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 .
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) 1, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (JP 2002-343776 A) in view of Johnson (U.S. Pat. 5,234,529).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Matsushita et al. teach an apparatus for treating a substrate, the apparatus comprising: a process treatment unit for providing a treatment space in which the substrate is treated; and a plasma generation unit provided above the process treatment unit to generate plasma from process gas, wherein the plasma generation unit includes: a plasma chamber having a discharge space formed therein; a shield unit surrounding an exterior of the plasma chamber; an antenna which surrounds the shield unit from an outside of the shield unit and to which high frequency power is applied. (See Fig. 1; Machine Translation Paragraphs 0010-0014)
PNG
media_image1.png
420
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Matsushita et al. and claim 1 is that a connecting unit for electrically connecting the shield unit and the antenna is not discussed and “improving the discharge efficiency” is not discussed.
Regarding a connecting unit for electrically connecting the shield unit and the antenna (Claim 1), Johnson teaches a connecting unit in the form of a screw for connecting an antenna to a faraday shield. (Fig. 1; Column 2 lines 63-67)
Regarding “improving the discharge efficiency” (Claim 1), This limitation does not further limit the claimed structure. However, the screw will create a low impedance path such that RF current from the coil can flow into the shield. The shield will then be a secondary RF electrode even if grounded in order to expand the discharge volume and thus improve discharge efficiency. The shield further changes RF impedance to increase delivered power to the plasma which improves discharge efficiency.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a length of the shield unit in an up and down direction corresponds to or is larger than a length of the antenna in the up and down direction.
Regarding claim 13, Matsushita et al. teach in Fig. 1 wherein a length of the shield unit in an up and down direction corresponds to or is larger than a length of the antenna in the up and down direction. (Fig. 1)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
Regarding claim 14, Matsushita et al. teach an apparatus for treating a substrate, the apparatus comprising a chamber for providing a plasma generation region; an antenna disposed adjacent to the chamber, and including a power terminal to which high frequency power is applied and a ground terminal that is grounded; a shield unit disposed between the chamber and the antenna. (See Fig. 1; Machine Translation Paragraphs 0010-0014)
PNG
media_image2.png
416
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The difference between Matsushita et al. and claim 1 is that a connecting unit for electrically connecting the shield unit and the antenna is not discussed and “improving the discharge efficiency” is not discussed.
Regarding a connecting unit for electrically connecting the shield unit and the antenna (Claim 1), Johnson teaches a connecting unit in the form of a screw for connecting an antenna to a faraday shield. (Fig. 1; Column 2 lines 63-67)
Regarding “improving the discharge efficiency” (Claim 1), This limitation does not further limit the claimed structure. However, the screw will create a low impedance path such that RF current from the coil can flow into the shield. The shield will then be a secondary RF electrode even if grounded in order to expand the discharge volume and thus improve discharge efficiency. The shield further changes RF impedance to increase delivered power to the plasma which improves discharge efficiency.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Johnson is that it allows for supporting of the coil. (Column 2 lines 63-67)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Matsushita et al. by utilizing the features of Johnson because it allows for supporting the coil.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. in view of Johnson as applied to claims 1, 3, 14 above, and further in view of Weichert (U.S. Pat. 6,81,838).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the shield unit includes: a first shield member surrounding one side of the plasma chamber along a circumference direction of the plasma chamber; and a second shield member facing the first shield member and surrounding the other side opposite the one side of the plasma chamber, and the first shield member and the second shield member are combined with each other to surround an outer surface of the plasma chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Weichert teaches wherein the shield unit includes: a first shield member surrounding one side of the plasma chamber along a circumference direction of the plasma chamber; and a second shield member facing the first shield member and surrounding the other side opposite the one side of the plasma chamber, and the first shield member and the second shield member are combined with each other to surround an outer surface of the plasma chamber. (See Fig. 2; Column 5 lines 47-63)
PNG
media_image3.png
406
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first shield member and the second shield
member are electrically isolated from each other.
Regarding claim 2, Weichert teaches wherein the first shield member and the second
shield member are electrically isolated from each other. (See Fig. 2; Column 5 lines 47-63; See
Annotated Figure above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the antenna is disposed to surround an
exterior of the chamber, and the shield unit includes a first shield member and a second shield
member that are disposed to be spaced apart in a direction of surrounding the chamber; and the
first shield member and the second shield member are electrically isolated from each other.
Regarding claim 15, Weichert teaches wherein the antenna is disposed to surround an exterior of the chamber, and the shield unit includes a first shield member and a second shield member that are disposed to be spaced apart in a direction of surrounding the chamber; and the first shield member and the second shield member are electrically isolated from each other. (See Fig. 2; Column 5 lines 47-63; See Annotated Figure above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Weichert is that it allows for eliminating circular currents. (Column 5 lines 47-63)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Weichert because it allows for elimination circular currents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12, 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4 and 5 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including the connecting unit includes a first connecting member that electrically directly connects a first point of the antenna and the first shield member; and a second connecting member that electrically directly connects a second point of the antenna and the second shield member, and a distance from the first point to the power terminal and a distance from the second point to the power terminal are provided differently.
Claims 6-12 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach a connecting unit for electrically connecting the shield unit and the antenna and wherein the connecting unit is movably provided along a longitudinal direction of the antenna.
Claim 16 is indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach wherein the connecting unit includes a first connecting member for connecting the first shield member to a first point of the antenna and a second connecting member for connecting the second shield member to a second point of the antenna, and the first point and the second point are at different distances from the power terminal.
Claims 17-20 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach a connecting unit for electrically connecting the shield unit and the antenna and wherein the connecting unit is movably provided along a longitudinal direction of the antenna.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the prior art does not teach "a connecting unit for electrically connecting the shield unit to the antenna such that high frequency voltage from the antenna is applied to the shield unit to improve initial discharge efficiency” and that the screw provides only a mechanical connection between the antenna and the shield and does not serve to apply high-frequency voltage to the shield.
This argument is not persuasive because the screw 24 as shown and described in Johnson is a conductive fastener that establishes direct physical contact between the antenna and the shield. As such it inherently forms an electrical connection between these components. In an RF system any conductive connection between an RF driven element and another conductive structure necessarily permits the flow of high frequency current and the coupling of high frequency voltage. While the shield may be described as grounded it does not preclude the presence of high frequency voltage or current. At radio frequencies grounding paths exhibit non-zero impedance, and grounded conductive elements commonly carry RF currents and associated voltage potentials. Therefore, the shield when conductively connected to the RF driven antenna will inherently experience high frequency excitation. Therefore the prior art discloses either explicitly or inherently the application of high frequency voltage to the shield and the functional language regarding “improving initial discharge efficiency” does not further limit the claimed structure.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would be obvious to utilize the teachings of Johnson because Johnson teach mechanically supporting the coil and it would be obvious to utilize the teachings of Weichert because it allows for preventing circular currents.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off..
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights