DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on December 16, 2025 was received. Claims 1, 10 and 15 were amended. Claims 4 and 19 was canceled. Claims 21-22 were added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued September 16, 2025.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuse (US6454909) in view of Aoki (US4978412), Yao (US6277198) and Ichinohe (JP2005120410).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuse teaches a processing apparatus (abstract) comprising a process chamber 10 (abstract, column 3 lines 25-30, figure 1), a susceptor 16 (column 3 lines 40-45) and a clamping ring 30 in the chamber (column 3 lines 55-60). Matsuse teaches the clamping ring 30, wherein the clamping ring is abutted against a whole peripheral edge area of the upper surface of the wafer to shield the material from depositing on the side face and the reverse surface of the wafer (column 2 line 1-11, column 3 lines 57-61), thus, the clamping ring reads on the limitation of mask. Matsuse teaches a flow control ring 50 is provided in the chamber (figure 1, column 4 lines 20-35). Matsuse teaches the inner circumferential face of the clamping ring 30 provided as a face 30A contacting with the wafer is formed as to provide a tapered face (inclined surface) (column 3 lines 60-66, see figure 1), thus the clamping ring 30 reads on the limitation of bevel mask. Matsuse teaches the vertical distance from the susceptor 16 and the inclined surface of the clamping ring 30 increases toward a center side of the susceptor 16 (see figure 1 number 30 and 16).
Matsuse does not explicit teaches the specifics of the bevel mask. However, Aoki teaches a plasma processing device (abstract) comprising a ring shape clamping member 50 (abstract, column 3 lines 7-10), wherein the ring shape clamping member 50 (an annular flat surface portion comprising a flat surface) cover the peripheral rim of the wafer 42 from the processing plasma (column 3 lines 30-40) and the ring clamping member 50 has a bevel edge on the upper surface, thus, the ring shape clamping member 50 is considered to be a bevel mask. Aoki teaches the ring shape clamping member 50 has an annular shape main body (column 3 lines 30-40, figures 8-10) and a convex portion at the lower surface on an inner edge side of the main body portion (see number 80 on figure 8, number 100 on figure 10). Aoki teaches the surface of only the convex portion contacts the substrate surface (column 5 lines 20-30, column 7 line 65 to column 8 line 6). The ring shape clamping member 50 is considered to have a flat surface at the upper surface, and wherein the convex portion extends vertically from the flat surface of the annular flat surface portion (see figure 8 and 10). In addition, changes in shape is not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the whole upper surface of the ring shape champing member 50 to a flat surface. Aoki does not explicitly teach the convex portion and the annular flat surface portion are integral to the bevel mask. However, a claimed integral structure would have been obvious in light of a separated structure of the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 V). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the convex portion and the annular flat surface portion integral to the bevel mask as it would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such a bevel mask configuration as suggested by Aoki in the apparatus of Matsuse, because Aoki teaches such clamping member ensure the separating of the processed object from the clamping member and smoothly handling it after it is released from the state of being clamped between the clamping member and a mount even if it is charged up while being exposed to plasma (column 1 lines 45-51).
Matsuse in view of Aoki does not explicitly teach the convex portion has an inclined surface, or the susceptor is configured to move to and from a up position and a down position. However, Yao teaches a clamping ring for clamping and shielding the edge of a substrate in a processing chamber (abstract, column 2 lines 50-54) and discloses the clamping ring has taper surface engages the beveled edge or other outer edge of the substrate, (column 4 lines 30-40, see figures 3 and 4), wherein when the same inclined portion applied to number 80 and number 100 in Aoki, a distance from the main body portion (50 in Aoki) and the inclined surface decreases toward the a center side of the bevel mask, and only the inclined surface contact the surface of the substrate. And the combination of Aoki and Yao would result in the convex portion extends vertically from the flat surface of the annular flat surface portion. Yao teaches the inclined surface is concave (concave curved surface) (column 4 lines 25-35). Since Matsuse in view of Aoki and Yao teaches the bevel of the substrate also has curvature (convex), and the claimed limitation does not specify how long of the portion of the concave surface is coincident with the curvature of the bevel of the substrate, it would be expected at least a small portion of the two surface is coincident, especially Yao teaches the surface has contact the edge to prevent the edge and backside deposition of material on the substrate (column 2 lines 42-48). Yao teaches the inclined surface has a flat surface or concave surface (column 4 lines 20-35). The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two surfaces, flat and concave, to be used as the taper surface. It is prima facie obvious to combine two elements, each of which is taught be the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third element which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. In addition, it is well settled that changes in shape us not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). In this case, both flat surface, concave surface and the claimed combination of flat and concave surface serves the purpose of preventing the material to deposit on the edge and backside (column 2 lines 42-48) in light of the teaching of Yao, thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to includes a flat portion in the inclined surface with a contacting portion of the concave curved surface. Especially, Applicant has not established criticality or show unexpected result of the changed of shape (combination of flat and concave curved surface). Yao teaches the contact of the inclined surface and the substrate prevents the material to deposit on the edge and backside, wherein the material is in vapor phase (column 2 lines 42-48), which reads on the limitation of suppressing the intrusion of gas between convex portion and the bevel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such inclined surface on a bevel mask as suggested by Yao in the apparatus of Aoki, because Yao teaches such tapered surface of the clamped ring reduces the mechanical tolerances (variations in substrate size) which must be considered when defining the inner diameter of the clamp ring (column 4 lines 55-64).
Yao further teaches the support member 26 (susceptor) is configured to move to and from an up position and a down position (column 3 lines 60-65, column 4 lines 45-55, column 5 lines 15-25), wherein in the down position, the susceptor is not in contact with the clamp ring 30 (bevel mask) and the bevel mask is in contact with the shield 40 (flow control ring), and when in up position the susceptor is in contact with the bevel mask (see figure 1). Yao does not explicitly teach the bevel mask is not in contact with the flow control ring during the up position, however, the placement of flow control ring in relative of the bevel mask is an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI). Nevertheless, Ichinohe teaches a method of deposition (abstract) and discloses a clamping ring 2 is used to cover the outer circumferential region of the wafer 8 during deposition (abstract). Ichinohe teaches when the susceptor 4 is in the up position, the clamping ring 2 (bevel mask) is not in contact with the shield 3 (flow control ring) (figure 1, paragraphs 0017-0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the bevel mask not in contact with the flow control ring as suggested by Ichinohe in the method of Matsuse in view of Aoki and Yao because Ichinohe teaches such configuration facilities the cover of the of the substrate for deposition (abstract, paragraph 0011).
Instant claim does not limit by the claim language of “the bevel mask is configured to contact the substate at a bevel of the substate only". The limitation is intended use of the bevel mask. The recitation of purpose or intended use must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. (see MPEP 2111.02, II). In the instant claims, the substrate itself is not part of the substrate processing apparatus, and the apparatus disclosed by Matsuse in view of Aoki and Yao appears to be capable of contacting the substrate at its bevel only. Nevertheless, Yao’s teaching of the clamping ring with a taper surface engages the beveled edge or other outer edge of the substrate, (column 4 lines 30-40, see figures 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such inclined surface on a bevel mask as suggested by Yao in the apparatus of Aoki, because Yao teaches such tapered surface of the clamped ring reduces the mechanical tolerances (variations in substrate size) which must be considered when defining the inner diameter of the clamp ring (column 4 lines 55-64).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuse teaches the inclined surface has a flat surface (see for example figure 1 number 30). Yao teaches the inclined surface has a flat surface or concave surface (column 4 lines 20-35). The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two surface, flat and convex, to be used as the taper surface. It is prima facie obvious to combine two elements, each of which is taught be the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to forma third technique which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. In addition, it is well settled that changes in shape is not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to includes a flat portion of the inclined surface as it contains a concave curved surface and also serve the purpose preventing the material to deposit on the edge and backside (column 2 lines 42-48). In this case, both flat surface, concave surface and the claimed combination of flat on either side of the concave surface serves the purpose of preventing the material to deposit on the edge and backside (column 2 lines 42-48) in light of the teaching of Yao, thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to includes flat portions in the inclined surface on either side of the concave surface. Especially, Applicant has not established criticality or show unexpected result of the changed of shape (combination of flat and concave curved surface).
Regarding claim 5, Yao teaches the clamping ring has taper surface engages the beveled edge or other outer edge of the substrate (column 4 lines 30-40, see figures 3 and 4), wherein the taper surface includes concave surface (column 4 lines 30-35), thus Yao teaches the inclined surface is configured to contact a substrate at the concave curved surface.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuse teaches the ring like attachment 50 (flow control ring) is provided in contact with the outer circumferential portion of the clamping ring 30 to prevent a processing gas from flowing downward (column 4 lines 25-30), wherein the ring like attachment is in contact with the lower surface of the clamping ring 30 (see figure 1). Yao also teaches the flow control ring is in contact with the lower surface of the bevel mask (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuse teaches the clamping ring 30 is connected to lifter pins 18 (lifting mechanism) to move the clamping ring 30 up and down (column 3 line 67 to column 4 line 2, see figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuse teaches the plasma etching process using plasma is performed in the chamber (column 8 lines 50-55). Aoki teaches a plasma processing device (abstract), and discloses a substrate is placed on the lower electrode 30 (column 2 lines 50-65) which serves as a same function as the susceptor in Matsuse. Aoki teaches the upper electrode and the lower electrode (susceptor) together forms the etching plasma (column 2 lines 50-60) (a plasma unit provided in connection with the shielding component susceptor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plasma unit in connection with the susceptor as suggested by Aoki in the apparatus of Matsuse because Aoki teaches such configuration is able to generate etching plasma for the substrate on the susceptor (column 2 lines 50-65).
Regarding claim 18, Matsuse teaches the apparatus further comprises a vacuum pump (exhaust pump), vent passages 54 (exhaust duct) and ring like flow regulating plate 46 (annular exhaust passage) inside the chamber, wherein the exhaust duct is fluidly connected between the annular exhaust passage and the exhaust pump (column 4 lines 20-36, see figures 1 and 2). Matsuse teaches the flow control ring 50 is on the same height level of ring like flow regulating plate 46 (annular exhaust passage 46). However, the placement of the flow control ring and the annular exhaust passage is an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuse (US6454909) in view of Aoki (US4978412) and Yao (US6277198) and Ichinohe (JP2005120410) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18 above, and further in view of Nozaki (US20060291835) and Ramlingam (US 20210062325).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuse teaches the susceptor (column 3 lines 40-45). Thus, Matsuse in view of Aoki and Yao teaches all limitation of this claim, except the configuration of the susceptor. However, Nozaki teaches a susceptor for treating a wafer in a processing chamber (abstract). Nozaki teaches the susceptor comprises an annular upward convex portion, a central flat portion, and an annular intermediate portion, wherein the annular upward convex portion extends vertically, and wherein the intermediate portion is sloped between the annular upward convex portion and the central flat portion, and the susceptor is configured to be in contact with the substrate at the intermediate portion only (see figures 8-9, paragraph 0072, 0043). Since Matsuse in view of Aoki and Yao teaches the bevel mask is configured to contact the substrate also, it would be obvious that the combination of Matsuse, Aoki, Yao and Nozaki would result in the annular flat surface portion of the bevel mask is configured to be in contact with the susceptor at the annular upward convex portion only. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the susceptor as suggested by Nozaki in the apparatus of Matsuse, Aoki and Yao because Nozaki teaches such susceptor is allows a gap filled with a layer of gas is formed between the upper surface of the heat treatment susceptor and the lower surface of the substrate, to prevent a crack in the substrate when the substrate is exposed to heat treatment during the processing (paragraph 0011).
In addition, Ramlingam teaches a method of depositing a film on a backside of a substrate (abstract) and discloses a shadow mask 216 is partially on top of the surface of the susceptor 214, while contacting the substrate via the surface 220 (paragraph 0024, figure 2). Ramlingam teaches the flat surface of the bevel mask is in contact with the upper surface 218 of the susceptor outside the inclined surface (see figure 2, numbers 214 and 216) (annular flat surface portion of the bevel mask is configured to be in contact with the susceptor at the annular upward convex portion only). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the flat surface of the bevel mask is in contact with the upper surface 218 of the susceptor outside the inclined surface as suggested by Ramlingam in the apparatus of Matsuse in view of Aoki, Yao and Nozaki because Ramlingam teaches such configurations creating an air gap between the substrate 202 and the top surface 218 of the susceptor 214 (paragraph 0024) which is desirable for depositing material on the backside of the substrate as the front side of the substrate 202 faces downwards and is not in contact with the top surface 218 of the susceptor 214, while the backside of the substrate 202 faces upwards and is exposed to a sputter target 222 (paragraph 0024).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuse (US6454909) in view of Aoki (US4978412) and Yao (US6277198) and Ichinohe (JP2005120410) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Ramlingam (US 20210062325).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuse teaches the shielding component is the susceptor 16 (column 3 lines 40-45), and the bevel mask has a flat surface (see for example figure 1 number 30). Thus, Matsuse in view of Aoki and Yao teaches all limitations of this claim, except the flat surface is configured to be in contact with an upper surface of the susceptor outside the inclined surface. However, Ramlingam teaches a method of depositing a film on a backside of a substrate (abstract) and discloses a shadow mask 216 is partially on top of the surface of the susceptor 214, while contacting the substrate via the surface 220 (paragraph 0024, figure 2). Ramlingam teaches the flat surface of the bevel mask is in contact with the upper surface 218 of the susceptor outside the inclined surface (see figure 2, numbers 214 and 216). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the flat surface of the bevel mask is in contact with the upper surface 218 of the susceptor outside the inclined surface as suggested by Ramlingam in the apparatus of Matsuse in view of Aoki and Yao because Ramlingam teaches such configurations creating an air gap between the substrate 202 and the top surface 218 of the susceptor 214 (paragraph 0024) which is desirable for depositing material on the backside of the substrate as the front side of the substrate 202 faces downwards and is not in contact with the top surface 218 of the susceptor 214, while the backside of the substrate 202 faces upwards and is exposed to a sputter target 222 (paragraph 0024).
Claims 10-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US4978412) in view of Yao (US6277198).
Regarding claim 10, Aoki teaches a plasma processing device (abstract) comprising a ring shape clamping member 50 (abstract, column 3 lines 7-10), wherein the ring shape clamping member 50 (an annular flat surface portion comprising a flat surface) cover the peripheral rim of the wafer 42 from the processing plasma (column 3 lines 30-40) and the ring shape clamping member 50 has a bevel edge on the upper surface, thus, the ring shape clamping member 50 is considered to be a bevel mask. Aoki teaches the ring shape clamping member 50 has an annular shape main body (column 3 lines 30-40, figures 8-10) and a convex portion at the lower surface on an inner edge side of the main body portion (see number 80 on figure 8, number 100 on figure 10). Aoki teaches the surface of the convex portion contacts the substrate surface (column 5 lines 20-30, column 7 line 65 to column 8 line 6). The ring shape clamping member 50 has a flat surface on the lower surface of the bevel mask, and wherein the convex portion extends vertically from the flat surface of the annular flat surface portion (see figure 8 and 10). Aoki does not explicitly teach the convex portion and the annular flat surface portion are integral to the bevel mask. However, a claimed integral structure would have been obvious in light of a separated structure of the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 V). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the convex portion and the annular flat surface portion integral to the bevel mask as it would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Aoki does not explicitly teach the convex portion has an inclined surface. However, Yao teaches a clamping ring for clamping and shielding the edge of a substrate in a processing chamber (abstract, column 2 lines 50-54) and discloses the clamping ring has taper surface engages the beveled edge or other outer edge of the substrate, (column 4 lines 30-40, see figures 3 and 4), wherein when the same inclined portion applied to number 80 and number 100 in Aoki, a distance from the main body portion (50 in Aoki) and the inclined surface decreases toward the a center side of the bevel mask. And the combination of Aoki and Yao would result in the convex portion extends vertically from the flat surface of the annular flat surface portion and the inclined surface is not parallel or perpendicular to the flat surface. Yao teaches the inclined surface is concave (concave curved surface) (column 4 lines 25-35). Since Aoki and Yao teaches the bevel of the substrate also has curvature (convex), and the claimed limitation does not specify how long of the portion of the concave surface is coincident with the curvature of the bevel of the substrate, it would be expected at least a small portion of the two surface is coincident, especially Yao teaches the surface has contact the edge to prevent the edge and backside deposition of material on the substrate (column 2 lines 42-48). Yao teaches the inclined surface has a flat surface or concave surface (column 4 lines 20-35). The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two surfaces, flat and concave, to be used as the taper surface. It is prima facie obvious to combine two elements, each of which is taught be the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third element which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. In addition, it is well settled that changes in shape us not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). In this case, both flat surface, concave surface and the claimed combination of flat and concave surface serves the purpose of preventing the material to deposit on the edge and backside (column 2 lines 42-48) in light of the teaching of Yao, thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to includes a flat portion in the inclined surface with a contacting portion of the concave curved surface. Especially, Applicant has not established criticality or show unexpected result of the changed of shape (combination of flat and concave curved surface). Yao teaches the contact of the inclined surface and the substrate prevents the material to deposit on the edge and backside, wherein the material is in vapor phase (column 2 lines 42-48), which reads on the limitation of suppressing the intrusion of gas between convex portion and the bevel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such inclined surface on a bevel mask as suggested by Yao in the apparatus of Aoki, because Yao teaches such tapered surface of the clamped ring reduces the mechanical tolerances (variations in substrate size) which must be considered when defining the inner diameter of the clamp ring (column 4 lines 55-64).
Regarding claim 11, Aoki teaches the convex portion is formed in an annular shape in plane view (column 3 lines 40-45). And Yao also teaches the inclined surface is formed in an annular shape in plane view (column 4 lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 12, Aoki teaches the convex portion comprises an inner surface on the enter side and an outer surface, parallel to the inner surface, on the outer side of the annular shape of the main body portion (see figures 8 and 10). Yao teaches the inclined surface to contact with the substrate (column 4 lines 30-35). Thus, the combination of Aoki and Yao teaches the inclined surface spans from the inner surface to the outer surface of the convex portion.
Regarding claim 13, Matsuse teaches the inclined surface has a flat surface (see for example figure 1 number 30). Yao teaches the inclined surface has a flat surface or concave surface (column 4 lines 20-35). The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two surface, flat and convex, to be used as the taper surface. It is prima facie obvious to combine two elements, each of which is taught be the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to forma third technique which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. In addition, it is well settled that changes in shape is not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to includes a flat portion of the inclined surface as it contains a concave curved surface and also serve the purpose preventing the material to deposit on the edge and backside (column 2 lines 42-48). In this case, both flat surface, concave surface and the claimed combination of flat on either side of the concave surface serves the purpose of preventing the material to deposit on the edge and backside (column 2 lines 42-48) in light of the teaching of Yao, thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to includes flat portions in the inclined surface on either side of the concave surface. Especially, Applicant has not established criticality or show unexpected result of the changed of shape (combination of flat and concave curved surface).
Regarding claim 14, Yao teaches the clamping ring has taper surface engages the beveled edge or other outer edge of the substrate (column 4 lines 30-40, see figures 3 and 4), wherein the taper surface includes concave surface (column 4 lines 30-35), thus Yao teaches the inclined surface is configured to contact a substrate at the concave curved surface.
Regarding claim 17, Aoki teaches the inner surface and the outer surface are perpendicular to the flat surface (see figures 8 and 10).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US4978412) in view of Yao (US6277198) as applied to claims 10-14 above, and further in view of Kasai (US20050003600).
Regarding claim 17, Aoki in view of Yao teaches all limitations of this claim, except the bevel mask is made from AlN. However, Kasai teaches a wafer processing chamber apparatus (abstract) and discloses the clamp ring 10 (bevel mask) is formed by component that is easy to absorb heat, such AlN (paragraph 0085). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bevel mask with AlN material as suggested by Kasai in the apparatus by Aoki and Yao because Kasai teaches AIN is suitable material for the bevel mask in the processing chamber (paragraph 0085).
Claims 15-16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramlingam (US 20210062325) in view of Aoki (US4978412), Yao (US6277198) and Nozaki (US20060291835).
Regarding claim 15, Ramlingam teaches a method of depositing a backside film layer on a backside of a substrate is provided that includes loading a substrate having one or more films deposited on a front side (a substrate having a device surface that is a surface on which a device is formed) of the substrate onto a substrate support of a processing chamber, depositing a target material on the backside of the substrate to form a backside layer on the backside of the substrate (paragraph 0005) (a substrate processing method for a substrate having a device surface that is a surface on which a device is formed, and a back side that is a surface opposite to the device surface). Ramlingam teaches loading the substrate in the chamber so that front side of the substrate is facing the top surface 218 of the susceptor 214 (paragraph 0024, see figure 2). Ramlingam teaches to bring a surface of the mask 216 into contact with the bevel of the substrate (paragraph 0024), wherein the bevel of the substrate includes an inclined portion at an outer edge portion of the substrate (see figure 2, number 202). Ramlingam teaches the treatment is performed on the back side of the substrate (paragraph 0005 and 0024) and can be plasma (paragraph 0017), thus Ramlingam teaches subjecting the back side to a plasma treatment. Ramlingam the shadow mask 216 is partially on top of the surface of the susceptor 214, while contacting the substrate via the surface 220 (paragraph 0024, figure 2). Ramlingam teaches the flat surface of the bevel mask is in contact with the upper surface 218 of the susceptor outside the inclined surface (see figure 2, numbers 214 and 216) (annular flat surface portion of the bevel mask is configured to be in contact with the susceptor at the annular upward convex portion only).
Ramlingam does not explicit teaches the specifics of the bevel mask. However, Aoki teaches a plasma processing device (abstract) comprising a ring shape clamping member 50 (abstract, column 3 lines 7-10), wherein the ring shape clamping member 50 (an annular flat surface portion comprising a flat surface) cover the peripheral rim of the wafer 42 from the processing plasma (column 3 lines 30-40) and the ring shape clamping member 50 has a bevel edge on the upper surface, thus, the ring shape clamping member 50 is considered to be a bevel mask. Aoki teaches the ring shape clamping member 50 has an annular shape main body (column 3 lines 30-40, figures 8-10) and a convex portion at the lower surface on an inner edge side of the main body portion (see number 80 on figure 8, number 100 on figure 10). Aoki teaches the surface of only the convex portion contacts the substrate surface (column 5 lines 20-30, column 7 line 65 to column 8 line 6). The ring shape clamping member 50 is considered to have a flat surface at the upper surface, and wherein the convex portion extends vertically from the flat surface of the annular flat surface portion (see figure 8 and 10). In addition, changes in shape is not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have whole upper surface of the ring shape champing member 50 to a flat surface. Aoki does not explicitly teach the convex portion and the annular flat surface portion are integral to the bevel mask. However, a claimed integral structure would have been obvious in light of a separated structure of the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 V). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the convex portion and the annular flat surface portion integral to the bevel mask as it would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such a bevel mask configuration as suggested by Aoki in the apparatus of Ramlingam because Aoki teaches such clamping member ensure the separating of the processed object from the clamping member and smoothly handling it after it is released from the state of being clamped between the clamping member and a mount even if it is charged up while being exposed to plasma (column 1 lines 45-51).
Ramlingam in view of Aoki does not explicitly teach the mask is bevel or has an inclined surface. However, Yao teaches a clamping ring for clamping and shielding the edge (mask) of a substrate in a processing chamber (abstract, column 2 lines 50-54) and discloses the clamping ring has taper surface engages the beveled edge or other outer edge of the substrate, (column 4 lines 30-40, see figures 3 and 4). And the combination of Aoki and Yao would result in the convex portion extends vertically from the flat surface of the annular flat surface portion. In addition, Yao teaches the clamping ring with a taper surface engages the beveled edge or other outer edge of the substrate, (column 4 lines 30-40, see figures 3 and 4). Yao teaches the inclined surface is concave (concave curved surface) (column 4 lines 25-35). Since Ramlingam in view of Aoki and Yao teaches the bevel of the substrate also has curvature (convex), and the claimed limitation does not specify how long of the portion of the concave surface is coincident with the curvature of the bevel of the substrate, it would be expected at least a small portion of the two surface is coincident, especially Yao teaches the surface has contact the edge to prevent the edge and backside deposition of material on the substrate (column 2 lines 42-48). Yao teaches the inclined surface has a flat surface or concave surface (column 4 lines 20-35). The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two surfaces, flat and concave, to be used as the taper surface. It is prima facie obvious to combine two elements, each of which is taught be the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third element which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. In addition, it is well settled that changes in shape us not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). In this case, both flat surface, concave surface and the claimed combination of flat and concave surface serves the purpose of preventing the material to deposit on the edge and backside (column 2 lines 42-48) in light of the teaching of Yao, thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to includes a flat portion in the inclined surface with a contacting portion of the concave curved surface. Especially, Applicant has not established criticality or show unexpected result of the changed of shape (combination of flat and concave curved surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such inclined surface on a bevel mask as suggested by Yao in the apparatus of Ramlingam in view of Aoki because Yao teaches such tapered surface of the clamped ring reduces the mechanical tolerances (variations in substrate size) which must be considered when defining the inner diameter of the clamp ring (column 4 lines 55-64).
Ramlingam in view of Aoki and Yao teaches all limitation of this claim, except the configuration of the susceptor. However, Nozaki teaches a susceptor for treating a wafer in a processing chamber (abstract). Nozaki teaches the susceptor comprises an annular upward convex portion, a central flat portion, and an annular intermediate portion, wherein the annular upward convex portion extends vertically, and wherein the intermediate portion is sloped between the annular upward convex portion and the central flat portion, and the susceptor is configured to be in contact with the substrate at the intermediate portion only (see figures 8-9, paragraph 0072, 0043). Since Ramlingam in view of Aoki and Yao teaches the bevel mask is configured to contact the substrate also, it would be obvious that the combination of Ramlingam, Aoki and Yao and Nozaki would result in the annular flat surface portion of the bevel mask is configured to be in contact with the susceptor at the annular upward convex portion only. Nozaki further teaches to place the substrate on susceptor pins 70 (paragraphs 0055-0058), and the susceptor is raised by shaft 41 to contact the substrate at the intermediate portion only (paragraphs 0037, 0055-0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the susceptor and use the pins to support the substrate as suggested by Nozaki in the apparatus of Ramlingam in view of Aoki and Yao because Nozaki teaches such susceptor is allows a gap filled with a layer of gas is formed between the upper surface of the heat treatment susceptor and the lower surface of the substrate, to prevent a crack in the substrate when the substrate is exposed to heat treatment during the processing (paragraph 0011), and the pins facilitate moving the substrate on the susceptor (paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 16, Yao teaches the contact of the inclined surface and the substrate prevents the material to deposit on the edge and backside, wherein the material is in vapor phase (column 2 lines 42-48), which reads on the limitation of suppressing the intrusion of gas between convex portion and the bevel.
Regarding claim 20, Nozaki further teaches to place the substrate on susceptor pins 70 (paragraphs 0055-0058), and the susceptor is raised by shaft 41 to contact the substrate at the intermediate portion only (paragraphs 0037, 0055-0058). Since Yao teaches the contacts between ring and substrate prevent deposition of material with to the edge and backside of the substrate (column 2 lines 42-48), the combination of references teaches the bevel mask is not in contact with the ring during the step of subjecting the backside to a plasma treatment.
Regarding claim 21, Yao teaches the contact of the inclined surface and the substrate prevents the material to deposit on the edge (bevel) and opposite side of the surface being treated (which is the device surface) (column 2 lines 42-48), which reads on the limitation of the device surface and the bevel is not subjected to the plasma treatment.
Regarding claim 22, Yao teaches the contact of the inclined surface and the substrate prevents the material to deposit on the edge (bevel) and opposite side of the surface being treated (which is the device surface) (column 2 lines 42-48), which reads on the limitation of suppressing gas intrusion between the convex portion and the bevel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Yao only teaches the inclined surface maybe flat or concave, but not inclined surface comprises a flat inclined surface and a concave curved surface. Yao also does not teach the “concave curved surface is configured such that the concave curved surface and a curvature of the bevel of the substrate are coincident”.
Aoki would not be combined with Matsuse (or Ichinohe and Yao) to teach the bevel mask of claim 1.
Nozaki teaches a susceptor configured to perform flash heating which is different from the plasmas process.
In response the Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
As discussed above, Yao teaches the inclined surface concave (concave curved surface) (column 4 lines 25-35). Since Matsuse in view of Aoki and Yao teaches the bevel of the substrate also has curvature (convex), and the claimed limitation does not specify how long of the portion of the concave surface is coincident with the curvature of the bevel of the substrate, it would be expected at least a portion of the two surface is coincident. Especially Yao teaches the inclined surface contact the edge to prevent the edge and backside deposition of material on the substrate (column 2 lines 42-48), which indicate at least a short portion of the two surface has to be in contact (coincide). In addition, it is well settled that changes in shape is not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change inclined surface to include the concave curved surface (to coincide with bevel edge) as long as it performs the function of preventing deposition of material with to the edge and backside of the substrate as required by Yao (column 2 lines 42-48). Yao teaches the contacting of the inclined surface and bevel edge to preventing deposition of material with to the edge and backside of the substrate as required by Yao (column 2 lines 42-48), thus, the concaved curved surface is configured that instruction of gas between the convex portion and the bevel is suppressed. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Aoki clearly teaches the benefit of using the bevel mask as such clamping member ensure the separating of the processed object from the clamping member and smoothly handling it after it is released from the state of being clamped between the clamping member and a mount even if it is charged up while being exposed to plasma (column 1 lines 45-51). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In response to applicant's argument that Aoki is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Aoki also teaches the mask is used to cover the peripheral rim of the wafer 42 from the processing plasma (column 3 lines 30-40), which is similar function with the mask in Matsuse and Yao and the claimed invention. The combination of Aoki with Matsuse and Yao, does not replace the contact at the bevel, in fact, Yao further modify Matsuse in view of Aoki of the bevel contacting point. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Nozaki teaches a susceptor for treating a wafer in a processing chamber, which is similar as the Matsuse, Aoki, Yao and Ichinohe. Nozaki teaches such susceptor is allows a gap filled with a layer of gas is formed between the upper surface of the heat treatment susceptor and the lower surface of the substrate, to prevent a crack in the substrate when the substrate is exposed to heat treatment during the processing (paragraph 0011), which would be applicable to Matsuse also teaches the susceptor being heated to heat the substrate during the process (column 4 lines 3-20, column 6 lines 10-25).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/N.V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights