DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhindsa (2015/0083582).
Dhindsa teaches a substate processing apparatus comprising:
- a plasma space, see Fig. 1, see sub chamber 132, which is configured for a plasma [0025], and a processing space, see space 134, as 120 is an electrostatic chuck, it is understood that this is the process space [0028],
- a first gas supplier to supply gas to the plasma space, see gas supplier 106 [0025],
- a second gas supply to supply gas to the process space, see gas supplier 104 [0025],
- and wherein the first and second gases are intended to etch a first and second target layer, such limitations are intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). In this case, the system is capable of flowing processing gases into the claimed regions and any gases would operably be supplied and therefore the system is capable of the claimed use. It is further noted that the intent of the system is for etching [0023].
Regarding claims 2, 3, 11 and 12, the teachings generally include fluorine-containing gasses [0038] and as the selection of gas is intended use, the limitations are met with the system capable of applying the such gases.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, as described per [0023], the lower plates 116 and 130 act as an ion filter in a particular arrangement.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, as per the arrangement, the second process gas does not pass through the plasma space.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, the use of any substrate is an intended use of the apparatus, and such a substrate with Si and SiGe layers is usable in the system.
Regarding claim 8, all elements of the claim are met as per above, including the first and second gas suppliers and the plasma space.
The claim further requires first and second “etch target layers” – but this is not limited, there is no specific definition of what the etch target layers are -they could be parts of the apparatus and/or a (not claimed) substrate. In any case, Dhindsa teaches a multi-step etch process [0003], therefore it would be understood that the system is capable of having multiple etch targets.
As per above, the first and second sources provide the first and second gases to the process space, but the further use of the of the gases for any process is intended use of the apparatus, and met by the capability of the system to be used for the same process. It is further noted, in any regard that the teachings include a multi-step etch process and the claim language does not prevent both of the gases from etch both of the layers. The further control of the degree of etching is again intended use.
Regarding claim 10, as depicted, the first (106) and second (104) gas suppliers are separated from each other.
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhindsa in view of Kim (2016/0281225).
The teachings of Dhindsa are described above, including a plasma space and a process space – but not a buffer space in between the two. But Kim teaches that a plasma process chamber it is useful to include an upper space (equivalent to Dhindsa’s plasma space) and a process space with a buffer space in between. The different regions are understood to allow for uniform supply of gases to the substrate as they are separated by different plates, see particularly Fig. 1 and [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply a buffer space in between the plasma and process space as taught by Kim in the apparatus Dhindsa to further control the distribution of gases.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights