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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application No. 17/004,432 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
Claims 1-20 recite a non-specified semiconductor processing apparatus.
The disclosure of the parent application fails to support a non-specified processing apparatus. The disclosure of the parent application provides description of a plasma processing apparatus. No adequate description for a non-specified apparatus is provided by the disclosure of the parent application. The disclosure of the parent application fails to provide adequate description for the entire scope of the claims.
Claims 1-12 recite a chuck and a lower electrode below the chuck.
The disclosure of the parent application fails to support such for entire scope.
The disclosure of the parent application only provides description of an apparatus wherein the lower electrode is below the electrostatic chuck and wherein the lower electrode and the chuck are electrically insulated from the sidewalls of the processing chamber. The disclosure of the parent application fails to provide adequate description for the entire scope of the claims.
Claims 9-20 recite a non-specified substrate chuck.
The disclosure of the parent application fails to support a non-specified chuck.
The disclosure of the parent application provides description of only electrostatic chuck. No adequate description for a non-specified chuck is provided by the disclosure of the parent application. The disclosure of the parent application fails to provide adequate description for the entire scope of the instant claims.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/004,432, filed 08/27/2020, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1-20:
Claims 1-20 recite a non-specified semiconductor processing apparatus.
The original disclosure fails to support a non-specified processing apparatus.
The original disclosure provides description of a plasma processing apparatus. No adequate description for a non-specified apparatus is provided by the original disclosure. The original disclosure fails to provide adequate description for the entire scope of the claims.
As to claims 1-12:
Claims 1-12 recite a chuck and a lower electrode below the chuck.
The original disclosure fails to support such for entire scope.
The original disclosure only provides description of an apparatus wherein the lower electrode is below the electrostatic chuck and wherein the lower electrode and the chuck are electrically insulated from the sidewalls of the processing chamber. The original disclosure fails to provide adequate description for the entire scope of the claims.
As to claims 9-20:
Claims 9-20 recite a non-specified substrate chuck.
The original disclosure fails to support a non-specified chuck.
The original disclosure provides description of only electrostatic chuck. No adequate description for a non-specified chuck is provided by the original disclosure. The original disclosure fails to provide adequate description for the entire scope of the claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,027,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent recite a method, which utilizes a processing apparatus that has all structural parts recited by the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 13, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2007/0221331).
As to claims 9 and 13:
Lee teaches an apparatus as claimed.
The apparatus comprises:
A processing chamber 5 with a cylindrical shaped sidewall 11;
An electrostatic chuck [0037];
A lower electrode 17;
A cylindrically shaped sidewall electrode 21, 23.
See at least Figures 1, 5 and 7 and the related description.
A cylindrical shape of the part 11 is disclosed at least at [0044-45].
The electrode 21, 23 is disclosed as coupled to a generator 26 (at least Figures 1, 5 and 7).
The electrode 17 is disclosed as connected to generators 27, 28 (at least Figures 1, 5 and 7).
As to claim 11:
The electrodes 21 and 23 are disclosed as coils. Such meets the limitations recited by the claim.
As to claim 16:
Lee teaches a gas inlet 31 positioned as claimed (at least [0037]).
As to claim 18:
The limitations recited by this claim are shown at least on Figures 1, 5, and 7.
As to claim 19:
The electrode 21, 23 is disclosed as coupled to a generator 26 (at least Figures 1, 5 and 7).
The electrode 17 is disclosed as connected to generators 27, 28 (at least Figures 1, 5 and 7).
As to claim 20:
The limitations recited by this claim are shown at least on Figures 1, 5, and 7.
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.
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) 1-8, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2007/0221331).
Lee teaches an apparatus.
The apparatus comprises:
A processing chamber 5 with a cylindrical shaped sidewall 11;
An electrostatic chuck [0037];
A lower electrode 17;
A cylindrically shaped sidewall electrode 21, 23.
See at least Figures 1, 5 and 7 and the related description.
A cylindrical shape of the part 11 is disclosed at least at [0044-45].
The electrode 21, 23 is disclosed as coupled to a generator 26 (at least Figures 1, 5 and 7).
The electrode 17 is disclosed as connected to generators 27, 28 (at least Figures 1, 5 and 7).
Thus, Lee teaches the apparatus as claimed except for the recitation of the sidewall electrode extending from below a top electrostatic chuck (claims 1-8), from below a bottom of the interior cavity (claims 10, 14), from below a lower electrode (claim 12, 17), from below the substrate chuck (claim 15).
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected results achieved by the recited relative dimensions. The applicants have not demonstrated that the claimed relative dimensions will result in different functioning.
Thereby, the recitation of the claimed relative dimensions does not differentiate what is claimed from the apparatus of Lee.
As to claim 2:
The insulation as claimed is provided by insulator 19 (at least [0037] and Figures 1, 5 and 7).
As to claim 3:
The pedestal recited by this claim is readable on part 15 (at least Figures 1, 5 and 7).
As to claims 4 and 5:
For these claims the side electrode is readable on part 23, the claimed antenna is readable on part 21, the claimed insulator is readable on the space between parts 23 and 21 (at least Figures 1, 5, 7).
As to claim 6:
The electrode 21, 23 surrounding cylindrical part 11 have the claimed shape.
As to claim 7:
Lee teaches a gas inlet 31 positioned (at least [0037]). Lee does not specify how the gas port 31 is extended.
However, it has been held that the particular position/placement of a part of a device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 CCPA 1975); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
As to claim 8:
The height as claimed is shown at least on Figures 1, 5, 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to processing apparatuses. The publications of the related applications and the patents issued on the related applications are made of the record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights