility of the process (col. 2, ln. 40-62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) July 10, 2026 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights