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 .
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: claim 1 gas delivery system which has been interpreted as a plurality of gas feed lines and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification at para. 37; claim 5 cooling mechanisms which has been interpreted as one or more cooling channels, fans, and/or heat sinks and equivalents thereto as set forth in the specification at 29.
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 § 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, 6, 10-11 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0175622 to Yoon et al.
Regarding claim 1: Yoon et al. disclose a processing apparatus for processing a workpiece comprising: a processing chamber (e.g. Fig. 6, 12); a plasma chamber (e.g. 14) separated from the processing chamber; a gas delivery system (e.g. 14a) configured to deliver one or more gases to the plasma chamber; a plasma source (e.g. “RF”) configured to generate a plurality of radicals in a plasma from the one or more processes gasses in the plasma chamber; a workpiece support (e.g., 20) disposed within the processing chamber, the workpiece support configured to support a workpiece; and a focus ring (e.g., 50) configured to direct the plurality of radicals toward the workpiece.
With respect to claim 6, Yoon et al. disclose an induction coil (e.g., 16) disposed around the plasma chamber, the induction coil configured to generate an inductively coupled plasma.
With respect to claim 10, in Yoon et al., a pumping plate (32 and 34) disposed around the workpiece support, the pumping plate configured to reduce (e.g. capable of reducing) hydrogen radical dissemination in the processing chamber. Regarding intended use, the courts have ruled XXX.
With respect to claim 11, in Yoon et al., the pumping plate comprises one or more apertures (326, 324, 322, 346, 344, 342), wherein a greater amount of apertures are present at a portion of the pumping plate closest to the workpiece support, wherein the first two rings of apertures (326, 324, 346, 344) closer to the workpiece support are considered to be a greater number than the apertures (322, 342) in a third ring closer to the chamber wall.
With respect to claim 16, in Yoon et al., a heater (see, e.g., paras. 28 and 45) may be provided in the workpiece support to heat the workpiece.
With respect to claims 17-19, which are drawn to the identity of the radicals and/or process gases and/or steps that may be performed during an intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled a that 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0006490 to Yamamoto et al.
Regarding claim 1: Yamamoto et al. disclose a processing apparatus for processing a workpiece comprising: a processing chamber (e.g., Fig. 1, 3); a plasma chamber (e.g., 7) separated from the processing chamber; a gas delivery system (e.g., 19a) configured to deliver one or more gases to the plasma chamber; a plasma source (e.g., 18) configured to generate a plurality of radicals in a plasma from the one or more processes gasses in the plasma chamber; a workpiece support (e.g., 10) disposed within the processing chamber, the workpiece support configured to support a workpiece; and a focus ring (e.g., 20) configured to direct the plurality of radicals toward the workpiece.
With respect to claim 2, Yamamoto et al. disclose the workpiece support is configured to adjust a distance between the workpiece support and the focus ring (see, e.g., paras. 50 and 56).
With respect to claim 6, Yamamoto et al. disclose an induction coil (e.g., 16) disposed around the plasma chamber, the induction coil configured to generate an inductively coupled plasma.
With respect to claims 17-19, which are drawn to the identity of the radicals and/or process gases and/or steps that may be performed during an intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled a that 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0350038 to Lo et al.
Regarding claim 1: Lo et al. disclose a processing apparatus for processing a workpiece comprising: a processing chamber (e.g., Fig. 3, 316); a plasma chamber (e.g., 360, 348) separated from the processing chamber; a gas delivery system (e.g., not illustrated, but necessarily provided) configured to deliver one or more gases to the plasma chamber; a plasma source (e.g., 350) configured to generate a plurality of radicals in a plasma from the one or more processes gasses in the plasma chamber; a workpiece support (e.g., 314) disposed within the processing chamber, the workpiece support configured to support a workpiece; and a focus ring (e.g., 303, 325, 329) configured to direct the plurality of radicals toward the workpiece.
With respect to claim 2, Lo et al. disclose the workpiece support is configured to adjust a distance between the workpiece support and the focus ring (see, e.g., para. 36).
With respect to claim 12, in Lo et al. the plasma chamber and the processing chamber are separated via one or more separation grids (326).
With respect to claim 13, in Lo et al., the focus ring is disposed in the processing chamber on a first side of the one or more separation grids (see, e.g., Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 15, in Lo et al., the focus ring is formed from a quartz material (see, e.g., para. 34).
With respect to claim 16, in Lo et al., a heater (see, e.g., “heating elements 335”) may be provided in the workpiece support to heat the workpiece.
With respect to claims 17-19, which are drawn to the identity of the radicals and/or process gases and/or steps that may be performed during an intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled a that 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0020411 to Savas et al.
Regarding claim 1: Savas et al. disclose a processing apparatus for processing a workpiece comprising: a processing chamber (e.g., Fig. 5, 110); a plasma chamber (e.g., 120) separated from the processing chamber; a gas delivery system (e.g., 150) configured to deliver one or more gases to the plasma chamber; a plasma source (e.g., 134) configured to generate a plurality of radicals in a plasma from the one or more processes gasses in the plasma chamber; a workpiece support (e.g., 112) disposed within the processing chamber, the workpiece support configured to support a workpiece; and a focus ring (e.g., 410) configured to direct the plurality of radicals toward the workpiece.
With respect to claim 2, Savas et al. disclose the workpiece support is configured to adjust a distance between the workpiece support and the focus ring (see, e.g., paras. 50 and 56).
With respect to claim 6, Savas et al. disclose an induction coil (e.g., 130) disposed around the plasma chamber, the induction coil configured to generate an inductively coupled plasma.
With respect to claim 15, in Fig. 6, Savas et al. disclose the workpiece support is configured to adjust a distance between the workpiece support and the focus ring (see, e.g., para. 148), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applciant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the same in Fig. 5 embodiment.
With respect to claims 17-19, which are drawn to the identity of the radicals and/or process gases and/or steps that may be performed during an intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled a that 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. as applied to claims 1, 6 and 17-19 above and as further set forth below.
Yamamoto et al. disclose the processing apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Yamamoto et al. fail to explicitly disclose the distance between the workpiece support and the focus ring during processing of the workpiece is (or is capable of being) about from 1 mm to about 50 mm.
Notably, Yamamoto et al. do however teach that the dimensions of the focus ring, and thus the distance between the workpiece support and the focus ring during processing of the workpiece, may be optimized for the purpose of achieving optimum conditions enabling processing of a surface to be processed with an extremely high uniformity (see, e.g., Fig. 3 and paras. 65-68). Additionally, 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 optimized the distance between the workpiece support and the focus ring during processing of the workpiece about from 1 mm to about 50 mm in Yamamoto et al. in order to achieve optimum conditions enabling processing of a surface to be processed with an extremely high uniformity as taught by Yamamoto et al.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (or Yoon et al. and/or Lo et al. and/or Savas et al.) as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0101603 to Chebi et al.
Yamamoto et al. (or Yoon et al. and/or Lo et al. and/or Savas et al.) disclose the processing apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Yamamoto et al. (or Yoon et al. and/or Lo et al. and/or Savas et al.) fail to disclose the processing chamber comprises one or more walls having one or more cooling channels disposed therein.
Chebi et al. disclose a processing chamber (Fig. 7A, 410, 416) comprises one or more walls having one or more cooling channels (426) disposed therein for the purpose of providing temperature control thereto (see, e.g., paras. 54).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided one or more walls of the processing chamber having one or more cooling channels disposed therein in order to provide temperature control thereto as taught by Chebi et al.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0099133 to Quon et al.
Yamamoto et al. disclose the processing apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Yamamoto et al. fail to disclose a cooling mechanism (i.e. one or more cooling channels, fans, and/or heat sinks) configured to cool one or more walls of the plasma chamber.
Quon et al. disclose a processing apparatus having a plasma chamber (Figs. 1A and 2, 160 and associated structures), wherein a cooling mechanism (coolant system 160 including at least cooling channels 324) is provided to cool one or more walls of the plasma chamber (see, e.g., paras. 44, 47, 53).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a cooling mechanism in Yamamoto et al. in order to cool one or more walls of the plasma chamber as taught by Ouon et al.
Regarding claims 7-9, Yamamoto et al. fail to disclose the processing apparatus further comprising one or more magnetic coils disposed around the plasma chamber, wherein the one or magnetic coils comprise a first magnetic coil disposed above the induction coil and a second magnetic coil disposed below the induction coil, and wherein the one or more magnetic coils are configured to confine the plasma generated in the plasma chamber.
In Figs. 1 and 2a, Quon et al. disclose a processing apparatus having a plasma chamber (e.g., Fig. 2, 60) comprising a first magnetic coil (420) disposed above an induction coil (e.g. 140) and a second magnetic coil (420) disposed below the induction coil, and wherein the first magnetic coil and the second magnetic coil are configured to confine (i.e. capable of confining) the plasma generated in the plasma chamber for the purpose of creating a local magnetic field adjacent a plasma generation region that affects plasma behavior to achieve a desired result (e.g., increase efficiency, a high plasma density, or a preferred plasma flow direction) (see, e.g., para. 57).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a first magnetic coil disposed above the induction coil and the second magnetic coil disposed below the induction coil, and wherein the first magnetic coil and the second magnetic coil are configured to confine (i.e. capable of confining) the plasma generated in the plasma chamber in order to create a local magnetic field adjacent a plasma generation region that affects plasma behavior to achieve a desired result (e.g., increase efficiency, a high plasma density, or a preferred plasma flow direction) as taught by Quon et al.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 12-13 and 15-19 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0214477 to Hanawa et al.
Lo et al. discloses a processing apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Lo et al. fail to disclose the one or more separation grids comprise one or more cooling channels disposed therein.
Hanawa et al. disclose providing one or more cooling channels/passages disposed within a separation grid of a processing apparatus for the purpose of avoiding excessive heating thereof which may otherwise distort or bend the one or more separation grids (see, e.g. paras. 46 and 88).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided one or more cooling channels/passages disposed within the separation grid of the processing apparatus of Lo et al. in order to avoid excessive heating thereof which may otherwise distort or bend the one or more separation grids as taught by Hanawa et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2001007083 and US Patent Pub 4990229 processing apparatus with, inter alia, remote plasma source in a plasma chamber and a processing chamber separated therefrom. JP ‘083 discloses a focus ring between the plasma chamber having the remote plasma source and the processing chamber having a workpiece support.
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