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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the apparatus in the reply filed on 5/4/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the apparatus is not anticipated or rendered obvious by US PG Pub 2017/0076921. This is not found persuasive because as discussed below, claim 1 is rendered obvious by said reference.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/4/26.
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.
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 1-8, 10-11, & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakiyama et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0076921; hereafter ‘921).
Claim 1: ‘921 is directed towards a plasma-enhanced deposition reactor (title and abstract) comprising:
a reaction chamber including electrically conductive walls including an upper wall, a lateral wall, and a lower wall, the walls being connected to one another to form a continuous enclosure defining an interior space (see annotated Fig. 1 below, abstract, & ¶s 31-47);
an electrically conductive plate disposed within the interior space, the electrically conductive plate having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite to the upper surface and being grounded, wherein the upper surface is configured to support a substrate (see annotated Fig. 1 below, abstract, and ¶s 31-47)
a gas precursor inlet configured to introduce gas precursors into the reaction chamber (¶ 9);
an exhaust port configured to evacuate gas from the reaction chamber (given the presence of an gas inlet it is reasonable to presume the presence of a exhaust port because otherwise the chamber would become pressurized); and
a power source configured to apply a radio frequency power to the electrically conductive plate and generate plasma (¶ 9),
wherein the upper wall disposed above the upper surface of the electrically conductive plate extends inward toward the electrically conductive plate so as to partially overlap the upper surface of the electrically conductive plate, the lateral wall extends in a non-parallel direction with respect to the upper surface of the electrically conductive plate and the lower wall is disposed below the lower surface of the electrically conductive plate, the distance d being selected such that plasma is generated by capacitive coupling between the electrically conductive plate and the later wall (see annotated Fig. 1; though ‘921 does not explicitly separate the various walls as recited the disclosed structure reads on the claimed structure because it is arbitrary which portions of the walls are defined as upper, lateral, and lower).
PNG
media_image1.png
773
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘921 does not teach that the lateral wall surrounds at least an edge of the electrically conductive plate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the shape of the lateral wall of ‘921 to surround at least an edge of the electrically conductive plate because it is prima facie obvious to change shape and size unless there is evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04.
‘921 does not teach that the exhaust port configured to evacuate gas from the reaction chamber via a pumping module.
However, the Examiner notes that it is well known in the art to use a pumping module to facilitate evacuation of the exhaust gas from a plasma treatment apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a pumping module into the apparatus of ‘921 to facilitate evacuation of the plasma chamber of the exhaust gas because it is a well known art recognized means of evacuating the exhaust gas and would have predictably been suitable for the apparatus of ‘921.
Claim 2: ‘921 teaches forming a plasma in said chamber by the same means as claimed but does not disclose the claimed relationship between distance, average voltage of the radio frequency bias and the pressure in said chamber.
However, given that the same means for producing a plasma it is reasonable to presume the same relationship is present.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 3: ‘921 does not teach the claimed distance of 5-15 cm.
However, changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the apparatus of ‘921 to have a distance of 5-15 cm because changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04.
Claim 4: ‘921 does not teach the claimed angle between the upper wall and upper surface of the electrically conductive surface.
However, changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the apparatus of ‘921 to have a claimed angle because changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04.
Claim 5: ‘921 does not teach that the upper wall is shaped to form a conical surface.
However, changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the apparatus of ‘921 to have a claimed shape because changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04.
Claim 6: ‘921 does not teach that the upper wall is shaped to form a dome-shaped surface.
However, changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the apparatus of ‘921 to have a claimed shape because changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04.
Claim 7: ‘921 teaches a contained plasma apparatus – i.e. the plasma is generated only within the reaction chamber (title & abstract).
Claim 8: The plasma is generated only between two electrodes and wherein the electrically conductive plate constitutes one of the two electrodes (see Fig. 1).
Claim 10: ‘921 does not teach adjusting the height of the electrically conductive plate – i.e. said plate height is fixed.
Claim 11: ‘921 does not teach adjusting the height of the electrically conductive plate – i.e. said plate height is fixed.
However, it is prima facie obvious to make parts adjustable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the height adjustable by making the position of the electrically conductive adjustable in the height direction because it is prima facie obvious to make adjustable. See MPEP §2144.04.
Claim 14: ‘921 teaches that plasma can be generated powers above the dashed line in Fig. 5 (¶s 60-66, specially ¶ 65) by capacitive coupling between the electrically conductive plate and the lateral wall (¶s 13, 28, 40, & 41).
Although the taught range is not explicitly the claimed range, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 15: The power source comprises an attenuator configured to limit radio frequency power (¶s 41-45).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘921 as applied above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0064519; hereafter ‘519).
Claim 9: As discussed above, ‘921 teaches forming an inductively coupled plasma between the showerhead and the wafer holder (the lateral walls and the electrically conductive plate).
‘921 does not teach using a remove plasma source.
However, ‘519, which is also directed towards plasma apparatus (title & abstract) discloses that the plasma between a showerhead and substrate can be formed using an inductively coupled plasma source remote from the reaction chamber (see ¶ 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a inductively coupled plasma source remote from the reaction chamber to generate the plasma in the apparatus because is an art recognized means which would have predictably provided the desired plasma.
Claims 12 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘921 as applied above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0069827; hereafter ‘827).
Claim 12: ‘921 does not teach the pressure maintained in the reaction chamber.
However, ‘827, which is also directed towards plasma deposition apparatus (title & abstract), discloses maintaining a pressure of 50 mTorr is suitable for film formation and the exhaust to adjusted to maintain film formation (¶s 74-80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘827 into the apparatus of ‘921 such that pressure is maintained at 50 mTorr and exhaust is controlled to maintain the desired deposition because it is an art recognized pressure for film deposition and it would have predictably produced the desired results.
Claim 13: ‘921 teaches that plasma can be generated at powers above the dashed line in Fig. 5 (¶s 60-66, specially ¶ 65) by capacitive coupling between the electrically conductive plate and the lateral wall (¶s 13, 28, 40, & 41) using an RF power source (abstract).
‘921 does not teach the frequency of the RF power source.
However, ‘827, is also directed towards plasma deposition apparatus (title & abstract), disclose that at 70 MHz RF source is suitable for generating power in the desired range (see ¶s 78 & 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a 70 MHz RF source as the source for the plasma because it is an art recognized power source for RF generated plasma and would have predictably been suitable for generating the power within the range desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the amended claims are not rendered obvious by ‘921 because claimed shape of the walls and orientation of walls to conductive plate; the Office does not find this argument convincing because the walls of the reaction chamber can be separated as discussed above such that they read on the limitations.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the claimed shape and orientation creates a distinct capacitive coupling mechanism that is absent in ‘921; the Office does not find this argument because as recited the structure of ‘921 reads on the claims and applicant has not provided any evidence that the capacitive coupling mechanism of ‘921 is different than the claimed structure.
The examiner asserts that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). MPEP 2145(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights