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 Species A and Second Species D, readable on claims 1-14, 16-17, 19 and 24-25, in the reply filed on 28 June 2026 is acknowledged. First, Examiner acknowledges the typographical error in the requirement and apologizes for any genuine confusion it may have created. Applicant has correctly interpreted the requirement – two elections were necessary, one based on the configuration of the main baffle, and one based on the configuration of the plasma blocking baffle. Thus, the requirement remains as set forth previously and traversal on subject matter and propriety of the requirement is addressed below.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that: 1) the office action does not mention any mutually exclusive characteristics and there may be overlap between species of the main baffle and species of the plasma blocking baffle; and 2) Examiner has failed to provide reasons or explanations as to why the species cause a search and/or examination burden. These traversals are not found persuasive because 1) the office action clearly states that that the species are represented by the configuration of the main baffle and the plasma blocking baffle, respectively. For purposes of requiring an election of species, the finding of species does not mean that there can be no overlap between, rather that there is a mutually exclusive characteristic that does not overlap. The figures relied upon illustrate the mutually exclusive characteristics and the original disclosure provides additional support and description with respect to the differences. Furthermore, Examiner has not concluded that the species are patentably distinct and closed examination. Examination will proceed according to the guidelines of the MPEP, which Examiner has previously followed and intends to continue to follow. Examiner also notes that “patentably distinct” and “patentable” are not interchangeable when describing two inventions. The Examiner has found the species appear to be patentably distinct, whether or not they are patentable is yet to be determined. Appropriate practices will be used to determine the same; and 2) a serious search burden exists based on the divergent subject matter of the individual species of both groups of species (two groups of species), wherein additional search areas and search terms will be necessary for each of the species as represented by the different configurations thereof.
Examiner notes that Applicant has not pointed to any particular deficiency but has rather pointed to a theory that the requirement may not be supported and there may not be mutual exclusive characteristics or there may not be burden. The figures relied upon in the requirement illustrate mutually exclusive characteristics and arrangements that appear to be patentably distinct and represent a search burden. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments, if taken to their logical conclusion, would appear to require full examination of all species in order to address patentability, patentable distinctness and search burden with finality. However, this is not standard or threshold for requiring and maintaining a requirement of election between species according to current US practice.
Thus, for each of the reasons set forth above, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Rejoinder will be considered at the appropriate time in the examination process.
Claims 15, 18 and 20-23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “149” has been used to designate both “pulse control unit” (claim 3) and capacitor (claim 4).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “parasitic capacitor” (claims 6-7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s), if it is intended to be a structural feature. No new matter should be entered.
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.
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. 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.
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: pulse control unit in claim 3 wherein no specific structure has been located in the specification.
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 § 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.
As discussed above, “pulse control unit” (claim 3) invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference of “pulse control unit” in the disclosure details a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
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 3-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim 3 limitation “pulse control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the DC pulse power”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to refer to “the DC pulse power source” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 6 requires “a parasitic capacitor” it is not clear whether or not this is a structural feature. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed it is not a structural feature of the disclosed apparatus as no evidence of the same has been located in the original disclosure. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the capacitor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to be dependent on claim 4. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 10 recite the limitation the “first through hole” and “the second through hole”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to depend from claim 9 and recited “the plurality of first through-holes” and “the plurality of second through-holes” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the second through hole” and “the second through-holes” and There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “each second through-hole of the plurality of second through-holes” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 13-14 recite the limitation “the first through hole” and “the second through hole”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “each first through-hole of the plurality of first through-holes” and “each second through-hole of the plurality of second through-holes” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the outer surface” and “the inner surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “the inclined inner surface” and “the inclined inner surface” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 25 recites “the opening of the upper chamber is disposed in a truncated portion”. However, the claim fails to clearly relate the truncated portion to the previously recited truncated cone shape of the upper chamber, which appears to be related. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “the opening of the upper chamber is disposed in or at a truncated portion of the truncated cone shape of the upper chamber” and has examined accordingly.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0200587 to Godet al.
Regarding claim 1: Godet et al. disclose a plasma substrate treatment apparatus comprising: a remote plasma generator (e.g. Fig. 2, 215) capable of generating remote plasma and active species; an upper chamber (e.g. between 215 and 235 ) having an opening (e.g. through holes in 235) connected to an output port (bottom outlet/output of openings in 235) of the remote plasma generator and capable of receiving and diffusing the active species from the remote plasma generator; a lower chamber (e.g. 212) capable of receiving the diffused active species from the upper chamber; a main baffle (e.g. 260 and 270) partitioning the upper chamber and the lower chamber and capable of allowing the active species to permeate therethrough; a substrate holder (218) capable of supporting a substrate disposed in the lower chamber; a RF power source (274) capable of applying RF power to the substrate holder to generate main plasma; and a DC pulse power source (also 274) capable of applying a DC pulse to the substrate holder. Godet et al. disclose providing the substrate holder connected to an RF and/or DC pulse power source so as to generate a plasma and/or bias potential at selected times and not a other times (see, e.g., para. 38). Additionally, Godet et al. teach that pulsed plasma generation and subsequent bias application to plasma after glow may provide for improved atomic layer etching (ALE) characteristics (see, e.g., abstract).
With respect to claim 8, in modified Godet et al., Godet et al. disclose a plasma blocking baffle (e.g. 235).
With respect to claim 9, in modified Godet et al., Godet et al. disclose the main baffle comprises an upper baffle (260) capable of being electrically grounded and opposing the upper chamber and comprising a plurality of first through-holes (also see, e.g., para. 33); and a lower baffle (270) electrically grounded and spaced apart from the upper baffle and comprising a plurality of second through-holes (also see, e.g., para. 36).
With respect to claim 10, in modified Godet et al., Godet et al. disclose the plurality of second through holes is disposed to avoid overlapping the plurality of first through-holes in a vertical direction.
With respect to claim 11, which relates the diameter of the plurality of second through holes to a processing condition (i.e. plasma sheath), the courts have ruled 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
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.
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(s) 2-3, 13-14 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godet et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0059448 to Marakhtanov et al.
Godet et al. disclose the plasma substrate treatment apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, with respect to claim 2, Godet et al. fail to disclose the RF power source may be a RF power source of more than 13.56MHz and less than 60 MHz
In a similar plasma substrate treatment apparatus, Marakhtanov et al. disclose providing an RF power source (410) may be a RF power source of more than 13.56MHz and less than 60 wherein the frequency of the power source may be selected to provide for processing at desired processing conditions, such as chamber pressure (see, e.g., paras. 43-45, 51 and 89).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Godet et al. the RF power source as a RF power source of more than 13.56MHz and less than 60 in order to provide a power source selected for processing at desired processing conditions, such as chamber pressure as taught by Marakhtanov et al.
With respect to claim 3, Godet et al. fail to disclose a pulse control unit (430) controlling the DC pulse power source and the RF power source, wherein each of the DC pulse power source and the RF power source are capable of operating in pulse mode.
In the similar plasma substrate treatment apparatus, Marakhtanov et al., teach use of a pulse control unit (e.g. 430) controlling the pulsing of power sources in order to set parameters including frequency, power, and ON/OFF duty cycle (see, e.g., paras. 51 and 76). Regarding the intended use relating to specific timing intervals, the courts have ruled 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Godet et al. a pulse control unit in order to control pulsing of power sources in order to set parameters including frequency, power, and ON/OFF duty cycle as taught by Marakhtanov et al.
With respect to claim 13, Godet et al. discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Godet al. fail to do disclose a diameter of each first through-hole of the plurality of first through-holes is smaller than a diameter of each second through-hole of the plurality of second through-holes. Nevertheless, Marakhtanov et al. teaches that holes for supplying plasma are defined to optimize fluid flow, holes can be defined with essentially any diameter size, so long as the diameter size provides for adequate fluid flow there through while simultaneously providing for adequate suppression of plasma intrusion therein (see, e.g., para. 72). It is also noted that the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Godet et al. each first through-hole of the plurality of first through-holes is smaller than a diameter of each second through-hole of the plurality of second through-holes in order to optimize fluid flow for adequate fluid flow there through while simultaneously providing for adequate suppression of plasma intrusion therein as taught by Marakhtanov et al.
With respect to claim 14, in modified Godet et al., Godet et al. disclose the plurality of second through holes is disposed to avoid overlapping the plurality of first through-holes in a vertical direction.
With respect to claim 25, Godet et al. fail to disclose the output port of the remote plasma generator has a diameter ranging from 50 millimeters to 150 millimeters, the upper chamber has a truncated cone shape, and the opening of the upper chamber is disposed in or at a truncated portion of the truncated cone shape of the upper chamber.
In a similar plasma substrate treatment apparatus, Marakhtanov et al. disclose a remote plasma generator (e.g. Figs. 5-6, 501) capable of generating remote plasma and active species; an upper chamber (e.g. 503) having an opening (e.g. holes in 501) connected to an output port (e.g. bottom opening of holes in 501) of the remote plasma generator and capable of receiving and diffusing the active species from the remote plasma generator, the upper chamber has a truncated cone shape (as illustrated in Fig. 5), and the opening of the upper chamber is disposed in or at a truncated portion of the truncated cone shape of the upper chamber. The remote plasma source for providing controllable upper plasma in addition to a controllable lower plasma allows for independent control enabling extensive possibilities with regard to wafer processing recipes, particularly concerning independent control of radical and neutral flux relative to ion flux (see, e.g., para. 87). Regarding limitation that the output port of the remote plasma generator has a diameter ranging from 50 millimeters to 150 millimeters, elsewhere Marakhtanov et al. teaches that holes for supplying plasma are defined to optimize fluid flow, holes can be defined with essentially any diameter size, so long as the diameter size provides for adequate fluid flow there through while simultaneously providing for adequate suppression of plasma intrusion therein (see, e.g., para. 72). It is also noted that the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Godet et al. the output port of the remote plasma generator has a diameter ranging from 50 millimeters to 150 millimeters, the upper chamber has a truncated cone shape, and the opening of the upper chamber is disposed in or at a truncated portion of the truncated cone shape of the upper chamber in order to allow for independent control enabling extensive possibilities with regard to wafer processing recipes, particularly concerning independent control of radical and neutral flux relative to ion flux and to optimize fluid flow for adequate fluid flow there through while simultaneously providing for adequate suppression of plasma intrusion therein as taught by Marakhtanov et al.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godet et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0072172 to Ui et al.
Godet et al. disclose the plasma substrate treatment apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Godet et al. fail to disclose a capacitor disposed between the DC pulse power and the substrate holder wherein the RF power source is connected to the substrate holder through the capacitor.
In a similar plasma substrate treatment apparatus, Ui et al disclose a substrate holder (e.g., Fig. 19, 16) capable of supporting a substrate; an RF power source (19) capable of applying RF power to the substrate holder to generate plasma; and a DC pulse power source (21) capable of applying a DC pulse to the substrate holder; and a capacitor (61) disposed between the DC pulse power source and the substrate holder, wherein the RF power source is connected to the substrate holder through the capacitor for the purpose of controlling voltage change of a substrate held on the substrate holder during processing (see, e.g., abstract and paras. 114-120).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Godet et al. a capacitor disposed between the DC pulse power source and the substrate holder, wherein the RF power source is connected to the substrate holder through the capacitor in order to control voltage change of a substrate held on the substrate holder during processing as taught by Ui et al.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Godet at al., Ui et al. further discloses an RF filter (20) disposed between the DC pulse power source and the capacitor, wherein the RF filter is capable of blocking an RF signal of the RF power source (see, e.g., para. 42).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, which are drawn to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, the courts have ruled 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Note: as addressed above, there is no indication or evidence in the original disclosure that the “parasitic capacitor” is a structural feature of the claimed apparatus. As modified Godet et al. includes the requisite structural features as claimed, it is considered capable of the claimed intended use(s).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godet et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 and as further set forth below.
Regarding claim 12, Godet et al. disclose the plasma substrate treatment apparatus substantially as claimed and as set forth above, wherein additionally a gap between the substrate holder and a lower surface of the upper baffle is necessarily larger than a gap between the upper baffle (i.e. lower surface) and the lower baffle (i.e. upper surface).
However, while Godet et al. fail to disclose a gap between the upper baffle and the lower baffle is less than or equal to several millimeters, Godet et al. do teach that by minimizing the dimensions of structures of the apparatus, processes performed therein may be performed more economically and processing conditions may be changed more efficiently and quickly (see, e.g., para. 35).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Godet et al. a gap between the upper baffle and the lower baffle is minimized in order to perform, processes therein more economically and change processing conditions more efficiently and quickly as taught elsewhere in Godet et al.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godet et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 above in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,643,394 to Maydan et al.
Godet et al. disclose the plasma substrate treatment apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Godet et al. fail to disclose the plasma blocking baffle comprises: a disk having an inclined surface; and a ring plate having an inclined inner surface and an inclined outer surface and disposed to surround the disk at a predetermined distance from the disk, the inclined outer surface of the outer disk has an outer diameter increasing with height, and the inclined inner surface of the ring plate has an inner diameter increasing with height.
In a similar plasma substrate treatment apparatus, Maydan et al. disclose a plasma blocking baffle (e.g. Figs. 6A-B) comprises: a disk (75) having an inclined surface; and a ring plate (72 and 74) having an inclined inner surface and an inclined outer surface and disposed to surround the disk at a predetermined distance from the disk, the inclined outer surface of the outer disk has an outer diameter increasing with height, and the inclined inner surface of the ring plate has an inner diameter increasing with height; and the disk and the ring plate are fixed by a plurality of bridges (96), and the ring plate is fixed to an upper chamber of the apparatus by a plurality of columns (e.g. 95 and 97), wherein the plasma blocking baffle configurations is provided as detailed for the purpose of blocking gas flow such that gas is uniformly dispersed from an injection passage (see, e.g., abstract, column 4, rows 21-42, and column 6, rows 9-38).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Godet et al. the plasma blocking baffle as a disk having an inclined surface; and a ring plate having an inclined inner surface and an inclined outer surface and disposed to surround the disk at a predetermined distance from the disk, the inclined outer surface of the outer disk has an outer diameter increasing with height, and the inclined inner surface of the ring plate has an inner diameter increasing with height; and the disk and the ring plate are fixed by a plurality of bridges, and the ring plate is fixed to an upper chamber of the apparatus by a plurality of columns wherein the plasma blocking baffle configuration is provided as detailed in order to block gas flow such that gas is uniformly dispersed from an injection passage as taught by Maydan et al.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godet et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0315392 to Xu et al.
Godet et al. disclose the plasma substrate treatment apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Godet et al. fail to disclose at least one ground ring, wherein the ground ring is disposed below the main baffle to surround plasma between the substrate holder and the main baffle and has a ring shape, and an inner diameter of the ground ring is larger than an outer diameter of the substrate holder.
In a similar plasma substrate treatment apparatus, Xu et al. disclose a main baffle (e.g. Fig. 2, 224) capable of supplying a gas in a chamber (200); a substrate holder (215) capable of supporting a substrate disposed in the chamber; and a ground ring (206) is disposed below the main baffle to surround plasma between the substrate holder and the main baffle for the purpose of substantially terminating electric fields formed with the gap of a plasma processing space and preventing the electric fields from penetrating an outer volume of the chamber (see, e.g., paras. 27 and 39-40), and has a ring shape, and an inner diameter of the ground ring is larger than an outer diameter of the substrate holder.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Godet et al. a ground ring is disposed below the main baffle to surround plasma between the substrate holder and the main baffle, and has a ring shape, and an inner diameter of the ground ring is larger than an outer diameter of the substrate holder in order to substantially terminate electric fields formed with the gap of a plasma processing space and prevent the electric fields from penetrating an outer volume of the chamber Xu et al.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godet as applied to claims 1 and 8-11 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0230839 to Mun.
Godet et al. disclose the plasma substrate treatment apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, although Godet et al. do disclose other plasma sources may be used, including inductively-coupled sources (see, e.g., para. 21), Godet et al. fail to disclose the remote plasma generator is an inductively-coupled plasma source comprising an induction coil wound around a dielectric cylinder; or the upper chamber has a truncated cone shape, and the opening of the upper chamber is disposed in or at a truncated portion of the truncated cone shape of the upper chamber.
In a similar plasma substrate treatment apparatus, Mun discloses a remote plasma generator (e.g. Figs. 4-5, 310, 331, 330) capable of generating remote plasma and active species; an upper chamber (e.g. 340 and 341 ) having an opening (e.g. at connection between 310 and 341) connected to an output port (e.g. bottom opening of 310/310a) of the remote plasma generator and capable of receiving and diffusing the active species from the remote plasma generator, wherein the remote plasma generator is an inductively-coupled plasma source comprising an induction coil (331) wound around a dielectric cylinder (310). Additionally, the upper chamber has a truncated cone shape (see, e.g., Fig. 3), and the opening of the upper chamber is disposed in or at a truncated portion of the truncated cone shape of the upper chamber. Similar to the disclosed and claimed inventions, the remote plasma generator of Mun is provided for the purpose of generating plasma from a process gas and suppling the plasma into a processing space (see, e.g., para. 55). Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Godet et al. the remote plasma generator is an inductively-coupled plasma source comprising an induction coil wound around a dielectric cylinder; and the upper chamber has a truncated cone shape, and the opening of the upper chamber is disposed in or at a truncated portion of the truncated cone shape of the upper chamber in order to generate plasma from a process gas and supply the plasma into the processing space as taught by Mun.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pubs. 2021/0032753 and 20200350147 disclose plasma substrate treatment apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights