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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (apparatus) and Species A (fig 1), drawn to claims 1-7 and 9, in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/14/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba (US 2007/0218691) in view of Parsons (US 2005/0183821).
Regarding claim 1:
Chiba teaches a substrate processing apparatus (plasma etching apparatus, 1) [fig 2 & 0015] comprising: a processing container (processing chamber, 2) having a processing space (interior of 2) in which a substrate (W) is processed [fig 2 & 0017]; a gas supply mechanism (gas supply source, 30) configured to supply a reaction gas to the processing space (interior of 2) [fig 2 & 0023]; a metal-made shower head (upper electrode, 21) arranged in the processing space (interior of 2) and connected to the gas supply mechanism (30), the metal-made shower head (21) being configured to discharge the reaction gas supplied from the gas supply mechanism (30) into the processing space (interior of 2) [fig 2 & 0022]; a metal-made stage (lower electrode, 5 – electrodes may be formed from aluminum) arranged to face the metal-made shower head (21) in the processing space (interior of 2), the metal-made stage (5) being configured to place the substrate (W) on the metal-made stage (5), and the metal-made stage (5) and the metal-made shower head (21) being configured to constitute parallel flat-plate electrodes (upper and a lower electrode plate placed to face each other in parallel) [fig 2 & 0016, 0022, 0026]; a first radio-frequency power supply (40) connected to either the metal-made shower head or the metal-made stage (connected to the upper electrode 21) and configured to supply first radio-frequency power to generate a plasma of the reaction gas between the parallel flat-plate electrodes (plasma in a desirable dissociated state can be generated) [fig 2 & 0025]; a second radio-frequency power supply (50) configured to supply second radio-frequency power to the plasma, the second radio-frequency power having a frequency different from a frequency of the first radio-frequency power (50 has a frequency range lower than that of 40) [fig 2 & 0026].
Chiba does not specifically disclose an analyzer configured to acquire a mixed wave of the first radio-frequency power and the second radio-frequency power, which is obtained by the generation of the plasma, and to analyze a state of the plasma based on a result obtained by measuring a power level of the mixed wave.
Parsons teaches an analyzer (processor, 150) configured to acquire a mixed wave of the first radio-frequency power and the second radio-frequency power, which is obtained by the generation of the plasma (receive the RF energy that is radiated from the plasma 130), and to analyze a state of the plasma based on a result obtained by measuring a power level of the mixed wave (possible to perform several different analyses including power analysis) [fig 2-4 & 0017, 0025-0026, 0028].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Chiba to comprise the analyzer of Parsons to maintain a reproducible process using feedback loops [Parsons – 0032].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “configured to acquire a mixed wave of the first radio-frequency power and the second radio-frequency power, which is obtained by the generation of the plasma, and to analyze a state of the plasma based on a result obtained by measuring a power level of the mixed wave” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Chiba teaches the state of the plasma is at least one of a temperature of the plasma (electron temperature) and a density of the plasma (plasma density) [0026].
Regarding claims 3-4:
Modified Chiba teaches a power adjuster (tool control, 430) configured to adjust power supplied to the first radio-frequency power supply (coupled to the RF generators to perform power control) according to the state of the plasma analyzed from the power level (data that is received from the processor 150) [fig 4 & 0031].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “wherein the power adjuster adjusts the power so as to bring the power level closer to a preset target value based on a correspondence relationship between the power level and the state of the plasma, which are acquired in advance” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 5:
Chiba does not specifically disclose an antenna space provided to be adjacent to the processing space; a transparent window arranged between the antenna space and the processing space to transmit an electromagnetic wave emitted from the plasma through the transparent window; and an antenna arranged in the antenna space, wherein the analyzer acquires the mixed wave via the antenna.
Parsons teaches an antenna space (340) provided to be adjacent to the processing space (interior of 110) [fig 3 & 0022]; a transparent window (310 may be quartz) arranged between the antenna space (340) and the processing space (interior of 110) to transmit an electromagnetic wave emitted from the plasma through the transparent window (designed to pass RF energy that is radiated from the plasma 130) [fig 3 & 0022]; and an antenna (antenna, 140) arranged in the antenna space (340), wherein the analyzer (150) acquires the mixed wave via the antenna (140) [fig 3 & 0017, 0022].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Chiba to comprise the antenna arranged as claimed, as in Parsons, to convert the RF energy received from the plasma to an RF signal to be fed to the analyzer in order to maintain a reproducible process using feedback loops [Parsons – 0032].
Regarding claim 6:
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “wherein the analyzer acquires the mixed wave via a transmission path that constitutes a circuit including the first radio-frequency power supply, the second radio-frequency power supply, and the parallel flat-plate electrodes” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 7:
Chiba teaches the second radio-frequency power supply (50) is connected to either the metal-made shower head or the metal-made stage (5) fig 2 & 0026].
Regarding claim 9:
Although taught by the cited prior art [Parsons - 0017, 0025-0026, 0028], the claim limitations “wherein the analyzer analyzes the state of the plasma based on a power level of a first mixed wave corresponding to a sum of the frequency of the first radio-frequency power and the frequency of the second radio-frequency power or a difference between the frequency of the first radio-frequency power and the frequency of the second radio-frequency power, or harmonics of the frequency of the first radio-frequency power and the frequency of the second radio-frequency power, the first mixed wave and the harmonics being included in the mixed wave” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazawa (US 2007/0227657) teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising an analyzer [fig 6].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights