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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election, with traverse of Group II (Claims 15-20) in the reply, filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 08/06/2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
37 CFR 1.475(b) provides that “an international or a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or " (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is submitted that the process claims 1-14 should be examined with the product claims 15-20 as claims 1-14 are directed to a process of use of a product, see the page 1.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The reason for the restriction on this instant application is not merely based on the category “A product and a process of use of said product”. As clearly discussed in the pages 3-4 of the previous restriction requirement, mailed on 07/29/2026, the technical feature required by the inventions of the groups is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Further, the feature also does not make a contribution over the cited prior arts, will be discussed below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim interpretation
(1) The “target layer on a substrate” and “a substrate having a target layer” of Claim 15,
The features above are related with a substrate to be processed by the claimed apparatus. The layer on the substrate is not feature obtained by the claimed processing apparatus, rather it is previously formed on the substrate before processing by the claimed apparatus.
Emphasized again, the applicants claim an apparatus. In a processing apparatus, processing a substrate having a “A” layer on the substrate, a substrate having a “B” layer on the substrate or a substrate having no layer, is mere different use of the processing apparatus, thus the substrate related feature does not add a patentable weight to the claimed processing apparatus, see the MPEP citations below.
Consequently, when an apparatus of a prior art teaches a substrate, it is sufficient to meet the claimed limitation.
(2) The “wherein the distribution of energies of ions is controlled such that removal of material from the target layer is performed selectively with respect to material in a layer adjacent to the target layer and having a different composition to the target layer” of Claim 17,
First, as discussed in the item (1) above, the “material in a layer adjacent to the target layer and having a different composition to the target layer” is also a feature related with a substrate to be processed by the claimed apparatus, therefore, the feature does not add a patentable weight.
Second, the “removal of material from the target layer is performed selectively with respect to material in a layer adjacent to the target layer and having a different composition to the target layer” is mere functional result caused by use of the claimed apparatus.
Consequently, when the apparatus of a prior teaches all the limitation of Claim 15, it is considered that the apparatus is capable of performing the function, see the MPEP citations below.
(3) The “the wherein each period of the bias voltage waveform comprises: a negative bias portion during which positive ions of the plasma are attracted towards the target layer; and a positive bias portion during which electrons of the plasma are attracted towards the target layer” of Claim 19,
The “positive ions of the plasma are attracted towards the target layer” is intrinsic function of the negative bias, the “electrons of the plasma are attracted towards the target layer” is also intrinsic function of the positive bias.
Further, on the contrary to the DC bias having single polarity, the RF bias provides both negative and positive waveform, because the RF has a sinusoidal waveform.
Consequently, when the apparatus of a prior teaches RF bias, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
(4) The “wherein the voltage of the bias voltage waveform varies during at least a majority of the negative bias portion in such a manner as to at least partially compensate for charging of the target layer and/or substrate caused by impingement of the ions during the negative bias portion” of Claim 20.
The “the voltage of the bias voltage waveform varies during at least a majority of the negative bias portion” is mere an operation of the bias voltage unit, thus it does not add a patentable weight to the structure of the claimed apparatus.
Further, the “a manner as to at least partially compensate for charging of the target layer and/or substrate caused by impingement of the ions during the negative bias portion” is considered being a functional result obtained by the operation, thus it also does not add a patentable weight to the structure of the claimed apparatus.
Since the RF bias is capable of varying the voltage along the waveform, when the apparatus of a prior teaches RF bias, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
Emphasized again, the applicants elect the apparatus claim.
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that 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); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114). 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) (See MPEP §2114).
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.
Claims 17 and 20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 17 recites the broad recitation “a layer”, and the claim also recites “target layer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
(2) The term "majority” of Claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, when at least 50%, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
(3) The “and/or” of Claim 19 is not clear.
The A “or” B includes A, B, A and B, thus it is not clear what is required to meet the “and/or”. It will be examined inclusive of “or”.
(4) Claim 20 recites “the ions”. Claim 20 is also dependent from Claim 19, thus it is not clear which ions of Claim 19 are recited by the claim 20. The limitation will be examined inclusive of “the positive ions”.
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 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.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20230207274, hereafter ‘274).
Regarding Claim 15, ‘274 teaches:
A substrate processing system (title), and the plasma 240 etches an exposed surface of the substrate 234 (Figs. 1-2, [0055], note the etching is used for forming a pattern on a substrate, the claimed “An apparatus for patterning a target layer on a substrate”);
a substrate 108 is arranged on the ESC 106 ([0047], the claimed “the apparatus comprising: a substrate table configured to support a substrate having a target layer”);
a light source, to introduce light (e.g., UV and/or visible light) into the interior of the process module ([0042], note Figs. 4A-4D shows projecting a light through a narrower port, and the light is a beam of electromagnetic radiation, the claimed “a projection system configured to irradiate the target layer by projecting a patterned beam of electromagnetic radiation onto the target layer”);
an ICP or CCP chamber 350 (such as the processing chambers 228 and 102 shown in FIGS. 1-2) ([0073]), and At 504, if the processing begins (e.g., if plasma is to be generated), the method 500 supplies a gas to the process module (e.g., a precursor, a process gas, or a cleaning gas depending on the processing being performed in the process module). At 506, the method 500 supplies RF power to the process module to generate plasma in the process module. At 508, using a light source arranged outside or inside the process module, the method 500 introduces light (e.g., UV and/or visible light) from the light source into the process module synchronously with the supply of the RF power to the process module ([0102]), and The light source is controlled to output the light synchronously with RF power supplied by an RF source to generate plasma ([0042], the claimed “a container arrangement configured to contain the target layer in a controlled gaseous environment during the irradiation of the target layer by the patterned beam, the controlled gaseous environment being such that the patterned beam generates a plasma in a plasma pattern to define where material is to be removed from the target layer”);
a bias matching circuit 252 may be used to bias the substrate support 232 during operation to control ion energy ([0055], the claimed “and a plasma-controlling bias voltage unit configured to apply a bias voltage to the substrate during the irradiation to control a distribution of energies of ions of the plasma impinging on the target layer”).
Regarding Claim 16,
It is well-known in the art that Ultraviolet (UV) light is a type of electromagnetic radiation falling between visible light and X-rays on the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths ranging from 10 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm, see [0005] of US 20210361810, the claimed “wherein the radiation has a wavelength below 100 nm”).
Regarding Claim 17,
‘274 teaches a bias matching circuit 252 may be used to bias the substrate support 232 during operation to control ion energy ([0055], the claimed “wherein the distribution of energies of ions is controlled such that removal of material from the target layer is performed selectively with respect to material in a layer adjacent to the target layer and having a different composition to the target layer”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘274, in view of KOSHIMIZU et al. (US 20230162946, hereafter ‘946).
Regarding Claim 18,
‘274 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 18: wherein the bias voltage has a radio frequency bias voltage waveform having a frequency of less than 1 MHz.
‘946 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing (abstract). ‘946 teaches a frequency of a bias power (radio-frequency) having a frequency lower than the frequency of the source power will also be referred to as LF (low frequency), and the bias power will also be referred to as an LF power ([0033]), and LF power with a frequency of 400 kHz are applied to the stage 16 ([0083], note the frequency is mere controllable parameter to control the ion energy, in other words, it is a result effective parameter).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a RF bias having frequency of less than 1 MHz, for the purpose of controlling on an ion energy towards the substrate, and/or since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 19,
‘946 teaches a bias power (radio-frequency) ([0033], note Fig. 10 of ‘946 shows negative and positive electrode potential portions by the LF. Therefore, during the negative bias portion, positive ions in the plasma are attracted towards the substrate, and during the positive bias portion, electron and negative ions are attracted towards the substrate, the claimed “the wherein each period of the bias voltage waveform comprises: a negative bias portion during which positive ions of the plasma are attracted towards the target layer; and a positive bias portion during which electrons of the plasma are attracted towards the target layer”).
Regarding Claim 20,
Fig. 10 of ‘946 shows voltage of the bias voltage waveform varies during at least a majority of the negative bias portion (the claimed “wherein the voltage of the bias voltage waveform varies during at least a majority of the negative bias portion in such a manner as to at least partially compensate for charging of the target layer and/or substrate caused by impingement of the ions during the negative bias portion”).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRUZHININA et al. (WO 2020207759, hereafter ‘759), in view of Gottheim et al. (US 20190385907, hereafter ‘907).
Regarding Claim 15, ‘759 teaches:
apparatus for forming a patterned layer of material (title, the claimed “An apparatus for patterning a target layer on a substrate”);
a substrate support (e.g., a wafer table) WT constructed to hold a substrate (e.g., a resist coated wafer) W ([00033], the claimed “the apparatus comprising: a substrate table configured to support a substrate having a target layer”);
a projection system (e.g., a refractive projection lens system) PS configured to project a pattern imparted to the radiation beam B by patterning device MA onto a target portion C (e.g., comprising one or more dies) of the substrate W ([00033], the claimed “a projection system configured to irradiate the target layer by projecting a patterned beam of electromagnetic radiation onto the target layer”);
the environment control system 45 comprises a chamber 36 to provide a sealed environment 42 ([00054]), and In an embodiment, the chemical reaction is driven by a plasma generated by interaction between the radiation and the substrate W, a layer formed on the substrate W, and/or a gas present above the substrate. In an embodiment, the generated plasma is generated in a localized region defined by the irradiation ([00055], the claimed “a container arrangement configured to contain the target layer in a controlled gaseous environment during the irradiation of the target layer by the patterned beam, the controlled gaseous environment being such that the patterned beam generates a plasma in a plasma pattern to define where material is to be removed from the target layer”).
‘759 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 15: and a plasma-controlling bias voltage unit configured to apply a bias voltage to the substrate during the irradiation to control a distribution of energies of ions of the plasma impinging on the target layer.
‘907 is analogous art in the field of plasma processing apparatus (abstract). ‘907 teaches A low frequency bias voltage or arbitrary waveform of low repetition frequency may be applied to the workpiece support pedestal 110 (e.g., to the workpiece electrode 196) to selectively or alternately extract positive and/or negative ions from said plasma and accelerate those ions at desired energy levels to impact the surface of the substrate 111 for etching, cleaning, deposition, or other materials modification ([0053]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added more a bias supply, to the substrate support of ‘759, for the purpose of impacting the surface of the substrate for etching, cleaning, deposition, or other materials modification.
Regarding Claim 16,
‘759 teaches In an embodiment, the radiation comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of any type of EUV radiation (having a wavelength less than 100 nm) that is capable of locally driving the deposition process (e.g. atomic layer deposition process) ([00048], the claimed “wherein the radiation has a wavelength below 100 nm”).
Regarding Claim 17,
‘907 teaches A low frequency bias voltage or arbitrary waveform of low repetition frequency may be applied to the workpiece support pedestal 110 (e.g., to the workpiece electrode 196) to selectively or alternately extract positive and/or negative ions from said plasma and accelerate those ions at desired energy levels to impact the surface of the substrate 111 for etching, cleaning, deposition, or other materials modification ([0053], the claimed “wherein the distribution of energies of ions is controlled such that removal of material from the target layer is performed selectively with respect to material in a layer adjacent to the target layer and having a different composition to the target layer”).
Regarding Claim 18,
‘907 teaches The RF power generators 146, 148 are typically capable of producing an RF signal having a frequency from about 0.4 kHz to about 300 MHz, and In some embodiments, the RF power generators 146, 148 are RF bias power generators ([0058], the claimed “wherein the bias voltage has a radio frequency bias voltage waveform having a frequency of less than 1 MHz”).
Regarding Claim 19,
‘907 teaches the RF power generators 146, 148 are RF bias power generators ([0058], note due to the sinusoidal waveform of RF power, the RF bias would have negative and positive electrode potential portions, see also Fig. 10 of ‘946. Therefore, during the negative bias portion, positive ions in the plasma are attracted towards the substrate, and during the positive bias portion, electron and negative ions are attracted towards the substrate, the claimed “the wherein each period of the bias voltage waveform comprises: a negative bias portion during which positive ions of the plasma are attracted towards the target layer; and a positive bias portion during which electrons of the plasma are attracted towards the target layer”).
Regarding Claim 20,
‘907 teaches the RF power generators 146, 148 are RF bias power generators ([0058], note due to the sinusoidal waveform of the RF, the RF voltage of the bias voltage waveform varies during at least a majority of the negative bias portion, the claimed “wherein the voltage of the bias voltage waveform varies during at least a majority of the negative bias portion in such a manner as to at least partially compensate for charging of the target layer and/or substrate caused by impingement of the ions during the negative bias portion”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 571-272-5166. The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights