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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021/021531A1 to Hudson et al. in view of KR2007-0002252A to Yoon (see machine translation).
As to claim 1, Hudson discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a plasma container (see Hudson paragraph [0079] disclosing plasma chamber 202); a stage provided inside the processing container, the stage having a substrate placement surface and a ring-member placement surface surrounding an outer periphery of the substrate placement surface with a ring placed on the ring-member placement surface (see Hudson paragraph [0080] disclosing chuck 106 and edge ring 102); a first elevating mechanism including first lift pins configured to support a substrate (see Hudson paragraphs [0120]-[0122] disclosing lift pins 326A and 326B to support the substrate); a controller (see Hudson paragraph [0038]), the controller is configured to execute an operation (a) of cleaning an interior of the processing chamber using plasma in a state where a dummy substrate is supported on the first lift pins by controlling the first elevating mechanism (see Hudson paragraph [0124]).
Hudson does not explicitly disclose a second elevating mechanism including second lift pins configured to support the ring and wherein the controller is configured to execute an operation (b) of cleaning the interior of the processing container using the plasma in a state where the ring is supported on the second lift pins by controlling the second elevating mechanism. Yoon discloses a similar plasma processing apparatus comprising an elevating mechanism including lift pints configured to support the ring and wherein the controller is configured to execute an operation of cleaning the interior of the processing container using the plasma in a state where the ring is supported on the lift pins by controlling the second elevating mechanism (see Yoon machine translation pages 9-10 and 14-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hudson to include a second elevating mechanism including second lift pins configured to support the ring and wherein the controller is configured to execute an operation (b) of cleaning the interior of the processing container using the plasma in a state where the ring is supported on the second lift pins by controlling the second elevating mechanism as disclosed by Yoon in order to efficiently clean the ring and prevent contaminants from falling on the substrate being processed (see Yoon machine translation pages 9-10 and 15-16).
As to claim 2, the combination of Hudson and Yoon discloses that the cleaning of the processing container can be performed in a state where the substrate is not provided inside the processing container (see Hudson Fig. 2C where a cleaning process can be performed without a substrate on the chuck or Fig. 3B where a dummy substrate can be used (but not the substrate to be processed); see also Yoon machine translation page 14 where the cleaning process can be performed between the end of one process and the beginning of the subsequent process).
As to claim 3, the combination of Hudson and Yoon discloses that the controller can be configured to further execute an operation (d) of cleaning the interior of the processing container in a state where the dummy substrate is placed on the substrate placement surface inside the processing container (see Hudson Fig.3B top diagram).
As to claim 4, as discussed in the above rejections to claims 2 and 3, the combination of Hudson and Yoon discloses that the cleaning of the processing container can be performed in a state where the substrate is not provided inside the processing container (see Hudson Fig. 2C where a cleaning process can be performed without a substrate on the chuck or Fig. 3B where a dummy substrate can be used (but not the substrate to be processed); see also Yoon machine translation page 14 where the cleaning process can be performed between the end of one process and the beginning of the subsequent process). Furthermore, the combination of Hudson and Yoon discloses that the controller can be configured to further execute an operation (d) of cleaning the interior of the processing container in a state where the dummy substrate is placed on the substrate placement surface inside the processing container (see Hudson Fig.3B top diagram where it is also noted that the dummy substrate is used and not the substrate to be processed).
As to claim 5, the combination of Hudson and Yoon discloses the operation (a) and the operation (b) as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the operations could be performed simultaneously in order to optimize cleaning time where it is also noted that selection of any order of performing steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of a new and unexpected results. Consult In re Burnhans, 154F.2d690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Consult also Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd.App.1959) were prior art reference discloses a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art order steps.
As to claims 6 and 7, Yoon discloses that the substrate can be smaller than an inner diameter of the ring (see Yoon machine translation page 13 where the focus ring is provided on the side of the substrate and supports the edge of the substrate and see Fig. 1 where the focus ring has a wider diameter than chuck 142; see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) where changes in size/proportion is prima facie obvious). Thus, the combination of Hudson and Yoon is fully capable of executing the operation of cleaning the interior of the processing container in a state where the dummy substrate is placed on the substrate placement surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 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: The closest prior art is WO2021/021531A1 to Hudson et al. and KR2007-0002252A to Yoon.
Hudson and Yoon are discussed in the above rejections to claims 1-7. The cited prior art does not disclose that the controller is configured to perform the additional operations (b-1) to (b-4) in operation (b) as recited in claim 8. Furthermore, the cited prior art does not disclose that the controller is configured to perform the additional operations (a-1) to (a-4) in operation (a) as recited in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights