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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 08/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/29/2025.
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).
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:
Driving member (support shaft and drive motor, para. [0022]) in at least claims 1-18.
Power supply unit (any structure that supplies power to generate plasma, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0024]) in at least claims 1, 14.
Rotation support member (rotation shaft, disk shape, para. [0029]) in at least claims 4-7, 16-17.
Rotation drive member (drive motor or the like, para. [0029]) in at least claims 4-7, 16-17.
Rotation driver (any structure that rotates the transfer arm and transferring the substrate, due to lack of disclosure of corresponding structure in the specification, para. [0047]) in at least claim 18.
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 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a second ultraviolet lamp, wherein the first ultraviolet lamp and the second ultraviolet lamp are symmetrical to each other and spaced apart from each other" in the claim. Claim 5 (from which claim 6 depends on) already recites “wherein the first ultraviolet lamp is of a plurality of ultraviolet lamps, wherein the plurality of ultraviolet lamps are symmetrical to each other and spaced apart from each other.” Is the second ultraviolet lamp apart of the plurality of ultraviolet lamps or separate from the plurality of ultraviolet lamps? Examiner interprets as a part of them. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim limitation “rotation driver” 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. “Rotation driver” has no specific structure associated with “rotation driver” and thus it is unclear what the structure of “rotation driver” is. 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 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) 1, 12-13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230383403 to Lee in view of US 20160148821 to Singh, and further in view of US 20130203268 to Kato.
Claims 1, 13, 14: Lee discloses (claims 1, 14) a deposition apparatus comprising: a chamber (101 [chamber], Fig. 1A); a support unit (107 [mounting platform]) within the chamber (101) and including a chuck (pedestal of 107) and a driving member (stem/shaft of 107), wherein a substrate (200 [substrate]) is seated on the chuck (107), wherein the chuck (107) has a first process position and a second process position (Fig. 1), a showerhead (105 [showerhead]) disposed to face the chuck (107) and supplying process gas toward an upper surface of the substrate (200) that is seated on the chuck (107), when the chuck is located in the first process position (para. [0022]);
a power supply unit (115 [power source], Fig. 1A) connected to the showerhead (105) and supplying power to generate plasma between the chuck (107) and the showerhead (105, para. [0046]); and a first ultraviolet lamp (119 [EM radiation sources], para. [0031]) disposed above the chuck (107) in the chamber (101) and emitting ultraviolet rays toward the upper surface of the substrate (200) that is seated on the chuck (107), when the chuck (107) is located in the second process position (Fig. 1A);
However Lee does not disclose (claims 1, 14) wherein the first process position is for processing the substrate in a first process, wherein the second process position is located below the first process position and is for processing the substrate in a second process, wherein the driving member is connected to the chuck and moves the chuck between the first process position and the second process position (claim 13) wherein a separation distance between the chuck and the first ultraviolet lamp is about 15 cm to about 30 cm, when the chuck is in the second process position;
Singh teaches wherein a pedestal are movable vertically towards and from the showerhead and are moved closer to the showerhead during processing, and the distance can be greater or lesser, or adjusted during any process, for the purpose of being located in an operational position such as during etching processes (para. [0062]).
Additionally, the courts have held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. MPEP 2144.04 V (D).
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 movable and adjustability of first and second positions teachings as taught by Singh with motivation to be located in an operational position such as during etching processes.
Lee discloses (claim 14) a deposition apparatus comprising: a chamber (101 [chamber], Fig. 1A).
Lee does not disclose (claim 14) having a plurality of processing areas; a transfer arm within the chamber and transferring a substrate to the plurality of processing areas;
Kato discloses (claim 14) having a plurality of processing areas (24 [circular concave portions], Fig. 23-24); a transfer arm (10 [transfer arm]) within the chamber (1 [vacuum chamber]) and transferring a substrate (W [wafer]) to the plurality of processing areas (24) for the purpose of delivering and receiving wafers to different positions (para. [0093]).
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 transfer arm and processing areas as taught by Kato with motivation to deliver and receive wafer to different positions.
Claim 12: The apparatus of Lee in view of Singh, Kato discloses wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (119, Fig. 1A, Lee) emits ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of about 150 nm to about 400 nm (para. [0031]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Singh, Kato as applied to claims 1, 12-13, 14 above, and further in view of US 6499425 to Sandhu.
Claims 2, 15: The apparatus of Lee in view of Singh, Kato does not disclose wherein the first ultraviolet lamp is disposed adjacent to a side surface of the showerhead;
Sandhu teaches a UV lamp (406 [Ultraviolet lamp], c. 8, l. 1-25) is disposed adjacent to a side surface of the showerhead (210 [showerhead]), for the purpose of creating a plasma (c. 8, l. 1-25).
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 arrangement as taught by Sandhu with motivation to create a plasma.
Claim 3, 15: The apparatus of Lee in view of Singh, Kato, Sandhu discloses wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (119/601, Fig. 9, Lee) protrudes beyond a lower surface of the showerhead (see where 119/601 protrudes beyond lower surface of 105, Fig. 9).
The apparatus of Lee in view of Singh, Kato does not disclose (claim 15) and a separation distance between the chuck and the ultraviolet lamp is about 15 cm to about 30 cm, when the chuck is in the annealing position
Singh teaches wherein a pedestal are movable vertically towards and from the showerhead and are moved closer to the showerhead during processing, and the distance can be greater or lesser, or adjusted during any process, for the purpose of being located in an operational position such as during etching processes (para. [0062]).
Additionally, the courts have held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. MPEP 2144.04 V (D).
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 movable and adjustability of first and second positions teachings as taught by Singh with motivation to be located in an operational position such as during etching processes.
Claim(s) 8-9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Singh, Kato as applied to claims 1, 12-13, 14 above, and further in view of US 20220178031 to Aita.
Claims 8-9, 17: The apparatus of Lee in view of Singh, Kato does not disclose (claim 8, 17) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp is coupled to a lower edge region of the showerhead; (claim 9) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp is disposed an annular shape along a circumference of the lower edge region of the showerhead.
Aita discloses (claim 8) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (26/27b/25b [light source]/[optical fibers]/[transmission window], Fig. 5) is coupled to a lower edge region of the showerhead (20 [showerhead]); (claim 9) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp (26/27b/25b) is disposed an annular shape along a circumference of the lower edge region of the showerhead (20, para. [0052]) for the purpose of being configured so that the irradiation amount with ultraviolet light can be partially changed in the processing container (para. [0052]).
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 arrangement as taught by Aita with motivation to be configured so that the irradiation amount with ultraviolet light can be partially changed in the processing container.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Singh, Kato as applied to claims 1, 12-13, 14 above, and further in view of US 4558660 to Nishizawa.
Claims 10-11: The apparatus of Lee in view of Singh, Kato does not disclose (claim 10) wherein the first ultraviolet lamp includes a lamp bulb emitting ultraviolet rays, a power source supplying power to the lamp bulb, a reflector surrounding the lamp bulb and reflecting ultraviolet rays, and a light transmitting window disposed between the lamp bulb and the chuck and transmitting ultraviolet rays that are emitted from the lamp bulb toward the upper surface of the substrate; (claim 11) wherein the lamp bulb is comprised of an H-type ultraviolet lamp bulb.
Nishizawa discloses (claim 10) wherein the ultraviolet lamp (17 [combination lamps], Fig. 1) includes a lamp bulb (20 [tungsten filament]) emitting ultraviolet rays (c. 2, l. 37-45), a power source (A. C. power source, c. 6, l. 30-50) supplying power to the lamp bulb (20), a reflector (18 [reflecting blocks]) surrounding the lamp bulb (20) and reflecting ultraviolet rays, and a light transmitting window (11 [reaction tube]) disposed between the lamp bulb (20) and the chuck (12 [support]) and transmitting ultraviolet rays that are emitted from the lamp bulb (20) toward the upper surface of the substrate (upper surface of 13 [wafers]); (claim 11) wherein the lamp bulb is comprised of an H-type ultraviolet lamp bulb (Fig. 2-3, c. 6, l. 30-50), for the purpose of effectively utilizing the radiation energy from the lamps (c. 2, l. 37-50).
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 lamp details as taught by Nishizawa with motivation to effectively utilize energy from the lamps.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Singh, Kato as applied to claims 1, 12-13, 14 above, and further in view of US 20200173018 to Hiester.
Claim 18: The apparatus of Lee in view of Singh, Kato does not disclose further comprising a rotation driver rotating the transfer arm and transferring the substrate from one processing area of the plurality of processing areas to another processing area of the plurality of processing areas.
Hiester discloses further comprising a rotation driver (220 [rotation mechanism], Fig. 2) rotating the transfer arm (226 [spider forks]) and transferring the substrate (101 [wafers]) from one processing area (chamber station) of the plurality of processing areas (plurality of chamber stations) to another processing area of the plurality of processing areas (para. [0047]) for the purpose of transferring substrates within the processing chamber (102, para. [0047-0050]).
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 rotation driver and transfer arm arrangement as taught by Hiester with motivation to transfer substrates within the processing chamber.
Claims 19-20: (Withdrawn).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140318453 discloses an energy activator (31b, Fig. 1) at a portion lower than the showerhead (28) and can be applied in multiple directions (para. [0035]). US 20060234515 discloses an ultraviolet optical source (25, Fig. 1) with a stage (22) that can rotate and lift for various processing (para. [0076-0078]).
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