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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 recites “for at lease one of the dielectric wall, the plasma chamber, and a induction coil;” should be “for at least one of the dielectric wall, the plasma chamber, and an induction coil.” 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:
Retaining members (elastic conductive straps, and equivalents thereof, para. [0031], [0049]) in at least claims 1-20.
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.
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 § 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(s) 1, 8-9, 11, 15-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160013025 to Nagorny in view of US 20200203175 to Ma.
Claim 1: Nagorny discloses a method of processing a workpiece, comprising: a shielding device (124 [Faraday shield], Fig. 1) comprising: a top annular portion (112 [top cap]), a bottom annular portion (114 [top plate]), and a plurality of thermal pads (136 [thermally conductive bridge], Fig. 3) coupled to top annular portion (112) or bottom annular portion with one or more retaining members (140/138, Fig. 5-6, 144/146, Fig. 7-8 or 152, Fig. 9-10, it is interpreted that the members and pads can be coupled), wherein the one or more retaining members (140 or 144/146 or 152) provide a compressive force to secure the one or more thermal pads (136) against an outer surface of the dielectric wall (outer surface of 128, para. [0042-0043]).
However Nagorny does not explicitly disclose placing a workpiece on a workpiece support in a processing chamber of a plasma processing apparatus; generating a plasma with an inductively coupled plasma source in a plasma chamber of the plasma processing apparatus, the plasma chamber including a dielectric wall; exposing the workpiece to one or more species in the plasma to provide a treatment process for the workpiece; and shielding the plasma chamber from the inductively coupled plasma source with a shielding device
Ma discloses placing a workpiece (114 [wafer], Fig. 1) on a workpiece support (112 [substrate holder]) in a processing chamber (110 [processing chamber]) of a plasma processing apparatus (100 [plasma reactor], para. [0036]); generating a plasma with an inductively coupled plasma source (130/132/134) in a plasma chamber (120 [plasma chamber]) of the plasma processing apparatus (100, para. [0038]), the plasma chamber (120) including a dielectric wall (122 [dielectric side wall]); exposing the workpiece (114) to one or more species in the plasma to provide a treatment process for the workpiece (para. [0028]); and shielding the plasma chamber from the inductively coupled plasma source with a shielding device (128 [Faraday shield], para. [0025]); for the purpose of using atomic layer etching to have self-surface limited process reaction so uniformity is controlled by surface exposure only (para. [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Ma with motivation to use atomic layer etching to have self-surface limited process reaction so uniformity is controlled by surface exposure only.
Claim 8: Nagorny discloses wherein the top annular portion, the bottom annular portion, and the plurality of thermal pads (136, Fig. 3, Nagorny) comprise a metal material (para. [0037]).
Claim 9: Nagorny discloses wherein the one or more retaining members (140/138 or 144/146 or 152, Fig. 3, Nagorny) comprise a metal material (para. [0041-0043]).
Claim 11: Nagorny discloses wherein the inductively coupled plasma source (118, Fig. 1, 3, Nagorny) includes a source coil assembly (118), the source coil assembly (118) configured to make one or more 360° turns about a perimeter of the dielectric wall (128), wherein the one or more thermal pads (136) are disposed between the one or more turns of the source coil assembly (118) and the dielectric wall (128, Fig. 3).
Claim 15: Nagorny discloses wherein each of the thermal pads (136, Fig. 3, Nagorny) are electrically conductive (para. [0025], [0037] where 136 can be made of highly conductive material such as a metal) and are considered capable to be in electrical communication with each other (they are necessarily in communication with each other via the heat sink and faraday shield in which they all contact, para. [0036], [0030]).
Claim 16: Nagorny discloses wherein the one or more retaining members (140/138 or 144/146 or 152, Fig. 3, Nagorny) are electrically conductive (para. [0041-0043]).
Claim 17: Nagorny discloses wherein the one or more retaining members (140/138 or 144/146 or 152, Fig. 3, Nagorny) flexibly suspend the respective thermal pad (136) considered capable to allow greater elastic deflection of the thermal pad in a radial direction (para. [0041-0043]).
Claim 20: Nagorny discloses plurality of thermal pads (136 [thermally conductive bridge], Fig. 3) coupled to top annular portion (112) and bottom annular portion (114) with one or more retaining members (140/138, Fig. 5-6, 144/146, Fig. 7-8 or 152, Fig. 9-10, it is interpreted that the members and pads can be coupled),
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny in view of Ma as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 11, 15-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 20150020969 to Sriraman.
Claims 2-6: The method of Nagorny in view of Ma does not disclose (claim 2) modulating a thermal exchange fluid flow to one or more of the plurality of thermal pads; (claim 3) cooling the dielectric wall of the plasma chamber with the shielding device; (claim 4) further comprising: controlling a temperature difference between the dielectric wall and the plasma chamber by a controller; (claim 5) the controller further comprising: operating a closed-up system to maintain an input temperature for at least one of the dielectric wall, the plasma chamber, and an induction coil; (claim 6) the controller configured to perform one or more operations comprising (i) modulating a fluid flow of thermal exchange fluid to one or more of the plurality of thermal pads, or (ii) modulating a power input to the inductively coupled plasma source.
Sriraman discloses (claim 2) modulating a thermal exchange fluid flow to one or more of the plurality of thermal components (202 [hub], para. [0040-0042], Fig. 2A); (claim 3) cooling the dielectric wall (104 [dielectric component]) of the plasma chamber (118/upper 102) with the shielding device (108 [Faraday shield], para. [0039-0040]); (claim 4) further comprising: controlling a temperature difference between the dielectric wall (104) and the plasma chamber (118/upper 102) by a controller (210 [fluid delivery control], para. [0042-0043]); (claim 5) the controller (210) further comprising: operating a closed-up system (202) to maintain an input temperature for at least one of the dielectric wall (104), the plasma chamber, and an induction coil (para. [0041-0042]);
(claim 6) the controller (210) configured to perform one or more operations comprising (i) modulating a fluid flow of thermal exchange fluid to one or more of the plurality of thermal components (210, para. [0041-0043]), or (ii) modulating a power input to the inductively coupled plasma source. Sriraman discloses the above limitations for the purpose of providing for a reduced temperature at the center region of the Faraday shield, and the reduced temperature in the center region induces a conductive flow of heat through the Faraday shield toward the center region (para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Sriraman with motivation to provide for a reduced temperature at the center region of the Faraday shield, and the reduced temperature in the center region induces a conductive flow of heat through the Faraday shield toward the center region.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny in view of Ma as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 11, 15-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 20190108974 to Rogers, US 20130196510 to George.
Claim 10: The method of Nagorny in view of Ma does not disclose further comprising one or more mounting brackets extending from the top annular portion to the bottom annular portion, the mounting brackets configured to support the inductively coupled plasma source, wherein the one or more mounting brackets include one or more apertures disposed therein.
Rogers discloses comprising one or more mounting brackets (214, 212 [stanchions], Fig. 2-3) extending from the top annular portion (top) to the bottom annular portion (bottom), the mounting brackets (212, 214) configured to support the inductively coupled plasma source (208, 210 [coil portions]), for the purpose of supporting the coils in a fixed position (para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mounting brackets as taught by Rogers with motivation to support the coils in a fixed position.
George discloses wherein the one or more mounting components (470 [shield member], Fig. 8a/8b) include one or more apertures (“slots”) disposed therein for the purpose of moderating the RF penetration into an associated plasma vessel (para. [0060]).
It is noted that the limitation of reducing coil arcing of the inductively coupled plasma source, is necessarily a result of including the apertures (slots in this instance) as disclosed Applicant’s disclosure. “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” MPEP 2144.05 II (B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the apertures as taught by George with motivation to moderate the RF penetration into an associated plasma vessel.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny in view of Ma as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 11, 15-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 20010003271 to Otsuki, US 20150024594 to Fischer.
Claims 12-14: The method of Nagorny in view of Ma discloses there are heat sinks coupled to thermal pads, which the heat sinks can comprise water-cooling channels, but no other specifics are given (para. [0033], Nagorny).
The method of Nagorny in view of Ma does not disclose (claim 12) wherein the thermal pads are operably coupled to one or more heat sinks for removing heat from the one or more thermal pads; (claim 13) wherein the plurality of thermal pads comprise one or more cooling channels disposed therein; (claim 14) wherein the one or more cooling channels comprise a first end coupled to a fluid inlet for providing fresh thermal exchange fluid to the one or more cooling channels and a second end coupled to a fluid outlet for removing used thermal exchange fluid from the one or more cooling channels.
Otsuki discloses (claim 12) wherein a cooling mechanism (67, Fig. 11) for removing heat from the one or more wall of the upper chamber (11c); (claim 13) wherein the plurality of components (walls of 11c) comprise one or more cooling channels (inside 67) disposed therein, for the purpose of decreasing a temperature in the upper chamber (11c, claim 22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cooling mechanism to cool the upper chamber walls as taught by Otsuki with motivation to decrease a temperature in the upper chamber.
Fischer discloses (claim 14) wherein the one or more cooling channels (flow passages of 330 [outer peripheral portion], Fig. 2-3) comprise a first end coupled to a fluid inlet (360a/b [inlets]) for providing fresh thermal exchange fluid to the one or more cooling channels (passages of 330) and a second end coupled to a fluid outlet (306a/b [outlets]) for removing used thermal exchange fluid from the one or more cooling channels (passages of 330) for the purpose of removing heat absorbed by the shield that was generated during substrate processing (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cooling mechanism components as taught by Fischer with motivation to remove heat absorbed by the shield that was generated during substrate processing.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny in view of Ma as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 11, 15-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 9184072 to Devine.
Claim 18: The method of Nagorny in view of Ma does not disclose wherein the one or more retaining members electrically connects the respective thermal pad to a reference potential. Yet Nagorny already teaches the retaining members connecting with the thermal pad (see above).
Devine discloses a plurality of retaining members (146 [web members], Fig. 6a) electrically connects the respective component (first shield member) to a reference potential which is a ground potential (c. 7, l. 30-40), for the purpose of providing more symmetric arrangement of conductive grounded surfaces thus providing enhanced uniformity of exposure of the workpiece to its associated plasma source (c. 11, l. 45-55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reference configuration as taught by Devine with motivation to provide more symmetric arrangement of conductive grounded surfaces thus providing enhanced uniformity of exposure of the workpiece to its associated plasma source.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagorny in view of Ma as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 11, 15-17, 20 above, and further in view of US 20190304754 to Shim.
Claim 19: The method of Nagorny in view of Ma does not disclose wherein the plurality of thermal pads include a height in a longitudinal direction that is greater than a height in the longitudinal direction of a coil assembly of the inductively coupled plasma source.
Shim teaches the thermal pads may have different area ratios and thicknesses, for the purpose of controlling for reducing the temperature different between the wall areas (para. [0143]). It is noted that Shim is teaching optimization of the size and thickness of the thermal pads; accordingly, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II (A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimization of sizing of the thermal pads as taught by Shim with motivation to control for reducing the temperature different between the wall areas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected independent claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220208529 discloses a Faraday shield (200, Fig. 3), including a plurality of conductive straps (240), coupled to a corresponding rib (210) of a plurality of ribs (210). US 20210066054 discloses a Faraday shield (210, Fig. 6) with a plurality of conductive slices (112) and a coil (120) wound surrounding the slices. US 20170200585 discloses an RF coil assembly (112, Fig. 2A/2B) on a ceiling (106) having coils (130, 128), attached to the ceiling by brackets (204, 206).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
