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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
As the details will be discussed in the 112 2nd paragraph rejection of Claims 12 and 31 below,
Because the slot of the applicants’ Fig. 8 has only one circle, it is not clear how the inner and outer diameters of each slot are defined, thus the drawing is objected.
Further, the “ID” of Fig. 8A appears to indicate an inner diameter at an inner side away from the chamber wall, however, Fig. 8A shows the chamber wall appears to be disposed at right side of the Fig. 8A, in other words, it is at an outer side closer to the chamber wall, thus it is not clear how the inner diameter “ID” is defined at the outer side, not at the inner side, thus the drawing is also objected.
Corrected drawing or an appropriate reasoning is respectfully requested.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The applicants’ specification ([0084] of the instant published application) discloses that “The external volume 108a is defined between the upper horizontal section 131, the upper vertical section 132 and the mid-section 133”.
However, as will be discussed in the 112 rejection below (see the details in below), the external volume formed by the upper horizontal section 131, the upper vertical section 132 and the mid-section 133 is completely different from the external volume 108a of Fig. 2A.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “wherein a plasma volume is disposed between an upper electrode structure, a lower electrode and the confinement ring of the plasma processing chamber” of Claim 2 would have a better form if amended to be:
“wherein a plasma volume is defined by an upper electrode structure, a lower electrode and the confinement ring of the plasma processing chamber”.
(2) The “wherein an internal volume is defined between the mid-section, the lower vertical section and the lower horizontal section” of Claim 4 would have a better form if amended to be:
“wherein an internal volume is defined by the mid-section, the lower vertical section and the lower horizontal section”.
(3) Claim 5 recites both “the plasma volume” and “said plasma volume”. It is respectfully requested to maintain terminological consistency for the same term across the claim list.
(4) For the purpose of clarification, the “and to a third height” of Claim 10 would have a better form if amended to be “and further equal to a third height”.
(5) The “wherein the second outer radius extends beyond the first outer radius, the second outer radius defining an outer radius of the confinement ring, and wherein the inner upper radius is greater than the inner lower radius” of Claim 11 would have a better form if amended to be:
“wherein:
the second outer radius extends beyond the first outer radius,
the second outer radius defines an outer radius of the confinement ring, and
the inner upper radius is greater than the inner lower radius”.
(6) The “the S-shaped structure downward” of Claims 18 and 29 should be “the unitary S-shaped structure downward”.
(7) The “wherein a bottom surface of the lower horizontal section is defined by a second slope that extends down from the lower vertical section toward the inner lower radius, a first angle of inclination of the first slope being equal to a second angle of inclination of the second slope, so that a thickness along a length of the lower horizontal section is uniform” of Claim 28 would have a better form if amended to be:
“wherein:
a bottom surface of the lower horizontal section is defined by a second slope that extends down from the lower vertical section toward the inner lower radius,
a first angle of inclination of the first slope is equal to a second angle of inclination of the second slope, and
a thickness along a length of the lower horizontal section is uniform”,
OR
“wherein a bottom surface of the lower horizontal section is defined by a second slope that extends down from the lower vertical section toward the inner lower radius, wherein a first angle of inclination of the first slope is equal to a second angle of inclination of the second slope, and wherein a thickness along a length of the lower horizontal section is uniform”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) The “the external volume is outside of the plasma volume” of Claim 3 is a new matter.
The applicants’ disclosures clearly disclose that the plasma volume in the plasma region 108 includes an external volume 108a and an internal volume 108b (Fig. 2A, [0084]). Therefore, the external volume cannot be outside of the plasma volume, rather it is a part of the plasma volume, thus the recites feature is a new matter, See also 112 2nd paragraph below.
(2) Claim 5 raises the same issue as the item (1) above.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 12-17, 19, 21, 31 and 34-37 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “wherein an external volume is defined between the upper horizontal section, the upper vertical section and the mid-section, the external volume is outside of the plasma volume” of Claim 3 is not clear.
It is not clear what the “external” and “outside of the plasma volume” mean.
The applicants’ disclosures disclose the plasma volume in the plasma region 108 includes an external volume 108a and an internal volume 108b (Fig. 2A, [0084]).
However, purely based on the claim language itself, the claim is constructed such that the external volume (formed by the upper horizontal section, the upper vertical section and the mid-section) should be the lined portion in the illustration below, thus the claim contradicts to the applicants’ disclosure and the metes and bounds cannot be clearly determined.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2) Claim 5 raises the same issue as the item (1) above.
(3) The “wherein a length of the mid-section and a length of the lower horizontal section are of a uniform thickness” of Claim 7 is not clear, because it is not clear how the length becomes the thickness.
(4) The “wherein the lower horizontal section includes a plurality of slots, each slot of the plurality of slots extends radially from an inner diameter to an outer diameter along the lower horizontal section, wherein the inner diameter of each slot is greater than an inner ring diameter of the confinement ring defined by the inner lower radius, and the outer diameter of the slot is less than an outer ring diameter of the confinement ring defined by the second outer radius, each slot extending from a top surface to a bottom surface of the lower horizontal section” of Claims 12 and 31 is not clear, because:
It is not clear how the “inner diameter” and “outer diameter” are defined. Which part has the “inner diameter” and “outer diameter”? does it mean an inner diameter of the slot and an outer diameter of the slot?
However, the diameter of a circle is the distance from one side of a circle to the other through the center, see below, thus it is not clear how the recited slot has both inner and outer diameters. Does the slot is a dual circle, in other words, it has both inner and outer circles?
PNG
media_image2.png
259
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(5) The “inner diameter and the outer diameter of the slot” of Claim 13 raises the same issue as the item (4) above.
(6) The “wherein a ratio of the inner slot radius to the outer slot radius is between about 1:1.1 and 1:1.5” of Claim 14 is not clear.
First, claim 14 is dependent from the claim 12. However, the claim 12 does not recite “inner slot radius” to “outer slot radius”, rather the claim 13 recites the limitations. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, it will be examined such that the claim 14 is dependent from the claim 13.
Second, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of “between 1:1.1 and 1:1.5”.
(7) The “the first vertical section” and “the second vertical section” of Claims 16-17 are not clear, because it is not clear they are different vertical sections from the vertical sections recited in the claim 1 or not.
(8) The “a top surface disposed proximate to the second outer radius of the second piece” of Claims 19 and 30 is not clear.
First, it is not clear what components’ top surface is referred by the claim.
Second, it is not clear what “the second outer radius of the second piece”. Does the claim recite such that the second outer radius is part of the second piece?
(9) The “the angled top section is defined on a top surface of the lower horizontal section” of Claim 21 is not clear, because it is not clear what the “defined on a top surface” means. Does it mean the “the angled top section” is disposed on a top surface”, in other words, the angled top section is protruded from the top surface?
(10) The “The plasma processing chamber of claim 30” of Claim 34 and “The plasma processing chamber of claim 31” of Claims 36-37 are not clear, because the claims 34 and 36-37 do not recite any details of the processing chamber, thus it is not clear how the dependency is constructed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 34 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
(1) Continued from 112 rejection of Claims 34 and 36-37 above,
Claims 34 and 36-37 fail to further limit the claims 30-31 limitations, because the claims 30-31 do not define the features of the claims 34 and 36-37.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-2, 6, 9, 18 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhindsa (US 20130133834, hereafter ‘834).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘834 teaches:
Plasma processing chamber (Fig. 1, title), and plasma confinement ring 15 ([0049], the claimed “A confinement ring for use in a plasma processing chamber”);
a shroud 13, to define the plasma confinement region 14 ([0036], note Fig. 2 shows the plasma confinement ring 15 is directly connected with the shroud 13, the part 102a and the part 102, therefore, as a whole, the connected combination of the components can be reads into the confinement ring having the recited structural features, see the illustration below (the claimed “comprising: an upper horizontal section extending between an inner upper radius and a first outer radius; a mid-section extending between the inner upper radius and a second outer radius; a lower horizontal section extending between an inner lower radius and the second outer radius; an upper vertical section extending between the upper horizontal section and the mid-section proximate to the inner upper radius; a lower vertical section extending between the mid-section and the lower horizontal section proximate to the second outer radius; and a vertical extension extending downward from the lower horizontal section proximate to the inner lower radius”).
PNG
media_image3.png
503
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding to Claim 2,
‘834 teaches a plasma confinement region 14 defined by a top electrode assembly 16 and a lower chuck assembly 18 ([0035]) and The top electrode assembly also includes a shroud 13, which is connected to the top electrode assembly 16 and engages with the chuck assembly 18 to define the plasma confinement region 14. Perforations 15 are defined for gas flow exiting the plasma confinement region 14. The perforations are defined in a ring that functions to confine plasma in the region 14 ([0036], the claimed “wherein a plasma volume is disposed between an upper electrode structure, a lower electrode and the confinement ring of the plasma processing chamber”).
Regarding to Claims 6 and 18,
The illustration above shows an S-shaped structure (the claimed “wherein the upper horizontal section, the upper vertical section, the mid-section, the lower vertical section, and the lower horizontal section together define an S-shaped structure” of Claim 6, and “wherein the upper horizontal section, the upper vertical section, the mid-section, the lower vertical section and the lower horizontal section form a unitary S-shaped structure, and the vertical extension defined proximate to the inner lower radius integrally continues the S-shaped structure downward, the unitary S-shaped structure configured to confine plasma within a plasma region defined in the plasma processing chamber” of Claim 18).
Regarding to Claim 9,
The illustration above shows that a height between a top surface of the lower horizontal section and a bottom surface of the mid-section is smaller than a height between a top surface of the mid-section and a bottom surface of the upper horizontal section (the claimed “wherein a first height defined between a top surface of the lower horizontal section and a bottom surface of the mid-section proximate to the second outer radius is less than a second height defined between a top surface of the mid-section and a bottom surface of the upper horizontal section proximate to the inner upper radius”).
Regarding to Claim 32, ‘834 teaches:
Plasma processing chamber (Fig. 1, title), and plasma confinement ring 15 ([0049], the claimed “A plasma processing chamber for confining plasma”);
Exciting an electric field between two electrodes is one of the methods to obtain RF gas discharge in an etching chamber. When an oscillating voltage is applied between the electrodes, the discharge obtained is referred to as a capacitive coupled plasma (CCP) discharge ([0032]), and The reactor includes a surrounding chamber 10 defined by an surrounding chamber wall 12, and a plasma confinement region 14 defined by a top electrode assembly 16 and a lower chuck assembly 18 ([0035], the claimed “including a lower electrode disposed in a lower portion of the plasma processing chamber, the lower electrode including a support surface for supporting a substrate; an upper electrode structure disposed in an upper portion of the plasma processing chamber and oriented opposite the lower electrode”);
The top electrode assembly also includes a shroud 13, which is connected to the top electrode assembly 16 and engages with the chuck assembly 18 to define the plasma confinement region 14 ([0036], note Fig. 2 shows the plasma confinement ring 15 is directly connected with the shroud 13, the part 102a and the part 102, therefore, as a whole, the connected combination of the components can be reads into the confinement ring having the recited structural features, see also the same illustration below, the claimed “a confinement ring coupled to a portion of the upper electrode structure and disposed between the upper electrode structure and the lower electrode, the confinement ring includes, an upper horizontal section extending between an inner upper radius and a first outer radius; a mid-section extending between the inner upper radius and a second outer radius; a lower horizontal section extending between an inner lower radius and the second outer radius; an upper vertical section extending between the upper horizontal section and the mid-section proximate to the inner upper radius; a lower vertical section extending between the mid-section and the lower horizontal section proximate to the second outer radius; and a vertical extension extending downward from the lower horizontal section proximate to the inner lower radius”).
PNG
media_image3.png
503
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding to Claim 33,
‘834 teaches a plasma confinement region 14 defined by a top electrode assembly 16 and a lower chuck assembly 18 ([0035]) and The top electrode assembly also includes a shroud 13, which is connected to the top electrode assembly 16 and engages with the chuck assembly 18 to define the plasma confinement region 14. Perforations 15 are defined for gas flow exiting the plasma confinement region 14. The perforations are defined in a ring that functions to confine plasma in the region 14 ([0036], the claimed “wherein a plasma volume is disposed between an upper electrode structure, a lower electrode and the confinement ring of the plasma processing chamber”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘834) in view of Gottscho (US 20160216185, hereafter ‘185).
Regarding to Claim 22,
‘834 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 22: wherein the lower vertical section includes one or more optical emission spectroscopy (OES) holes with probes disposed therein to monitor plasma within the plasma processing chamber for end-point detection.
‘185 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing apparatus (abstract). ‘185 teaches plasma process chamber 110 may include an inspection scope 132 (e.g., a borescope), which includes an optical extension 140 that is operable to enter the inside the chamber through valve 140 to inspect one or more parts within the chamber. Any inspection scope may be used, as long as the inspection scope is able to detect the trigger feature. In some embodiments, the inspection scope may be one of a optical camera, imaging camera, SIMs (Scanning Electron Microscopes), RGB cameras, infrared cameras, depth sensing cameras, or any other camera that can detect color or difference in reflections ([0035], note Fig. 1A shows the monitoring is performed through a hole in the confinement rings 138).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added one or more holes, to the vertical section of the confinement ring of ‘834, for the purpose of monitoring one or more parts within the chamber. Further note, through the imported holes, use of either the optical emission spectroscopy (OES) or any other detection devices is mere intended use of the hole, because the hole can be used for any purpose depending on the desired application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-30 are allowable.
Claims 4, 8, 10-11, 20 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights