`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/919,325
`
`10/21/2015
`
`Tetsuhiro IWAI
`
`PIPMM-55246
`
`5145
`
`07/27/2017 —PEARNE&GORDON LLP m
`7590
`52054
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`KENDALL, BENJAMIN R
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 14-3 108
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`1718
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/27/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdocket @ pearne.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/919,325 IWAI ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`1718BENJAMIN KENDALL $2215
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 04/26/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 12, 16, 17and 20 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 1- 11 13-15 18 and 19 Is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'I’\WIIW.usnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`h/index.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 10/21/2015 is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.IXI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 10/21/2015.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170717
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`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 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.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Election/Restrictions
`
`3.
`
`Applicant’s election of Species 1
`
`[fig 1-5B], drawn to claims 1-11, 13-15, and 18-
`
`19, in the reply filed on 04/26/2017 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not
`
`distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement,
`
`the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01 (a)).
`
`4.
`
`Claims 12, 16-7, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable
`
`generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on
`
`04/26/2017.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
`pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
`regards as the invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
`
`AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA
`
`the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding claim 3:
`
`Claim 3 includes the limitation “a plate electrode which is capacitively coupled to
`
`the plasma within the reaction chamber when radio frequency power is supplied to the
`
`dielectric member". It is unclear how supplying RF power to a dielectric member (which
`
`is electrically insulating) would in any way allow the plate electrode to be capacitively
`
`coupled to the plasma. For purposes of prosecution on the merits, examiner is
`
`interpreting this limitation to mean a plate electrode which is capacitively coupled to the
`
`plasma within the reaction chamber when—radie—frequeney—peweHs—supplied—te—the
`
`Regarding claim 5:
`
`Claim 5 includes the limitations “first electrode pattern and a first insulation film"
`
`and “second electrode pattern and a second insulation film” [lines 2-4]. However, claim
`
`1, from which claim 5 depends, previously sets forth “an electrode pattern and an
`
`insulation film” [lines 12-13]. Examiner notes that the “first electrode pattern and a first
`
`insulation film" (claim 1) is claimed to be in the same location as the “first electrode
`
`pattern and a first insulation film" (claim 5). Therefore, it is unclear if how two separate
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`structures are to be located in the same location. For purposes of prosecution on the
`
`merits, examiner is interpreting the beginning of claim 5 to recite "The plasma
`
`processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the electrode pattern and insulating
`
`film comprise:
`
`Furthermore, claim 5 includes the limitation “a plate electrode which is
`
`capacitively coupled to the plasma in the reaction chamber when radio frequency power
`
`is supplied to the dielectric member". It is unclear how supplying RF power to a
`
`dielectric member (which is electrically insulating) would in any way allow the plate
`
`electrode to be capacitively coupled to the plasma. For purposes of prosecution on the
`
`merits, examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean a plate electrode which is
`
`capacitively coupled to the plasma in the reaction chamber when—radie—frequeney—pewer
`
`.
`
`l'
`
`l
`
`l
`
`l'
`
`l
`
`.
`
`I
`
`Regarding claims 6-8:
`
`The limitations of claims 6-8 are rejected at least based on their dependency
`
`from claim.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`7.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Yoshida (US 5,735,993) with evidentiary support provided by Hama (US
`
`6,149,760).
`
`Regarding claim 1:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches a plasma processing apparatus (plasma processing
`
`apparatus) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4] comprising: a vessel (vacuum reaction vessel,
`
`10) which comprises a reaction chamber (space within 10), atmosphere within the
`
`reaction chamber (space within 10) capable of being depressurized (vacuum) [fig 7 &
`
`col 6, lines 5-14]; a lower electrode (lower electrode, 11) which supports an object to be
`
`processed (sample, 27) within the reaction chamber (space within 10) [fig 7 & col 4,
`
`lines 3-11]; a dielectric member (portion of dielectric 2 above 1a) which comprises a first
`
`surface (top of 2) and a second surface (bottom surface of 2 contacting 1a) opposite to
`
`the first surface (top of 2), and which closes an opening of the vessel (top of 10) such
`
`that the first surface (top of 2) opposes an outside of the reaction chamber (outside of
`
`space within 10) and the second surface (bottom surface of 2 contacting 1a) opposes
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`the object to be processed (sample, 27) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4]; and a coil (flat spiral
`
`coil, 1) which opposes the first surface of the dielectric member (top of 2), and which
`
`generates plasma within the reaction chamber (space within 10) [fig 7 & col3-4, lines
`
`52-2], wherein an electrode pattern (1 a/1 b) and an insulation film (portion of dielectric 2
`
`below 1a) which covers the electrode pattern (1 a/1 b) are formed on the second surface
`
`of the dielectric member (bottom surface of 2 contacting 1a) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`As set forth above, Yoshida’993 teaches all of the limitations of the claim.
`
`However, Yoshida’993 does not specifically disclose that the dielectric member and the
`
`insulation film are separable structures. It would have been obvious to one having
`
`ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the dielectric member and
`
`the insulation film separable structures, since it has been held that making a formerly
`
`integral structure separable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
`
`Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to make the dielectric member and the insulation film separable structures
`
`since such would allow the structure to be formed by simply stacking the structures,
`
`thereby lowering fabrication cost [Hama’760 — col 9, lines 4-10].
`
`Regarding claim 2:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches the electrode pattern (1a/1 b) comprises an electric heater
`
`(heater, 1b) which heats the dielectric member (portion of dielectric 2 above 1a) [fig 7 &
`
`col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`Regarding claim 3:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches the electrode pattern (1 a/1 b) comprises a plate electrode
`
`(metallic plate, 1a) which is capacitively coupled to the plasma (capacitive coupling
`
`component in the plasma) within the reaction chamber (space within 10) [fig 7 & col 5-6,
`
`lines 59-4].
`
`Regarding claim 4:
`
`The limitation “wherein the electrode pattern comprises a thermal-sprayed
`
`pattern” does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said
`
`limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product. Even though
`
`product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of
`
`patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not
`
`depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the
`
`same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even
`
`though the prior product was made by a different process.
`
`In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,
`
`698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
`
`Regarding claim 5:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches the electrode pattern (1a/1 b) and insulating film (portion of
`
`dielectric 2 below 1a) comprise: a first electrode pattern (metallic plate, 1a) and a first
`
`insulation film (portion of 2 between 1a and 1b) which covers the first electrode pattern
`
`(1a) are formed on the second surface of the dielectric member (bottom surface of 2
`
`contacting 1a), a second electrode pattern (1 b) and a second insulation film (portion of 2
`
`below 1b) which covers the second electrode pattern (heater, 1b) are formed on a
`
`surface of the first insulation film (bottom of portion of 2 between 1a and 1b), and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`wherein one of the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern (1a/1 b,
`
`respectively) comprises an electric heater (heater, 1b) which heats the dielectric
`
`member (portion of 2 above 1a), and the other of the first electrode pattern and the
`
`second electrode pattern comprises a plate electrode (metallic plate, 1a) which is
`
`capacitively coupled to the plasma (capacitive coupling component in the plasma) in the
`
`reaction chamber (space within 10) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`As set forth above, Yoshida’993 teaches all of the limitations of the claim.
`
`However, Yoshida’993 does not specifically disclose that the dielectric member, the first
`
`insulation film, and the second insulation film are separable structures. It would have
`
`been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
`
`make the dielectric member and the insulation film separable structures, since it has
`
`been held that making a formerly integral structure separable involves only routine skill
`
`in the art [MPEP 2144.04]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the
`
`art at the time of the invention to make the dielectric member and the insulation film
`
`separable structures since such would allow the structure to be formed by simply
`
`stacking the structures, thereby lowering fabrication cost [Hama’760 — col 9, lines 4-10].
`
`Regarding claim 6:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches the first electrode pattern (13) comprises the plate
`
`electrode (metallic plate), and the second electrode pattern (1 b) comprises the electric
`
`heater (heater) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`before the effective filing date to have the first electrode pattern comprise the electric
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`heater and the second electrode pattern comprise the plate electrode, since it has been
`
`held that a mere reversal of parts involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04
`
`(V|)(A)]-
`
`Regarding claim 7:
`
`The limitation “wherein at least one of the first electrode pattern and the second
`
`electrode pattern comprises a thermal-sprayed pattern” does not distinguish the claimed
`
`product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional
`
`structure to the claimed product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by
`
`and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
`
`The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the
`
`product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the
`
`prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a
`
`different process.
`
`In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985) [MPEP 2113].
`
`Regarding claim 8:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches the electric heater as a whole is disposed within the plate
`
`electrode (heater 1b is of the same geometry as the metal plate 1a) as viewed from a
`
`direction perpendicular to the second surface of the dielectric member (top-down view)
`
`[fig 7 & col 6, lines 5-14].
`
`Regarding claim 9:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches the second surface of the dielectric member (bottom
`
`surface of 2 contacting 1a) comprises a flat portion (see horizontal depiction), and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`wherein the electrode pattern (1 a/1 b) is formed in the flat portion (see horizontal
`
`depiction) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`10.
`
`Claims 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Yoshida (US 5,735,993) as applied to claims 1-9 above, and
`
`further in view of Yoshida (US 5,690,781).
`
`The limitations of claims 1-9 have been set forth above.
`
`Regarding claims 10-1 1:
`
`Yoshida’993 does not teach a groove is formed on the first surface of the
`
`dielectric member, and wherein at least a part of the coil is disposed in the groove; and
`
`wherein the groove has an annular shape having a center which substantially overlaps
`
`with a center of the coil as viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first surface of
`
`the dielectric member.
`
`Yoshida’781 teaches a groove (surface around upwardly convex shape) is
`
`formed on the first surface of the dielectric member (top surface of 4), and wherein at
`
`least a part of the coil (spiral coil, 2) is disposed in the groove (provided to conform
`
`along the surface around convex shape) [fig 5B & col 4-5, lines 56-6]; and wherein the
`
`groove (surface around upwardly convex shape) has an annular shape having a center
`
`(center of the reaction chamber) which substantially overlaps with a center of the coil
`
`(coil to be axially symmetrical about the center of the reaction chamber) as viewed from
`
`a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the dielectric member (direction depicted
`
`in fig 58) [fig 5B & col 2, lines 6-38 and col 4-5, lines 56-6].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Yoshida’993 and Yoshida’781 are analogous inventions in the field of inductively
`
`coupled plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in
`
`the art before the effective date to modify the dielectric member of Yoshida’993 with a
`
`groove in the top surface thereof, as in Yoshida’781, to achieve a uniform processing
`
`rate across the diameter of the substrate [Yoshida’781 — col 2, lines 6-38].
`
`Regarding claim 13:
`
`Yoshida’993 does not teach the coil comprises a conductor having a length L and
`
`extending from a first end on a center side to a second end on an outer peripheral side,
`
`wherein the conductor comprises a center side portion having a length 0.5 L from a
`
`center of the coil and a remaining outer peripheral side portion, and wherein a ratio of
`
`the remaining outer peripheral side portion disposed within the groove is larger than a
`
`ratio of the center side portion disposed within the groove.
`
`Yoshida’781 teaches a coil (spiral coil, 2) comprises a conductor having a length
`
`L (length of coil from center to outer peripheral side — radius of 2) and extending from a
`
`first end on a center side (center of reaction chamber) to a second end on an outer
`
`peripheral side (outer right side of 2) [fig SB & col 2, lines 6-38 and col 4-5, lines 56-6],
`
`wherein the conductor comprises a center side portion having a length 0.5 L from a
`
`center of the coil (length of coil from center to 0.5 the distance to the outer peripheral
`
`side of 2) and a remaining outer peripheral side portion (halfway between center and
`
`outer right side of 2) [fig SB & col 2, lines 6-38 and col 4-5, lines 56-6].
`
`Yoshida’781 does not specifically disclose “a ratio of the remaining outer
`
`peripheral side portion disposed within the groove is larger than a ratio of the center
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`side portion disposed within the groove” but teaches a ratio of the outer peripheral side
`
`portion to the center side portion (D/d) is a result-effective variable [fig 3A-3D & col 4,
`
`lines 22-41]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the ratio of the outer
`
`peripheral side portion to the center side portion through routine experimentation in
`
`order to discover the optimum ratio for reducing the induction field at the center to
`
`achieve a uniform ion current density [fig 3A-3D & col 4, lines 22-41]. It has been held
`
`that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill
`
`in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
`
`Yoshida’993 and Yoshida’781 are analogous inventions in the field of inductively
`
`coupled plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in
`
`the art before the effective date to modify the dielectric member of Yoshida’993 with the
`
`groove of Yoshida’781 to achieve a uniform processing rate across the diameter of the
`
`substrate [Yoshida’781 — col 2, lines 6-38].
`
`11.
`
`Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Yoshida (US 5,735,993) and Yoshida (US 5,690,781) as applied to claims 10-11 and
`
`13 above, and further in view of Ghanbari (US 5,982,100).
`
`The limitations of claims 10-11 and 13 have been set forth above.
`
`Regarding claim 14:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 does not specifically disclose a winding density of the coil
`
`in the outer peripheral side portion is larger than a winding density of the coil in the
`
`center side portion.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Ghanbari does not specifically disclose “a winding density of the coil in the outer
`
`peripheral side portion is larger than a winding density of the coil in the center side
`
`portion” but teaches the winding density is a result-effective variable [fig 2 & col 3, lines
`
`51 -65]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing
`
`date to discover the optimum configuration for the winding density through routine
`
`experimentation in order to modify the field configuration within the plasma chamber [fig
`
`2 & col 3, lines 51-65]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-
`
`effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Ghanbari are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`inductively coupled plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one
`
`skilled in the art before the coil of modified Yoshida’993 with the winding density of
`
`Ghanbari to adjust the coil to produce a more uniform plasma [Ghanbari — col 3, lines
`
`51 -65].
`
`12.
`
`Claims 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Hama (US 6,149,760) in view of Hama et al (US 5,716,451).
`
`Regarding claim 15:
`
`Hama’760 teaches a plasma processing apparatus (100) [fig 1 & col 3, lines 13-
`
`15] comprising: a reaction chamber (process chamber, 102) [fig 1 & col, lines 16-27]; a
`
`stage (susceptor, 116) which supports an object to be processed (semiconductor wafer,
`
`W) within the reaction chamber (102) [col 3, lines 28-32]; a cover (lower layer, 144)
`
`which opposes the stage (116) within the reaction chamber (102) [fig 1-2 & col 4, lines
`
`18-30]; a Faraday shield electrode (Faraday shield layer, 146) which is disposed on an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`opposite side of the stage (116) across the cover (144) [fig 1-2 & col 4, lines 18-30]; a
`
`dielectric member (upper layer, 142) which is disposed on the opposite side of the stage
`
`(116) across the cover (144), and which closes an opening of the reaction chamber (top
`
`of 102) [fig 1-2 & col 4, lines 18-30]; and an induction coil (RF antenna, 110) which is
`
`disposed on an outer side of the dielectric member (142) opposite to the reaction
`
`chamber (1 02), wherein the Faraday shield electrode (146) has at least one of a slit
`
`portion and a window portion (slits, 148) [fig 1-2 & col 4, lines 18-30 and 52-65], and
`
`wherein the cover (144) has a bottom portion (portion below 148) opposing at least a
`
`part of the slit portion and the window portion (148) [fig 1-2 & col 4, lines 18-30 and 52-
`
`65].
`
`Hama’760 does not specifically teach a gas introduction path into which material
`
`gas of plasma is introduced is formed between the cover and the dielectric member,
`
`and wherein the cover has a gas injection port which is formed in a bottom portion, and
`
`through which the material gas introduced into the gas introduction path is supplied into
`
`the reaction chamber.
`
`Hama’451 teaches a gas introduction path (gas passage, 172) into which
`
`material gas of plasma (predetermined process gas) is introduced is formed between
`
`the cover (bottom of 168) and the dielectric member (bottom of 160), and wherein the
`
`cover (bottom of 168) has a gas injection port (holes, 172a) which is formed in a bottom
`
`portion (bottom of 168), and through which the material gas (predetermined process
`
`gas) introduced into the gas introduction path (172) is supplied into the reaction
`
`chamber (102a) [fig 8 & col 11, lines 11-26].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Hama’760 and Hama’451 are analogous inventions in the field of inductively
`
`coupled plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one skilled in
`
`the art before the effective date to modify the apparatus of Hama’760 with a gas
`
`introduction path between the cover and the dielectric member, as in Hama’451, to
`
`uniformly supply the gas to the process chamber [Hama’760 — col 9, lines 39-47].
`
`Regarding claim 18:
`
`Hama’760 teaches the Faraday shield electrode (146) is disposed between the
`
`dielectric member (142) and the cover (144) [fig 1-2 & col 4, lines 18—30].
`
`13.
`
`Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Hama (US 6,149,760) in view of Hama et al (US 5,716,451) as applied to claims 15
`
`and 18 above, and further in view of Yoshida (US 5,690,781).
`
`The limitations of claims 15 and 18 have been set forth above.
`
`Regarding claim 19:
`
`Modified Hama’760 does not teach a recess portion is formed on a surface of the
`
`dielectric member opposing the induction coil, and wherein at least a part of the
`
`induction coil is disposed in the recess portion.
`
`Yoshida’781 teaches a recess portion (surface around upwardly convex shape)
`
`is formed on a surface of the dielectric member (top surface of 4) opposing the induction
`
`coil (spiral coil, 2), and wherein at least a part of the induction coil (spiral coil, 2) is
`
`disposed in the recess portion (provided to conform along the surface around convex
`
`shape) [fig 5B & col 4-5, lines 56-6].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Modified Hama’760 and Yoshida’781 are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`inductively coupled plasma processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one
`
`skilled in the art before the effective date to modify the dielectric member of modified
`
`Hama’760 with a groove in the top surface thereof, as in Yoshida’781, to achieve a
`
`uniform processing rate across the diameter of the substrate [Yoshida’781 — col 2, lines
`
`6-38].
`
`Conclusion
`
`14.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure. Collins (US 6,361,644) and Ohkuni (US 2007/0004208) teach
`
`an electrode pattern and an insulation film which covers the electrode pattern [fig 25A
`
`and 9, respectively]. Li et al (US 2002/0100557) teaches an electrode pattern
`
`comprises an electric heater [fig 1].
`
`15.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KENDALL whose telephone number is
`
`(571 )272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur: 9-5 EST.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/919,325
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on (571)272-5166. The fax phone 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.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`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). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`/BENJAMIN KENDALL/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 1718
`
`