DETAILED ACTION
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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” are being inter-preted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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) 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) because the claim limitations 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 limitations are: “low temperature maintenance portion” in claim 1 and “substrate temperature adjustment portion” in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koshiishi (2004/0226815).
Koshiishi teaches a plasma deposition apparatus comprising:
- a process chamber (see Fig. 1),
- a substrate stage in the chamber with a lower electrode 130 [0104],
- an upper electrode also per [0104], see 120,
- a gas supply portion, described per [0035]; in regard to the supply of a hydrocarbon: it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The prior art teaches a gas supply, and the gas supply is understood to be capable of supplying any gas, such as a hydrocarbon, therefore the claim limitation is met, hydrocarbon is not required;
- in regard to the first and second power supplies – the teachings include a power supply connected to each electrode [0104], but the use of the power supply to issue a particular power (waveform) is intended use of the apparatus and therefore the limitation is met by the ability to apply any waveform to the electrodes and the further repetition/period is likewise intended use and the system is capable of meeting the same use and therefore the structure limitations of the apparatus claim are met.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiishi (2004/0226815) in view of Nam (2019/0096636).
Koshiishi teaches a plasma deposition apparatus comprising:
- a process chamber (see Fig. 1),
- a substrate stage in the chamber, including an electrostatic chuck, 170, see [0051], wherein the echuck is understood to hold a substrate as claimed, a lower electrode 130 [0104], but the teachings do not include a low temperature maintenance portion,
- an exhaust portion with a vacuum pump – this is not directly taught by Koshiishi, however such components are universally known with such equipment, as per MPEP 2144.01, it is proper to take into account both explicit and implicit teachings of a reference, where the teaching further includes a gas supply portion [0035], it would be unexpected or inoperable not to include an exhaust with pump, and, further, the use of a hydrocarbon is intended use of the apparatus;
- an upper electrode also per [0104], see 120.
In regard to the first and second power supplies – the teachings include a power supply connected to each electrode [0104], but the use of the power supply to issue a particular waveform is intended use of the apparatus and therefore the limitation is met by the ability to apply any waveform to the electrodes.
As noted, the teachings are silent on a low temperature maintenance portion. Such a portion is interpreted as above under 112f, it is interpreted as a refrigerant cooling system within the substrate holder as supported in the specification. Nam teaches that in a system including an upper and lower electrode [0072], it is useful to include cooling channels with fluid to maintain a temperature of the electrostatic chuck [0031-33]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the echuck cooling system of Nam to the apparatus of Koshiishi for the benefits of controlling chuck/substrate temperature.
(In alternative to implicit teachings above, the exhaust system of Nam, 24 [0035] includes an exhaust and pump and would be another obvious modification).
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-19, the claims are further intended use of the apparatus and addressed per the intended use noted above.
Regarding claim 11, all elements of the claim are taught as per claim 1 above, including the chamber, stage, upper and lower electrodes, gas supply and exhaust portions taught by Koshiishi as well as the temperature adjustment portion (and exhaust) taught by Nam. The two power supplies are likewise taught but the use of any particular waveform is intended use, as is the inclusion of a reaction gas and the formation of any particular (i.e. the claimed carbon layer).
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. 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