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 .
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
Gas distributor (showerhead, para. [0023]) in at least claims 1-20.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20180096821 to Lubomirsky.
Claim 1: Lubomirsky discloses a process chamber (200 [etch chamber], Fig. 2), comprising a chamber body (200) having a processing volume (284 [first chamber region]); a substrate support (250 [chuck]) comprising a powered electrode (249 [mesh]), the substrate support (250) disposed in the chamber body (200) and partially defining the processing volume (284); a gas distributor (215/210 [flow distributor]/second showerhead]) disposed above the chamber body (200) and facing the substrate support (250, Fig. 2), wherein the gas distributor (215/210) is electrically insulated from the chamber body (200, para. [0040]);
a RF power source (252/253 [first/second RF generator], Fig. 2) configured to apply a RF power to the powered electrode (249) to generate and maintain a plasma in the processing volume between the powered electrode (249) and a grounded electrode (225 or 205/210/215, para. [0040]); and a grounding plate (225 [first showerhead]) disposed between the chamber body (200) and the gas distributor (215/210) and partially defining the processing volume (284), wherein the grounding plate (225) is coupled to an electrical ground (para. [0037]), comprises a plurality of passages (282 [apertures]) extending therethrough (para. [0039]), and is configured to operate as at least part of the grounded electrode (225 or 205/210/215) for generating and maintaining the plasma in the processing volume (para. [0040]).
Claim 2: Lubomirsky discloses wherein a grounded surface area of the grounded electrode (225 or 210/215/205, Fig. 2, Lubomirsky) comprises a surface area of the grounding plate (surface area of 225) and an interior surface area of the chamber body (interior surface of 200) at least partially defining the processing volume (284).
Claim 4: Lubomirsky discloses wherein the plasma generated by the RF power source (252/253, Fig. 2, Lubomirsky) in the processing volume (284) is a capacitively coupled plasma (para. [0035]).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Lubomirsky discloses discloses wherein the processing volume (284, Fig. 2, Lubomirsky) is defined by the grounding plate (225), the substrate support (250), and the chamber body (200).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Lubomirsky discloses further comprising a spacer (230 [dielectric spacer], Fig. 2) disposed between the chamber body (200) and the grounding plate (225) and partially defining the processing volume (284), and wherein a grounded surface area of the grounded electrode (surface of 225) comprises a surface area of the grounding plate (surface of 225) and an interior surface area of the spacer (interior surface of 230, Fig. 2).
Claim 7: The apparatus of Lubomirsky discloses wherein the grounding plate (225, Fig. 2, Lubomirsky) is conductively coupled with the chamber body (200).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Lubomirsky discloses wherein the plurality of passages (282 [apertures], Fig. 2, Lubomirsky) is configured to fluidly connect the gas distributor (210/215) and the processing volume (284).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Lubomirsky discloses further comprising an inductively coupled plasma source (coils, para. [0061], similar embodiment) disposed on a lid assembly (502/509/515/510) coupled to and above the chamber body (above 503, para. [0061]), the lid assembly comprising the gas distributor (523) and a ceramic material (510 [spacer]) to provide a dielectric break between the inductively coupled plasma source and the chamber body (para. [0055]).
Claim 10: The apparatus of Lubomirsky discloses wherein when the RF power applied is greater than about 550W (para. [0062], Fig. 2, Lubomirsky) and the grounding plate (225) coupled with the chamber body (200) is configured as the grounded electrode (225) to generate a capacitively coupled plasma in the processing volume (284).
Regarding the limitation, the grounding plate increases a sheath voltage of the powered electrode by about 30%, the apparatus of Lubomirsky is capable to perform as necessary with the structure provided. The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Lubomirsky discloses wherein when the grounding plate (225, Fig. 2, Lubomirsky) is used as the grounded electrode (225) to generate a capacitively coupled plasma in the processing volume (para. [0037]), the grounding plate (225) provides enhanced ion bombardment of a substrate disposed on the substrate support (para. [0035, 0037]).
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20180096821 to Lubomirsky.
Claim 12: Lubomirsky discloses a process chamber (200 or 500 [etch chamber], Fig. 2 or 5), comprising a lid assembly (502/509/515/510); an inductively coupled plasma source (coils, para. [0061], [0050]) disposed on the lid assembly (para. [0061); a chamber body (503 [chamber housing]) coupled to the lid assembly (502/509/515/510), wherein the lid assembly (502/509/515/510) and the chamber body (503) defines a chamber volume (560 [processing region]), and the lid assembly (502/509/515/510) comprises a non-conductive material (510) for providing a dielectric break between the inductively coupled plasma source (coils) and the chamber body (503);
a substrate support (565 [pedestal]) comprising a powered electrode (not shown but disclosed, para. [0060]), the substrate support (565) disposed in the chamber volume (560) and partially defining a processing volume (560) in the chamber volume (560); and a grounding plate (523 [faceplate]) coupled to an electrical ground (534 [electrical ground]) and disposed between the lid assembly (502/509/515/510) and the chamber body (503), wherein the grounding plate (523) is configured to operate as part of a grounded electrode (523) for generating a plasma in the processing volume between the powered electrode (para. [0060]) and the grounded electrode (523), and a grounded surface area of the grounded electrode (surface area of 523) comprises a surface area of the grounding plate (surface area of 523) and an interior surface area of the chamber body (interior surface of 503).
Claim 13: Lubomirsky discloses further comprising a first RF power source (not shown but disclosed, para. [0050], Fig. 5, Lubomirsky) for powering the inductively coupled plasma source (para. [0050]).
Claim 14: Lubomirsky discloses further comprising a second RF power source (554 [electrical source], Fig. 5, Lubomirsky) for providing a RF power to the powered electrode (para. [0060]) for generating and maintaining the plasma in the processing volume (560).
Claim 15: Lubomirsky discloses wherein the lid assembly (502/509/515/510, Fig. 5, Lubomirsky) comprises a gas distributor (509/515 [faceplate]/[showerhead]) for providing a processing gas from a gas source (para. [0039]), and the grounding plate (523) comprises a plurality of passages (524 [apertures]) to fluidly connect the gas distributor (509/515) and the processing volume (560).
Claim 16: Lubomirsky discloses further comprising a spacer (not shown but disclosed, para. [0058], Fig. 5, Lubomirsky) disposed between the grounding plate (523) and the substrate support (565), and wherein the processing volume (560) is defined by the grounding plate (523), the spacer (not shown, para. [0058]), and the substrate support (565).
Claim(s) 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20180096821 to Lubomirsky.
Claim 17: Lubomirsky discloses a process chamber (200 or 500 [etch chamber], Fig. 2 or 5), comprising a lid assembly (502/509/515/510); an inductively coupled plasma source (coils, para. [0061], [0050]) disposed on the lid assembly (para. [0061), a chamber body (503 [chamber housing]) coupled to the lid assembly (502/509/515/510), wherein the lid assembly (502/509/515/510) and the chamber body (503) defines a chamber volume (560 [processing region]) and the lid assembly is electrically insulated from the chamber body and the lid assembly (502/509/515/510) is electrically insulated from the chamber body (503);
a substrate support (565 [pedestal]) comprising a powered electrode (not shown but disclosed, para. [0060]), the substrate support (565) disposed in the chamber volume (560) and partially defining a processing volume (560) in the chamber volume (560); and a grounding plate (523 [faceplate]) coupled to an electrical ground (534 [electrical ground]) and disposed between the lid assembly (502/509/515/510) and the chamber body (503);
wherein the grounding plate (523) comprises: a plate body (523) configured to be coupled with the chamber body (503) and partially defining the processing volume (560); a plurality of passages (524 [apertures]) extending through the plate body (523); and a grounding surface facing the processing volume (Fig. 5) and the substrate support (565) when the plate body (523) is coupled to the chamber body (503), wherein:
the plate body (523) is configured to operate as part of a grounded electrode (523) for generating a capacitvely coupled plasma in the processing volume between the powered electrode (not-shown electrode coupled to 554) and the grounded electrode (523); and a grounded surface area of the grounded electrode (surface of 523) comprises a surface area of the plate body (surface of 523) and an interior surface area of the chamber body (interior surface of 503) at least partially defining the processing volume (560) when the plate body (523) is coupled to the chamber body (503).
Claim 19: Lubomirsky discloses wherein the plate body (523, Fig. 5, Lubomirsky) comprises an electrically conductive metallic material (para. [0047]).
Claim 20: Lubomirsky discloses wherein when the plate body (523, Fig. 5, Lubomirsky) is coupled to the chamber body of the process chamber (503 of 500), the plurality of passages (524) is configured to fluidly connect a gas distributor 509/515 [faceplate]/[showerhead]) of the process chamber (500) to the processing volume (506).
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky as applied to claims 1-2, 4-11 above, and further in view of US 20110174606 to Funk.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Lubomirsky does not disclose wherein the grounding plate increases the grounded surface area of the grounded electrode by about 2.5X.
However Funk teaches wherein a grounding plate (317/347 [ground electrode], Fig. 3) increases the grounded surface area of the grounded electrode (317/347) as necessary (para. [0088]) for the purpose of attaining desirability to comprise a large contact area with a plasma to lower the plasma potential (para. [0088]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of surface area size with motivation to attain desirability to comprise a large contact area with a plasma to lower the plasma potential.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubomirsky as applied to claims 17, 19-20 above.
Claim 18: The apparatus of Lubomirsky does not disclose wherein a thickness of the plate body is between about .2 inches and about 1 inch.
Yet Lubomirsky teaches that the faceplate can have a variety of thicknesses (para. [0047]) for the purpose of suppressing migration of ionically-charged species out of a plasma chamber region while allowing uncharged neutral or radical species to pass through into an activated gas delivery region downstream of the ion suppressor (para. [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of thickness of the plate body (faceplate) as taught by Lubomirsky with motivation to suppress migration of ionically-charged species out of a plasma chamber region while allowing uncharged neutral or radical species to pass through into an activated gas delivery region downstream of the ion suppressor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240068096 discloses a spacer (142 [lower isolator], Fig. 1) under a grounded plate (146 [ion filter) above a pedestal (112) by same assignee.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights