DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 11, 15, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second through hole" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 9 or 10 as such claims support the second through holes.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first baffle" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 9 as such claim supports the baffle
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the disk and ring plate" in claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 15 as such claim supports the baffle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawada (2014/0138030).
Sawada teaches a plasma substrate processing chamber, comprising:
- a process chamber, see Fig. 1,
- an upper electrode, see 302 [042],
- a substate holder in the chamber, see susceptor 416, with an RF source applying power, see 182 [0042], wherein the upper electrode comprises:
- an upper electrode conductive plate with a lower surface having different heights from the substrate holder at different locations, see Figs. 4, 6 and 7 particularly, with
- a compensation plate coupled to a lower portion of the upper electrode conductive plate to have thicknesses that compensate for the thickness variation of the upper plate, see Fig. 16 particularly, as per [0070] the plate is dielectric and as depicted the lower surface is a coplanar surface.
Regarding claim 2, the plates include a number of through holes (324) penetrating both plates, see Fig. 16.
Regarding claims 3 and 25, the upper electrode is grounded [0049].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as per Fig. 16, all elements are met, the upper electrode has a constant thickness with that of the upper electrode and compensation plate varying by location. Wherein the compensation plate is a dielectric [0070], such as silicon, it necessarily has a dielectric constant.
Regarding claim 23, all elements of the claim are taught as per above, the further element includes the compensation plate being coupled to the upper electrode plate, but that is likewise taught by Sawada (noted figures).
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.
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.
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 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed patterns are not present on the plates of Sawada, however, as per MPEP IV. B. a change of shape is obvious without a showing of criticality. To modify the plate for any such pattern would have been obvious and the specification does not support criticality for the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Examiner takes Official Notice that low and high frequency power sources are well known in the art and would have been obvious modifications. The use of a pulse controller is likewise well known, to apply the pulse controller is intended use of the apparatus and the apparatus is capable of the same use.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Ueda (2010/0193131).
The teachings of Sawada are described above, teaching the claimed system but not teaching the claimed ground ring or ground cavity. Ueda teaches that a plasma processing chamber includes a cylindrical wall, anti-diffusion ring 33 (i.e. ring), the ring is below the upper chamber (equivalent to upper electrode of Sawada) and with an inner dimension larger than the substrate holder, see Fig. 1, [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the ring of Ueda to the system of Sawada in order to help prevent diffusion of materials into other portions of the chamber as taught per Ueda. The ring of Ueda is electrically connected to the chamber and grounded [0036].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada and Ueda (2010/0193131) in view of Li (6,506,685).
The teachings of Sawada and Ueda do not include the claimed ground cavity. But Li teaches an analogous configuration including a shroud 120 on the interior of a chamber wall, with a confinement ring 122 with concentric rings 124 and spaces 126, see also Fig. 2 and [0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the confinement ring structure of Li as an operable alternative to that taught by Ueda in the apparatus of Sawada.
Claims 9-14, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Chen (2015/0167160) and Dhinsida (2015/0083582).
The teachings of Sawada are described above, not teaching the remote generator or the multiple baffles as claimed. Chen teaches that it is useful for a variety of processes to include a remote radical source at the top of the chamber, see source 150 in Fig. 1 [0021], the teachings include a cavity 135 and plate 170 for the radicals to be supplied, but do not include the two baffle plates. Dhindsa though teaches a radical supply system wherein gas/radicals are supplied from over the substrate chamber and teaches that multiple plates (i.e. baffles) are useful to control the flow of species to the substrate, see particularly Figs. 1 and 2 and [0021, 44, 75]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the radical source and multiple baffle plates as taught by the combined teachings of Chen and Dhindsa as a means of providing and controlling radicals to the chamber. As per the combined text (figures) the baffles have through holes. As per claim 2, the upper electrode is electrically grounded and to control the additional baffle in the same way would have been further obvious for further control of the electrical species.
Regarding claim 10,per Fig. 2B, Dhindsa teaches non-overlapping through holes.
Regarding claim 11, the claim requires a plasma to form the plasma sheath – the limitations are met as the plasma is controllable to meet the size requirements.
Regarding claims 12-14, as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. a selection or change of size is obvious without a showing of criticality. To form the components in the claimed dimensions would have therefore been obvious and are not shown as critical.
Regarding claim 17, the through holes are not inclined as claimed, but as MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. a selection of shape is obvious without a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 21, the elements of the claim are addressed by Sawada with Dhindsa as presented above. The teachings include the auxiliary chamber as noted and the multiple plates that are spaced apart. The power and ground electrode as described as above and not repeated.
Claims 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada, Chen and Dhinsida and in further view of KR10-2014/0028703.
The teachings of Sawada et al are described above – the teachings do not teach the claimed first baffle configuration, but ‘703 teaches a baffle 250 (see Fig. 4), the baffle is installed a source space and comprises a circular plate with a thickness and radius relative to the source space. The baffle is attachable to a connection port 250 and has a first group of holes 251 that extend between the surfaces and also another group of holes 253 that extend in the center region. The elements of the size are addressed as per claims 12-14 above.
Regarding claim 19, ‘703 teaches a plasma generator 210 that includes an induction coil 215 that is wound around the reactor [0059, 0062]. Such an implementation would have been further obvious as a selection of plasma source.
Regarding claim 20, the elements of the claim are drawn to the size and shape of the elements of the apparatus, such elements are not patentable as argued in claims 12-14 and 17 above.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Li.
Ueda teaches a plasma substrate processing apparatus comprising:
- a chamber, 11 Fig. 2, [0024],
- an upper electrode, see shower plate 31, connected to the grounded chamber [0036],
- a substrate holder, 20, below the upper electrode to support the substrate W, [0034],
- an RF power supply connected to the substrate holder, see 40 [0035], the teachings include all elements of the claim except for the ground cavity.
But Li teaches an analogous configuration including a shroud 120 on the interior of a chamber wall, with a confinement ring 122 with concentric rings 124 and spaces 126, see also Fig. 2 and [0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the confinement ring structure of Li as an operable alternative to that taught by Ueda.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. There is no reason to attach the disk and ring plate as claimed in view of the applied or known prior art.
Claims 22 and 24 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. To claim 22, the prior art does not reasonably teach the two compensation plates in combination with the additionally claimed elements. While duplication of parts is generally obvious, it is not clear that one would hold the same compensation plate structure as taught by Sawada on an auxiliary electrode. To claim 24, there is no specific reason in the art to vary the dielectric constant of the portions of the compensation plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights