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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, in para [0001], on page 1, the phrase “, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 12n068,152 on August 20, 2024”, or the like, should be added immediately after “2022” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the 3 occurrences of the phrase “the edge electrode” in lines 5-8 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one edge electrode”.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the edge electrode” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one edge electrode”.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “the edge electrode” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one edge electrode”.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the edge electrode” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one edge electrode”.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the edge electrode” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one edge electrode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: gas delivery system in claim 1.
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.
Based on a review of the specification, a gas delivery system is interpreted to include a gas source with flow controller, or 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 6, the recitation “to control exposure of different portions of the bevel region to the plasma” is understood as a desired outcome of the ability to rotate (taught in claim 5), rather than as additional structural feature of the claimed system. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10-13 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2007/0251919 to Imai (“Imai”).
Regarding claim 1, Imai teaches a system (abstract, note para [0012] – [0033], claim 1, Figs. 1-3) useful for performing a bevel cleaning process on a substrate (ref. 7), the system comprising: a substrate support (ref. 8); at least one edge electrode (ref. 1) arranged around a perimeter of the substrate support wherein the edge electrode defines a volume around a bevel region (ref. 11) of the substrate when the substrate is arranged on the substrate support (Fig. 1), wherein the edge electrode is in fluid communication with a gas delivery system (ref. 4, 13, 14, para [0030]), and wherein the edge electrode is configured to (i) supply reactive gases from the gas delivery system to the volume and (ii) receive power (note ref. 6) to generate plasma (ref. 3) within the volume.
Ima does not explicitly teach that the substrate support ref. 8 includes an electrode. Initially, it is noted that the recited gas delivery system, substrate, gases and plasma are not positively claimed and are not understood to be required structural features of the claimed system. Further, it can be reasonably expected that substrate support ref. 8 acts as an electrode, or comprises an electrode. Substrate support ref. 8 is made from a conductor material, such as metal, ground potential is applied (para [0027] and [0031]); substrate ref. 7 is grounded via support ref. 8, and when plasma is generated, since electric current flows into the bevel from the plasma, the substrate becomes a negative potential.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 can be made when the prior art product seems to be identical except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic. MPEP 2112(III)(A).
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP 2112(V).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 2, Imai discloses a central injector (ref. 13, para [0031]) configured to be useful to supply a purge gas above the substrate while the plasma is generated within the volume.
Regarding claim 10, Imai discloses a system wherein the edge electrode includes an upper electrode (ref. 1a) and a lower electrode (ref. 1b), and wherein the upper electrode is connected to a power source configured to provide the power to generate the plasma within the volume (para [0012], [0014], [0028], [0029]). Further, note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 11, Imai discloses a system wherein the upper electrode and the lower electrode are radiused (para [0033]; Fig. 1, electrode ref. 1 is arranged over the width of a portion of the external surface of substrate ref. 7). Further, note that changes of shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Imai discloses a system wherein the edge electrode is “U”-shaped (para [0028]; Fig. 1, the cross section of electrode ref. 1 is horseshoe, or “U”, shape).
Regarding claim 13, Imai discloses a system wherein the edge electrode includes a gas inlet arranged to supply the reactive gases to the volume and a gas outlet (para [0030]; Fig. 1, a gas supply port, or inlet, is arranged in electrode ref. 1 and is connected to gas supply pipe ref. 13).
Regarding claim 15, Imai discloses a system wherein the edge electrode corresponds to a continuous annular edge electrode that encircles the substrate support (para [0033], Fig. 1, electrode ref. 1 is arranged over the width of a portion of the external surface of substrate ref. 7).
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.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0251919 to Imai (“Imai”).
Regarding claim 14, Imai discloses a system wherein the edge electrode includes an upper portion (ref. 1a) and a lower portion (ref. 1b) (para [0012], [0014], [0028], [0029]), but does not explicitly teach the system wherein the lower portion is configured to be movable relative to the upper portion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Imai system wherein the lower portion is configured to be movable relative to the upper portion, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the ease of maintenance and repair, and the placement and removal of substrates. Further, making components separable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0251919 to Imai (“Imai”) in view of WO 2009036218 to EHD Technology Group, Inc. (“EHD”).
Regarding claim 3, Imai does not explicitly teach the system wherein the at least one edge electrode includes N edge electrodes arranged at respective ones of N azimuthal positions around the substrate support. EHD teaches an apparatus for cleaning a wafer edge (abstract, and note para [0037] – [0059], claim 15, Figs. 3a – 5b) and discloses a plurality of plasma emitters (note ref. 160, 320), each emitter with a corresponding electrode (para. 130, para [0037]), arranged around a perimeter of a substrate support and configured to generate a beam of high energy particles to impinge upon an edge region of a substrate (claim 15, para [0053]), wherein the plurality of plasma emitters includes N plasma emitters arranged at respective ones of N azimuthal positions around the substrate support (EHD, Figs. 3a, 5a and 5b, note ref. 320), which is disclosed as advantageously simple, compact, robust, inexpensive and effective (para [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Imai system in view of EHD wherein it includes a plurality of plasma emitters with corresponding electrodes arranged around a perimeter of the substrate support, wherein the at least one edge electrode includes N edge electrodes arranged at respective ones of N azimuthal positions around the substrate support, since it is disclosed as advantageously simple, compact, robust, inexpensive and effective.
Regarding claim 4, Imai/EHD discloses a system wherein the N edge electrodes are uniformly spaced around the substrate support (EHD, Figs. 3a, 5a and 5b, note ref. 320).
Regarding claim 5, Imai/EHD discloses a system wherein the substrate support is configured to rotate (Imai, para [0027], EHD, para [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Imai/EHD discloses a system wherein the substrate support is configured to rotate (Imai, para [0027], EHD, para [0041]) to control exposure of different portions of the bevel region to the plasma.
Regarding claim 7, Imai/EHD discloses an actuator configured to rotate the substrate support (Imai, para [0027], [0033], [0035]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Imai/EHD disclose a desire for controlled rotation of the substrate based on characteristics of the substrate (EHD, para 0138}, but do not explicitly teach the system further comprising a controller configured to control rotation of the substrate support using the actuator. The examiner takes Official notice that controllers were well known in the art, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Imai/EHD system as was known wherein it includes a controller configured to control rotation of the substrate support using the actuator, wherein the controller is configured to rotate the substrate support based on data indicative of characteristics of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of controlled rotation based on characteristics of the substrate and in order to enhance automation and process control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights