DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim (and depending claims) is drawn to “semiconductor processing equipment” however this recitation is open ended – the claims should be drawn to “A semiconductor processing (device or piece of equipment)” or in some way that claims one piece of equipment. (See claim 12 for example). Appropriate correction is required.
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 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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) because the claim limitations 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: plasma diagnostic device, optical device and sensor in claims 1, 11 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 19 require that the diagnostic device is installed in the view port “in a center direction of the chamber” but it is not clear what this means. The specification discusses that this is the orientation, but even including orientation would need to include further specifics as far as what is oriented in the center direction.
Claim limitations “diagnostic device” and “optical device” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. There is no description what either of these elements are. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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);
(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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not provide adequate description to support the terms plasma diagnostic device or optical device and they are only described in terms of producing a magnetic field.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (2023/0066724) in view of Mihaylov (2017/0140905) and Lee (2022/0230858).
Oh teaches semiconductor processing equipment comprising:
- a chamber with a wall and wafer support – see Fig. 1, with chamber walls 100 and a wafer (W) on wafer support 120,
- at least one view port (window 110) installed on the chamber wall,
- at least one plasma diagnostic device installed in the at least one view port in a center direction of the chamber, see the combined elements of 420, 430, 410, 500 and 600, see [0019, 30-34], the term plasma diagnostic device is being interpreted as per above under 112(f), the specification does not provide guidance on what devices meet the requirements, but it is generally known in the art that tools such as spectroscopy are such devices, and Oh teaches such [0048],
- the system includes an optical device, see collimator 430, the optical device is interpreted under 112(f) as above as the optical device is not defined except by that it converts a first signal into a second signal, the collimator creates an optical signal of parallel light as claimed and therefore meets the intended use, and creates a second optical signal as an output,
- the teachings do not include a filter to filter the second optical signal and form a third optical signal, but Mihaylov teaches that in an optical detection system, it is useful to include a filter between a light collector/detector and an analysis system, see Fig. 3A and related text, particularly [0034-37]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include the filter of Mihaylov in the light processing system of Oh as Mihaylov teaches that such is useful in a system that is used for monitoring plasmas (abstract);
- a sensor to monitor distribution of the optical signals, see 500 which is the spectrometer and take in the light signals and meets the requirements of the claimed sensor as it monitors the optical signals from the chamber [0072]. It is noted that the devices must be capable of the same use but are not required to be applied in the same manner, the use is intended use. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). In this case the use of the filter and sensor are intended use but the prior art structure is the same.
All elements of the claim are taught, but Oh teaches a window and not specifi-cally teach a pinhole, but Lee teaches that in monitoring a plasma light is effectively performed using a small diameter through hole in a chamber [0052]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to monitor the plasma through a small diameter hole (i.e. pinhole) in the apparatus of Oh as Lee teaches that such a portion is useful for monitoring a plasma using light.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the teachings generally include imaging mirrors [0033], this would include any type of optical mirror including the claimed off-axis parabolic mirror. Further, per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known component for its intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality. To use an off-axis parabolic mirror would have been obvious wherein Oh teaches a mirror.
Regarding claim 3, as above, the teachings include mirrors and any number of configuration thereof would have been obvious for controlling an optical signal.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Mihaylov teaches lenses are useful [0030]. To specifically apply a “relay” lens is obvious as a selection of a component, see claim 2.
Regarding claims 5, 8 and 16, further to Mihaylov’s teachings per claim 4, Oh further teaches a number of lenses to impact the optical signal, see Fig. 2 which depicts both the convergence and divergence of the light by multiple lenses. The combined art teaches that prior art is capable of such control of the optical signal as claimed. The teachings include multiple lenses as noted and multiple mirrors and various manners of forming convergence points and controlling the direction of the optical signal.
Regarding claim 6, as per above, the optical device is a collimator.
Regarding claim 9, the teachings include a filter as noted above, further to MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a narrow band pass filter would have been an obvious selection. Further, Examiner takes Official Notice that such filters are pervasive in control of optical signals.
Regarding claim 10, as per the combined art, the claimed elements are sequentially arranged.
Regarding claim 11, all elements of the claim are met as per claim 1 above, including the chamber, wafer, view port and plasma diagnostic device, covering all elements except the calculation circuit. Oh, however, teaches an analyzer that includes elements such as a CPU which makes calculations based on the optical signals, see [0034-37] and particularly [0047]. The specific calculations claimed is an intended use of the apparatus, addressed above, and Oh’s device is held as capable of the same.
Regarding claim 12, as per Fig. 1, the diagnostic device is installed outside the chamber wall.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings include the pinhole inside the chamber wall but the optical device outside, along with the filter and sensor, but the modification of the optical device to be inside the chamber wall is a mere rearrangement of parts. As per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. a rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, the application teaches that the optical device is either inside or outside of the chamber and therefore does not support criticality.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is unclear as per the 112(b) rejection, but in any case collimation and relay lenses are addressed above per claims 6 and 7 and will not be repeated.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the teachings do not include additional view ports or the second plasma diagnostic device, but as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, wherein one detector is taught to employ a second would have been obvious for example for getting a better indication of the quality of the plasma from different perspectives. In regard to the distinction between the arrangement in claims 17 and 18, the difference is a mere rearrangement of parts. Per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality – in this case the instant claims are drawn to two different arrangements and therefore does not support criticality of either arrangement.
Regarding claim 19, all elements of the claim are taught as per above, including the wafer, chamber, view port and plasma diagnostic device as per claim 1. The calculation circuit is 600 as per claim 11. The pinhole requirements and raw data are met as an intended use of the apparatus – the system includes a pin hole as noted and the pinhole transmits an optical signal, therefore it is capable of the same use and the system of Oh performs calculations on data and is capable of handling the data as claimed and therefore the requirements are met.
Regarding claim 20, the further requirements of the calculation circuit are met as an intended use of the apparatus as argued above.
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