DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (2009/0266911) in view of Foster (5,628,829).
Kim teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
- a chamber including a lid, see Fig. 4A/B with chamber lid as depicted,
- a first plate under the lid, see 220, including a plurality of holes,
- a second plate including a plurality of holes communicating with the holes of the first plate, and coupled to the first plate by the spray nozzles 225 that protrude through each,
- a gap controller connected with the second plate, see 300, the part is connected to the lid and both the upper and lower plates and therefore meets the requirements of the claimed gap controller.
The teachings do not include plasma, and do not teach a connection to an RF feed. But Foster teaches that RF is useful to provide in a CVD apparatus and also that the RF power source is operable connected to a rod that goes between the chamber lid and the shower plate, see gap controller/rod 40 connected to the power source 38 and showerhead 36, see Fig. 2 and col 5, lines 22-67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the RF source of Foster to the system of Kim as it would allow for the benefits of plasma processing – Foster teaches that both CVD and PECVD are useful (see Summary of the Invention) and that an operable manner of effecting plasma is through a power source that connects through the showerhead.
In regard to the claimed first and second plates, the Office notes that they are termed “heads” by Kim but as depicted they are sufficient to meet the requirements of plates and are clearly distinguished as separate parts per [0067-71].
Regarding claim 2, the teachings do not explicitly include a coupling groove and the gap controller fastened thereto with the second plate, but it is noted that Kim does not provide extensive details of the connection and to join parts in various ways is routine and obvious a matter of rearrangement of parts, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Also, one of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). this case the connection of the parts is routine and obvious relative to the skill of the art of creating a plasma apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art teachings do not include the gap spacing, but as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. the selection of size is routine without a showing of criticality. In this case, there is no criticality demonstrated within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, in the same manner as per claim 2, there is no criticality in applying a generic adaptor to connect the two plates, such would depend on a means of connecting the plates via the spray nozzles 225.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the teachings do not include the claimed upper plate disposed on the first plate (as part of the second plate), but as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. the duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. The instant teachings do not include any criticality of a further plate, and such a modification of Kim would have been obvious for control of gas flow. Further to claim 8, the additional parts include the lower gap controller and adaptors are mere instruments to construct the system with the duplicated parts, see also arguments of claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, the teachings do not include the claimed arrangement of the gas controllers, but, further as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. a rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality and again the parts would be set up in an arrangement to make an operable device as per claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, the arrangement is argued as per claim 2 above, but, further, in regard to the height, the teachings of modification of size are further addressed as per claim 3 and not repeated. The arrangement is not critical and such modifications obvious as argued above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (2009/0266911) and Foster (5,628,829) in view of Hanaoka (2012/0160418).
The teachings of Kim and Foster are described above, while teaching a feeding unit as per claim 1, does not teach a feeding unit as per claim 15 to apply power to the first plate. Hanaoka teaches an analogous system including a showerhead and RF source, see Fig. 1 and [0033] particularly – and teaches that it is effective to control a system using such a power feed to one of the electrode showerheads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the power source to the any of the plates as taught by Hanaoka, such as the first plate, as it would be another method of controlling the plasma and process in the system. The feed of Hanaoka is the claimed feeding unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 10 and 11 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. In regard to claims 5, 6 and 10, there is no teaching of the ability of the parts to rotate as claimed or any reason to modify them as such. Regarding claim 11, there are various teachings of additional and multiple electrodes in showerheads, but no specific reason to modify the applied teachings as such particularly in regard to the additional adaptors.
Other art of interest includes Mori (2021/0254216) who teaches a first and second plate with a gap controller, but the gap controller controls the gap between the first and second plates, not the first plate from the lid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights