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 with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on May 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search or examination burden to examine all the inventions as they rely of the same USPC and CPC classifications. Additionally, applicant argued that the recited different designs and mode of operations are found in the various grouping whether they are independent or dependent claims such that each “invention” would have been examined and searched within the normal search and consideration. This argument has been found persuasive and thus the previous restriction has been withdrawn. Thus claims 1-20 are examined and discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 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.
The examiner is unsure what the area is referring to. There are several discussion of “areas” in the specification such as [0003] area of substrate, [0073] lower area of the chamber housing CH, or process area vs plasma area see [0037].
For the purposes of examination the term “area” is interpreted as the area around the support unit.
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.
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:
Plasma generating unit as recited in claims 1-20 where the functional language is plasma generating (to generate plasma inside the chamber housing by using process gas) and the generic placeholder is unit
First driving unit as recited in claims 8-10 and 15-20 where the functional language is first driving (to the posture of the ring body) and the generic placeholder is unit
Second driving unit as recited in claims 8-10 and 15-20 where the functional language is second driving (to the posture of the ring body) and the generic placeholder is unit
Third driving unit as recited in claim 10 where the functional language is third driving (to the posture of the ring body of a side different from the one side and the other side) and the generic placeholder is unit
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.
Plasma generating unit is interpreted as element 250 according to the original specification [0088] where the plasma can be generated by either inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source like using a lower electrode (such as an electrostatic chuck) and upper electrode or antenna or the plasma can be generated using capacitively coupled plasma source (CCP) according to the original specification [0089].
First driving unit is interpreted as element 320a according to the original specification [00120] and according to [00133] the first driving unit may be a motor which may include a hydraulic cylinder or pneumatic cylinder.
Second driving unit is interpreted as element 320b according to the original specification [0120] and according to [00133] the second driving unit may be a motor which may include a hydraulic cylinder or pneumatic cylinder.
Third driving unit is interpreted as element 320c according to the original specification [0147]. For the purposes of examination the third driving unit may be a motor which may include a hydraulic cylinder or pneumatic cylinder just as recited in the [00133] for the first and second driving units.
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 § 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, 3-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Spaulding et al (US 2017/0032943).
Regarding claim 1: Spaulding et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber housing (made of enclosing walls 106) including an exhaust hole (exhaust port 110) configured to exhaust a process gas flowing thereinto; a substrate support unit (substrate holder 101) inside the chamber housing, the substrate support unit configured to support a semiconductor substrate; a process gas supply unit (a gas source 163) configured to provide the process gas to the inside of the chamber housing; a plasma generating unit (see [0020] – [0026]) with upper electrode assembly 113) and electrostatic chuck see [0022] configured to generate plasma inside the chamber housing by using the process gas; and an internal pressure control apparatus configured to control an internal pressure of the chamber housing, the internal pressure control apparatus including a ring body 125 see [0019] around the substrate support unit and provided as one body, the internal pressure control apparatus being configured to control a posture of the ring body such that an exhaust amount of the process gas flowing into the chamber housing is controlled.
PNG
media_image1.png
719
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the internal pressure control apparatus is configured to control the posture of the ring body 125 see [0019] by moving the ring body along a height direction of the substrate support unit.
Regarding claim 4: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the internal pressure control apparatus controls the internal pressure of the chamber housing for each area. The claim is unclear as to what is the area or each area For the purposes of examination the term “area” is interpreted as the area around the support unit. See [0026] – [0032] and [0044] where it is recited that pressure is controlled around the substrate/holder.
Regarding claim 5: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the internal pressure control apparatus is configured to control the internal pressure of the chamber housing in accordance with a process time for the semiconductor substrate. See [0044], [0046], [0048] of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 6: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 5, wherein the process time includes a plurality of cycles, and the internal pressure control apparatus is configured to uniformly control the internal pressure of the chamber housing for each cycle. See [0036], [0037], and [0048] of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 7: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 5, wherein the process time includes a plurality of cycles, and the internal pressure control apparatus is configured to control the internal pressure of the chamber housing by changing the internal pressure of the chamber housing between two different cycles. See [0036], [0037], 0044], [0046], [0048] of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 8: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the internal pressure control apparatus further includes: a first driving unit (motor 160) connected to one side of the ring body through a first connection member (hangar 161); and a second driving unit (motor 164) connected to the other side of the ring body through a second connection member (hangar 165), and the first driving unit and the second driving unit are each configured to the posture of the ring body. See [0044] and see Fig. 3A, 3B, and 3C of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 9: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the first driving unit and the second driving unit are configured to independently control the ring body. See the discussion of controller 135 where the motors 160, 164 (first driving unit and the second driving unit) are independently controlled to control movement of the ring body 125 see [0024] and [0044] of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 10: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the internal pressure control apparatus further includes a third driving unit (motor 168) connected to the ring body through a third connection member (hangar 169), and the third driving unit is connected to another side except the one side and the other side.
Regarding claim 11: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate processing apparatus is configured to uniformly process an upper surface of the semiconductor substrate in accordance with an operation of the internal pressure control apparatus. See [0019] and [0026] – [0031] of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 12: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the internal pressure control apparatus includes a plurality of ring bodies (plasma ring segments 204, 208, 212) each of which is spaced apart from another one in a height direction of the substrate support unit.
PNG
media_image2.png
462
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate processing apparatus is a facility configured to etch the semiconductor substrate. See [0039] of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 14: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ring body is on a path through which the process gas flowing into the chamber housing moves to the exhaust hole. See Fig. 1 of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 15: Spaulding et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber housing (made of enclosing walls 106) including an exhaust hole (exhaust port 110) configured to exhaust a process gas flowing thereinto; a substrate support unit (substrate holder 101) inside the chamber housing, the substrate support unit configured to support a semiconductor substrate; a process gas supply unit (a gas source 163) configured to provide the process gas to the inside of the chamber housing; a plasma generating unit (see [0020] – [0026]) with upper electrode assembly 113) configured to generate plasma inside the chamber housing by using the process gas; and an internal pressure control apparatus configured to control an internal pressure of the chamber housing, the internal pressure control apparatus including a ring body 125 see [0019] around the substrate support unit and provided as one body, the internal pressure control apparatus being configured to control a posture of the ring body such that an exhaust amount of the process gas flowing into the chamber housing is controlled.
Note also that Spaulding et al provides a first driving unit (motor 160) connected to one side of the ring body through a first connection member (hangar 161); and a second driving unit (motor 164) connected to the other side of the ring body through a second connection member (hangar 165), and the first driving unit and the second driving unit are each configured to the posture of the ring body. See [0044] and see Fig. 3A, 3B, and 3C of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 16: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the internal pressure control apparatus is configured to control an exhaust amount of a process gas flowing into the space in which the semiconductor substrate is processed. See [0044] and [0070] of Spauling et al
Regarding claim 18: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the first driving unit and the second driving unit are configured to independently control the ring body. See the discussion of controller 135 where the motors 160, 164 (first driving unit and the second driving unit) are independently controlled to control movement of the ring body 125 see [0024] and [0044] of Spaulding et al.
Regarding claim 19: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the first driving unit and the second driving unit are configured to control the posture of the ring body by moving the ring body along a height direction (interpreted as vertical) of the substrate support unit. See Figs. 1 and 3A where the motors 160, 164 (first driving unit and the second driving unit) are independently controlled to control vertical movement of the ring body 125 see [0024] and [0044] of Spaulding et al.
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.
Claims 2, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding et al (US 2017/0032943) in Fink (US 2004/014389).
The teachings of the prior art of Spaulding et al were discussed above.
The prior art of Spaulding et al fails to teach the posture of the ring body is controlled by tilting. Namely, Spaulding et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 2: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the internal pressure control apparatus is configured to control the posture of the ring body by tilting the ring body.
Regarding claim 17: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the first driving unit and the second driving unit are configured to control the posture of the ring body by tilting the ring body.
The prior art of Fink teaches a plasma processing device. According to Fink et al a focus ring is raised, lifted position see [0022]. Fink et al teaches a focus ring 30 that can tilt see [0034] where lift pin assembly 26 tilts the focus ring. The motivation to modify the prior art of Spaulding et al to tilt the focus ring as suggested by Fink is that the flow is directed in a particular direction across the substrate platform 25 (substrate support unit). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the prior art of Spaulding et al to tilt the focus ring as suggested by Fink.
Regarding claim 20: See the rejections of claims 1 and 15 the internal pressure control apparatus configured to control the internal pressure of the chamber housing in accordance with a process time for the semiconductor substrate, the process time including a plurality of cycles, uniformly controls the internal pressure of the chamber housing for each cycle, and controls the internal pressure of the chamber housing by changing the internal pressure of the chamber housing between two different cycles, and the first driving unit and the second driving unit independently control the ring body. See [0036], [0037], 0044], [0046], [0048] of Spaulding et al. See the discussion of controller 135 where the motors 160, 164 (first driving unit and the second driving unit) are independently controlled to control movement of the ring body 125 see [0024] and [0044] of Spaulding et al.
Note the prior art of Spaulding et al fails to teach the internal pressure control apparatus configured to control a posture of the ring body by tilting the ring body and control an exhaust amount of a process gas flowing into the chamber housing,
The prior art of Fink teaches a plasma processing device. According to Fink et al a focus ring is raised, lifted position see [0022]. Fink et al teaches a focus ring 30 that can tilt see [0034] where lift pin assembly 26 tilts the focus ring. The motivation to modify the prior art of Spaulding et al to tilt the focus ring as suggested by Fink is that the flow is directed in a particular direction across the substrate platform 25 (substrate support unit). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the prior art of Spaulding et al to tilt the focus ring as suggested by Fink.
PNG
media_image3.png
790
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
716
553
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reyland et al US 2014/0273460 teaches a plasma processing (ICP) apparatus where the cover ring 210 where lift pins 214 are driven by a lift 212 to lower/raise the cover ring.
Dhindsa US 2009/0202734 teaches methods and apparatus for changing area ratio in plasma processing system where plunger 131 controls the position of rings 110a-e. see Fig. 1 and [0019].
Yoon et al (US 2021/0111056) teaches an etching apparatus with a focus ring 123. Pressure adjusting unit 170 adjusts the pressure of the cooling gas see [0048].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights