DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 8/13/2026.
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 Status
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claim 5 is withdrawn.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa (US 20180337025 A1) in view of Yoshimoto (JP 2005142436 A, using the previously attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Umezawa teaches a plasma etching apparatus (Umezawa, Fig. 1, [0038], plasma processing apparatus 10), comprising:
a chamber (Umezawa, Fig. 1, [0038], processing container 12);
a support body provided inside the chamber and configured to hold a substrate (Umezawa, Fig. 1, [0040], holding structure 18 supports wafer W and is accommodated in container 12);
a plasma generator including a plasma source and configured to generate plasma inside the chamber (Umezawa, Fig. 1, [0042], plasma source 16 is configured to excite the gas in container 12); and
a controller (Umezawa, Fig. 1, [0052], control unit Cnt),
wherein the support body has a placement surface on which the substrate is placed (Umezawa, Fig. 2, [0080], wafer W is held on upper surface 32a of holding structure 18), and is configured to rotate the substrate about a perpendicular line passing through a center of an upper surface of the substrate placed on the placement surface (Umezawa, Fig. 2, [0043], holding structure 18 is configured to rotate the wafer W about a second axis AX2 orthogonal to surface FS of wafer W), and the support body is configured such that the placement surface is tilted with respect to a horizontal plane (Umezawa, Figs. 1 and 2, [0044]-[0046], upper surface 32a is tilted with respect to XY plane FA1 when holding structure 18 is rotated), the perpendicular line passes through a center of the plasma source only when the placement surface is not tilted with respect to the horizontal plane (Umezawa, Figs. 1 and 2, [0044]-[0046], axis PX passes through center of plasma source 16 and coincides with axis AX2 when holding structure 18 is not rotated, and axis AX2 does not coincide with axis PX when holding structure 18 is rotated), and
wherein the controller performs a first control so that during a plasma etching, the placement surface is tilted with respect to the horizontal plane and the substrate placed on the placement surface is rotated about the perpendicular line (Umezawa, Figs. 1-2, [0125]-[0127], plasma etching process MT includes steps where the holding structure 18 is inclined with respect to horizontal reference plane FA1 and rotated.
While Umezawa teaches in the inclined rotation states, the workpiece is rotated about a central axis thereof over a predetermined process time (Umezawa, [0006], Umezawa fails to explicitly teach a second control so that a total number of the rotations of the substrate placed on the placement surface about the perpendicular line during the plasma etching becomes a predetermined value, wherein the predetermined value is set such that an orientation of the substrate at a start of the processing and an orientation of the substrate at an end of the processing are identical.
However, Yoshimoto teaches a second control so that a total number of the rotations of the substrate placed on the placement surface about the perpendicular line during the plasma etching becomes a predetermined value (Yoshimoto, [0117], substrate holder 47 is inclined and rotated such that the number of rotations during plasma processing is controlled by the control means to be 360° x integer), wherein the predetermined value is set such that an orientation of the substrate at a start of the processing and an orientation of the substrate at an end of the processing are identical (see previous citation, any integer multiple of 360° will necessarily return the circular wafer back to its original orientation).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have controlled the number of rotations during processing in the manner taught by Yoshimoto as doing so can make the plasma processing amount and the plasma processing characteristic uniform of the main surface of the substrate (Yoshimoto, [0117]).
Regarding claim 2, Umezawa fails to teach wherein the predetermined value is a natural number.
However, Yoshimoto teaches wherein the predetermined value is a natural number (Yoshimoto, [0117], substrate holder 47 is inclined and rotated such that the number of rotations during plasma processing is controlled by the control means to be 360° x integer).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have controlled the number of rotations during processing in the manner taught by Yoshimoto as doing so can make the plasma processing amount and the plasma processing characteristic uniform of the main surface of the substrate (Yoshimoto, [0117]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentableover Umezawa (US 20180337025 A1) in view of Yoshimoto (JP 2005142436 A), as applied in claims 1-2, and further in view of Kodaira (US 20150090583 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-2 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Umezawa fails to teach wherein the controller performs a third control so that the substrate placed on the placement surface is rotated at a rotational speed determined in a predetermined range based on a time required for the plasma etching so that the total number of the rotations becomes the predetermined value.
However, Kodaira teaches wherein the controller performs a third control so that the substrate placed on the placement surface is rotated at a rotational speed determined in a predetermined range based on a time required for the plasma etching so that the total number of the rotations becomes the predetermined value (Kodaira, Fig. 6 – 7B, [0063], holder rotation control unit 21 controls the rotational speed of the substrate 11 to values stored in the target rotational speed map, which is created in advance).
Kodaira is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have controlled the rotational speed of the substrate in the manner taught by Kodaira as doing so would allow one to have the capability to set the speed of the rotation such that, in one revolution, the etching rate can be different in different directions with respect to the plane of the substrate, as necessitated by the process requirements (Kodaira, [0078]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Umezawa fails to teach wherein the controller performs a third control so that the substrate placed on the placement surface is rotated at a rotational speed determined in a predetermined range based on a time required for the plasma etching so that the total number of the rotations becomes the predetermined value.
However, Kodaira teaches wherein the controller performs a third control so that the substrate placed on the placement surface is rotated at a rotational speed determined in a predetermined range based on a time required for the plasma etching so that the total number of the rotations becomes the predetermined value (Kodaira, Fig. 6 – 7B, [0063], holder rotation control unit 21 controls the rotational speed of the substrate 11 to values stored in the target rotational speed map, which is created in advance).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have controlled the rotational speed of the substrate in the manner taught by Kodaira as doing so would allow one to have the capability to set the speed of the rotation such that, in one revolution, the etching rate can be different in different directions with respect to the plane of the substrate, as necessitated by the process requirements (Kodaira, [0078]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has appropriately corrected the Specification, thus the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejection of claim 1 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Notably, Applicant appears to agree with the previous Examiner’s position that Yoshimoto teaches wherein the number of rotations satisfies: 360° x {integer} (see Remarks, pg. 11). The current Examiner agrees with the previous Examiner’s assessment and further asserts that Yoshimoto fully meets the added limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s only presented argument is that Yoshimoto (allegedly) teaches solving a different problem than the instant invention (Remarks, pg. 12). The Examiner rebuts that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Yoshimoto appears to reasonably teach the claimed feature with a proper motivation, thus the Examiner believes a reasonable prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
The §103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 at (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 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights