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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Responsive to communication filed 07/01/2026
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 5, 7-8, 12, and 14-20 have been withdrawn
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-11, and 13 are rejected
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20190341275) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 8573152), Benzing et al. (US 20020170881), and Dhindsa et al. (US 6391787), with Dhindsa et al. (US 20100040768), Kennedy et al. (US 20050133160), Szapucki et al. (US 6050216), Chen et al. (US 20200051792), Bise et al. (US 20130126486), Chen et al. (US 20150099365), Choi et al. (US 20080302303), Seo et al. (US 20110203735), Wang et al. (US 20190371581), and Godyak et al. (US 20120160806) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Jin teaches an apparatus for processing substrates, comprising: a process chamber (processing chamber 200) with a process volume located above a substrate support assembly (substrate support 204) surrounded by an edge ring (edge ring 244 that interfaces with a conductance liner (confinement shroud 248); wherein the edge ring is supported by the substrate support assembly on a lower surface of the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the edge ring 244 is supported by the substrate support 204); an upper electrode (inner electrode 220) located above the process volume; and a conductive tuning ring (outer electrode 224) surrounding the upper electrode and in electrical contact with the upper electrode (outer electrode 224 and inner electrode 220 are collectively the upper electrode 216), wherein the conductive tuning ring is a unitary structure (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the outer electrode 120 is non comprised of multiple parts, and is instead a single, unitary structure), wherein the conductive tuning ring is positioned directly above the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 4, outer electrode 224 is directly above edge ring 244) and wherein the conductive tuning ring has at least one gas port on a lower surface (outer electrode 224 comprises side tuning holes 284), wherein an inner edge of the conductive tuning ring interfaces with the upper electrode (as evidenced by Fig. 2, outer electrode 224 has an inner edge that interfaces with inner electrode 220), a non-stepped portion at an outer periphery of the lower surface of the conductive tuning ring that is positioned directly above the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the outer electrode 224 has at least a portion that is not stepped and is located directly above edge ring 244) [Fig. 2 & 0037, 0039, 0040-0041, 0053].
Jin does not specifically disclose a conductive tuning ring surrounds and interlocks with and retains the upper electrode in position, wherein the conductive tuning ring is in direct contact with a backing plate on an upper surface, wherein the backing plate extends behind the upper electrode and the conductive tuning ring.
De la Llera teaches wherein the conductive tuning ring (outer electrode 130) surrounds and interlocks with and retains the upper electrode (inner electrode 120) in position (outer electrode member 24 and inner electrode member are shaped to interlock with each other),
wherein the conductive tuning ring is in direct contact with a backing plate (backing plate 140) on an upper surface, wherein the backing plate extends behind the upper electrode and the conductive tuning ring (as evidenced by Fig. 1B, the backing plate 140 extends behind the inner electrode 120 and outer electrode 130) [Fig. 1B & Col. 3 lines 30-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jin to include a backing plate and interlock the inner and outer electrodes of Jin, as in de la Llera, to provide mechanical security and thermal uniformity [de la Llera - Col. 5 lines 13-21 and lines 40-56, Col. 8 lines 55-60]. Dhindsa et al. (US 20100040768) also discloses a substantially similar apparatus where in an outer electrode member with apertures interfaces with a backing plate and thermal control plate [Dhindsa '768 - 0019, 0024]. Kennedy et al. (US 20050133160) also discloses that utilizing plates above a showerhead can provide mechanical security and uniform temperature distribution [Kennedy - 0015-0017, 0022]. Szapucki et al. (US 6050216) also discloses that forming an interlock between two structures helps maintain alignment and mechanical security [Szapucki – Col. 5 lines 20-25, 53-64]
Modified Jin does not specifically disclose wherein an outer edge of the conductive tuning ring is in direct contact with the conductance liner, wherein the conductance liner only contacts the edge ring on the lower surface of the edge ring.
Benzing teaches wherein an outer edge of an outer ring is in direct contact with the conductance liner (the shroud 450 is in contact with the upper insulator ring 414), wherein the conductance liner only contacts the edge ring on the lower surface of the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 8, the shroud 450 only contacts the focus ring 426 at a lower surface) [Fig. 8 & 0036-0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conductance liner of Modified Jin to have the arrangement of the conductance liner of Benzing, since the arrangement of Benzing substantially minimizes plasma-wall interactions, reduces system maintenance, improves process stability, and decreases system-to-system variations [Benzing - 0022]. Chen et al. (US 20200051792) also discloses a plasma confinement shroud that is in direct contact with an outer electrode [Chen '792 - Fig. 1 & 0030-0031].
Modified Jin (Jin modified by de la Llera and Benzing) does not specifically disclose wherein the conductive tuning ring has at least one stepped portion on the lower surface that forms an extended bottom surface with a face, and a non-stepped portion at an outer periphery of the lower surface of the conductive tuning ring that is positioned directly above the edge ring.
Dhindsa ‘787 teaches and wherein the conductive tuning ring has both at least one stepped portion on the lower surface that forms an extended bottom surface with a face and a non-stepped portion at an outer periphery of the lower surface of the conductive tuning ring (the non-stepped and stepped portions are shown in the annotated drawings below) [Fig. 1B & Col. 7 lines 28-39].
PNG
media_image1.png
642
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conductive tuning ring of Modified Jin to have a stepped portion and non-stepped portion, as in Dhindsa ‘787, to produce more uniform plasma [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 4 lines 56-65]. Furthermore, Dhindsa ‘787 discloses that various parameters of the step of Dhindsa ‘787 can be adjusted to obtain a desired etch rate profile (such as its placement, inner diameter, geometric features, step thickness, angle, degree of curvature, etc.) [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 11 lines 60-67, Col. 12 lines 1-3]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the geometric features of the claimed invention via routine optimization to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 D). Bise et al. (US 20130126486) also discloses an outer ring (outer electrode 310) with stepped and non-stepped portions [Bise - Fig. 3A]. Chen et al. (US 20150099365) also discloses that the geometry and angles of an outer ring can be adjusted to change etch rates [Chen '365 - 0041-0044].
It's further noted that the entire outer periphery of the conductive tuning ring (outer electrode 224) of Jin is located entirely above the edge ring (edge ring 244). As such, modification of the outer periphery of the conductive tuning ring of Jin to be non-stepped would result in the non-stepped portion being above the edge ring.
Regarding Claim 2:
Jin teaches a controller (system controller 264) configured to adjust a gas flow through the at least one gas port of the conductive tuning ring to control a plasma sheath of plasma formed in the process volume of the process chamber (controller 264 controls the gas delivery system 256 to supply gases from the gas sources 260 and into the processing chamber 200 through the center holes 280 and/or the side tuning holes 284; adjusting gas flow would affect plasma formation) to alter an edge deposition rate on a substrate (the side tuning holes 284 may be arranged to direct gases in an outer region of the processing volume 252 above the edge ring 244 and/or an outer edge of the substrate 232), wherein the at least one gas port comprises concentric rings of gas ports that include an inner ring of gas ports, an intermediate ring of gas ports, and an outer ring of gas ports (as evidenced by Fig. 2, there a plurality of side tuning holes 284 that are concentrically arranged) [Fig. 2 & 0037, 0039, 0040-0041, 0053].
It is noted that the limitations “to increase substrate deposition or etching uniformity, to control a plasma sheath of plasma formed in the process volume of the process chamber to alter an edge deposition rate on a substrate during a substrate deposition process,” are merely intended results of a step positively recited. In this case, the positively recited step is “by adjusting a gas flow through the at least one gas port of the conductive tuning ring.” Since Jin explicitly discloses adjusting gas flow (the side tuning holes 284 may be arranged to direct gases in an outer (i.e., edge or peripheral) region of the processing volume 252 above the edge ring 244 and/or an outer edge of the substrate 232), then Jin has disclosed the step that is positively recited, and as such, the intended results would occur [Jin – 0039-0040]. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Furthermore, Jin explicitly discloses in Fig. 3B that the presence of the side gas flow 308 directly affects the deposition profile across a substrate (the deposition profile 320-1 illustrates results of a deposition step performed with reactant gases supplied only via the center gas flow 304; the deposition profile 320-2 illustrates results of a deposition step performed with reactant gases supplied only via the side gas flow 308 and inert gas supplied via the center gas flow 304) [Jin – 0005-0048]. As such, Jin discloses the positively recited step of adjusting edge gas flows, and it also discloses the intended result of changing deposition across a substrate.
Choi et al. (US 20080302303) also disclose that adjusting the edge gas flows affect deposition rates [Choi - 0072]. Seo et al. (US 20110203735) and Wang et al. (US 20190371581) also disclose that specifically controlling edge gas flows changes plasma distribution, sheathe characteristics, and etch rates [Seo – 0072, 0088; Wang – 0027, 0044]. Godyak et al. (US 20120160806) also discloses that gas flow can be controlled to affect plasma characteristics [Godyak - 0070].
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Jin (Jin modified by de la Llera and Benzing) does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one stepped portion of the face of the extended bottom surface slants radially outwardly at an angle of greater than zero degrees to approximately 30 degrees from horizontal forming a radially outwardly slanted face between a first slant point and a second slant point, and wherein the at least one stepped portion of the face angles to the first slant point from the upper electrode and angles to the non-stepped portion from the second slant point.
Dhindsa ‘787 teaches wherein the at least one stepped portion of the face of the extended bottom surface slants radially outwardly at an angle forming a radially outwardly slanted face between a first slant point and a second slant point (the step has an outwardly slanted portion on outer surface 14, which extends from a first slant point to a second slant point) [Fig. 1B & Col. 7 lines 29-39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conductive tuning ring of Modified Jin to have a stepped portion and non-stepped portion, as in Dhindsa ‘787, to produce more uniform plasma [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 4 lines 56-65]. Furthermore, although Dhindsa ‘787 does not specifically disclose "wherein the at least one stepped portion of the face angles to the first slant point from the upper electrode and angles to the non-stepped portion from the second slant point," Dhindsa ‘787 does disclose that various parameters of the step of Dhindsa ‘787 can be adjusted to obtain a desired etch rate profile (such as its placement, inner diameter, geometric features, step thickness, angle, degree of curvature, etc.) [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 11 lines 60-67, Col. 12 lines 1-3]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the geometric features of the claimed invention via routine optimization to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 D). Bise et al. (US 20130126486) also discloses an outer ring (outer electrode 310) with stepped and non-stepped portions [Bise - Fig. 3A]. Chen et al. (US 20150099365) also discloses that the geometry and angles of an outer ring can be adjusted to change etch rates [Chen '365 - 0041-0044].
It's also noted that while Dhindsa ‘787 does not specifically disclose "an angle of greater than zero degrees to approximately 30 degrees from horizontal," Dhindsa ‘787 does disclose that slant angle is a result effective variable. Specifically, the geometric features of the step (including slant angle) can be adjusted to change etch rates [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 11 lines 60-67, Col. 12 lines 1-3]. As such, it would have been obvious to find optimum slant angles for an outer ring to obtain desired etch rates. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Jin (Jin modified by de la Llera and Benzing) does not specifically disclose wherein at least one edge of the stepped portion is slanted upward.
Dhindsa ‘787 teaches wherein at least one edge of the stepped portion is slanted upward (as evidenced by the annotated drawings above, at least one edge of the stepped portion slants upward) [Fig. 1B & Col. 7 lines 29-39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conductive tuning ring of Modified Jin to have a stepped portion and non-stepped portion, as in Dhindsa ‘787, to produce more uniform plasma [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 4 lines 56-65]. Furthermore, Dhindsa ‘787 discloses that various parameters of the step of Dhindsa ‘787 can be adjusted to obtain a desired etch rate profile (such as its placement, inner diameter, geometric features, step thickness, angle, degree of curvature, etc.) [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 11 lines 60-67, Col. 12 lines 1-3]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the geometric features of the claimed invention via routine optimization to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 D). Bise et al. (US 20130126486) also discloses an outer ring (outer electrode 310) with stepped and non-stepped portions [Bise - Fig. 3A]. Chen et al. (US 20150099365) also discloses that the geometry and angles of an outer ring can be adjusted to change etch rates [Chen '365 - 0041-0044].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20190341275) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 8573152), Benzing et al. (US 20020170881), and Dhindsa et al. (US 6391787), with Dhindsa et al. (US 20100040768), Kennedy et al. (US 20050133160), Szapucki et al. (US 6050216), Chen et al. (US 20200051792), Bise et al. (US 20130126486), Chen et al. (US 20150099365), Choi et al. (US 20080302303), Seo et al. (US 20110203735), Wang et al. (US 20190371581), and Godyak et al. (US 20120160806) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Dhindsa et al. (US 20090111276).
The limitations of claims 1-4 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Jin does not specifically disclose a heating source with a temperature sensor configured to control a temperature of the conductive tuning ring independent of the upper electrode.
Dhindsa teaches ‘276 a heating source (heating elements 320; the embodiment of Fig. 4 includes the temperature control module of Fig. 3A and Fig. 3B) with a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 284) configured to control a temperature of the conductive tuning ring independent of the upper electrode (the multiple cooling/heating zones 202A-202C are independently controlled) [Fig. 3B, 4 & 0029, 0031-0032, 0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Modified Jin to have a heating source configured to independently control the temperature of a tuning ring, as in Dhindsa ‘276, to provide more control over temperature and etching uniformity [Dhindsa ‘276 - Fig. 4 & 0013, 0031].
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20190341275) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 8573152) and Dhindsa et al. (US 6391787), with Dhindsa et al. (US 20100040768), Kennedy et al. (US 20050133160), Szapucki et al. (US 6050216), Bise et al. (US 20130126486), Chen et al. (US 20150099365), Choi et al. (US 20080302303), Seo et al. (US 20110203735), Wang et al. (US 20190371581), and Godyak et al. (US 20120160806) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 9:
Jin teaches an apparatus for processing substrates, comprising: a conductive tuning ring (outer electrode 224) configured to surround the upper electrode and is in electrical contact with the upper electrode when installed in a process chamber (outer electrode 224 and inner electrode 220 are collectively the upper electrode 216), wherein the conductive tuning ring is a unitary structure (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the outer electrode 120 is non comprised of multiple parts, and is instead a single, unitary structure), wherein the conductive tuning ring has at least one gas port on a lower surface (outer electrode 224 comprises side tuning holes 284; holes 284 are directly above edge ring 244, as evidenced by Fig. 2), a non-stepped portion at an outer periphery of the lower surface of the conductive tuning ring that is positioned directly above the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the outer electrode 224 has at least a portion that is not stepped and is located directly above edge ring 244), and wherein the at least one gas port comprises concentric rings of gas ports that include an inner ring of gas ports, an intermediate ring of gas ports, and an outer ring of gas ports (as evidenced by Fig. 2, there a plurality of side tuning holes 284 that are concentrically arranged) [Fig. 2 & 0037, 0039, 0040-0041, 0053].
Jin does not specifically disclose a conductive tuning ring configured to surround and interlock with and retain an upper electrode in position.
De la Llera teaches wherein the conductive tuning ring (outer electrode 130) surrounds and interlocks with and retains the upper electrode (inner electrode 120) in position (outer electrode member 24 and inner electrode member are shaped to interlock with each other) [Fig. 1B & Col. 3 lines 30-55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jin to have the inner and outer electrode arrangement of de la Llera, since the arrangement of de la Llera provides mechanical security and thermal uniformity [de la Llera - Col. 5 lines 13-21 and lines 40-56, Col. 8 lines 55-60]. Dhindsa et al. (US 20100040768) also discloses a substantially similar apparatus where in an outer electrode member with apertures interfaces with a backing plate and thermal control plate [Dhindsa '768 - 0019, 0024]. Kennedy et al. (US 20050133160) also discloses that utilizing plates above a showerhead can provide mechanical security and uniform temperature distribution [Kennedy - 0015-0017, 0022]. Szapucki et al. (US 6050216) also discloses that forming an interlock between two structures helps maintain alignment and mechanical security [Szapucki – Col. 5 lines 20-25, 53-64]
Modified Jin does not specifically disclose wherein the conductive tuning ring has both at least one stepped portion on the lower surface that forms an extended bottom surface with a face and a non-stepped portion at an outer periphery of the lower surface of the conductive tuning ring that is positioned directly above the edge ring.
Dhindsa ‘787 teaches and wherein the conductive tuning ring has both at least one stepped portion on the lower surface that forms an extended bottom surface with a face and a non-stepped portion at an outer periphery of the lower surface of the conductive tuning ring (the non-stepped and stepped portions are shown in the annotated drawings below) [Fig. 1B & Col. 7 lines 28-39].
PNG
media_image1.png
642
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conductive tuning ring of Modified Jin to have a stepped portion and non-stepped portion, as in Dhindsa ‘787, to produce more uniform plasma [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 4 lines 56-65]. Furthermore, Dhindsa ‘787 discloses that various parameters of the step of Dhindsa ‘787 can be adjusted to obtain a desired etch rate profile (such as its placement, inner diameter, geometric features, step thickness, angle, degree of curvature, etc.) [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 11 lines 60-67, Col. 12 lines 1-3]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the geometric features of the claimed invention via routine optimization to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 D). Bise et al. (US 20130126486) also discloses an outer ring (outer electrode 310) with stepped and non-stepped portions [Bise - Fig. 3A]. Chen et al. (US 20150099365) also discloses that the geometry and angles of an outer ring can be adjusted to change etch rates [Chen - 0041-0044].
It's further noted that the entire outer periphery of the conductive tuning ring (outer electrode 224) of Jin is located entirely above the edge ring (edge ring 244). As such, modification of the outer periphery of the conductive tuning ring of Jin to be non-stepped would result in the non-stepped portion being above the edge ring.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is merely intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Dhindsa ‘787 discloses that various parameters of the step of Dhindsa ‘787 can be adjusted to obtain a desired etch rate profile (such as its placement, inner diameter, geometric features, step thickness, angle, degree of curvature, etc.).
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Jin (Jin modified by de la Llera and Benzing) does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one stepped portion of the face of the extended bottom surface slants radially outwardly at an angle of greater than zero degrees to approximately 30 degrees from horizontal forming a radially outwardly slanted face between a first slant point and a second slant point, and wherein the at least one stepped portion of the face angles to the first slant point from the upper electrode and angles to the non-stepped portion from the second slant point.
Dhindsa ‘787 teaches wherein the at least one stepped portion of the face of the extended bottom surface slants radially outwardly at an angle forming a radially outwardly slanted face between a first slant point and a second slant point (the step has an outwardly slanted portion on outer surface 14, which extends from a first slant point to a second slant point) [Fig. 1B & Col. 7 lines 29-39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conductive tuning ring of Modified Jin to have a stepped portion and non-stepped portion, as in Dhindsa ‘787, to produce more uniform plasma [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 4 lines 56-65]. Furthermore, although Dhindsa ‘787 does not specifically disclose "wherein the at least one stepped portion of the face angles to the first slant point from the upper electrode and angles to the non-stepped portion from the second slant point," Dhindsa ‘787 does disclose that various parameters of the step of Dhindsa ‘787 can be adjusted to obtain a desired etch rate profile (such as its placement, inner diameter, geometric features, step thickness, angle, degree of curvature, etc.) [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 11 lines 60-67, Col. 12 lines 1-3]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the geometric features of the claimed invention via routine optimization to achieve predictable results (See MPEP 2143 D). Bise et al. (US 20130126486) also discloses an outer ring (outer electrode 310) with stepped and non-stepped portions [Bise - Fig. 3A]. Chen et al. (US 20150099365) also discloses that the geometry and angles of an outer ring can be adjusted to change etch rates [Chen - 0041-0044].
It's also noted that while Dhindsa ‘787 does not specifically disclose "an angle of greater than zero degrees to approximately 30 degrees from horizontal," Dhindsa ‘787 does disclose that slant angle is a result effective variable. Specifically, the geometric features of the step (including slant angle) can be adjusted to change etch rates [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 11 lines 60-67, Col. 12 lines 1-3]. As such, it would have been obvious to find optimum slant angles for an outer ring to obtain desired etch rates. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20190341275) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 8573152) and Dhindsa et al. (US 6391787), with Dhindsa et al. (US 20100040768), Kennedy et al. (US 20050133160), Szapucki et al. (US 6050216), Bise et al. (US 20130126486), Chen et al. (US 20150099365), Choi et al. (US 20080302303), Seo et al. (US 20110203735), Wang et al. (US 20190371581), and Godyak et al. (US 20120160806) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 9-11 above, and further in view of Bettencourt et al. (US 8419959).
The limitations of claims 9-11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Jin does not specifically disclose wherein the conductive tuning ring and the upper electrode are formed as a unitary structure.
Bettencourt teaches wherein the conductive tuning ring (portion C) and the upper electrode (showerhead electrode 502) are formed as a unitary structure (as evidenced by Figs. 6A-6C, showerhead electrode 502 and portion C are a unitary structure) [Fig. 6A-6C & Col. 3 line 42, Col. 8 lines 50-51].
Modified Jin and Bettencourt are analogous inventions in the field of substrate processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inner and outer electrode members of Modified Jin to be unitary, as in Bettencourt, to make removal easier [Bettencourt - Col. 8 lines 7-22].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 9-11, and 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a conductive tuning ring surrounds and interlocks with and retains the upper electrode in position, wherein the conductive tuning ring is in direct contact with a backing plate on an upper surface, wherein the backing plate extends behind the upper electrode and the conductive tuning ring,” because de la Llera et al. (US 8573152) cannot be used to modify Jin et al. (US 20190341275) since Jin is directed to a cleaning process, while de la Llera is directed to substrate uniformity.
The examiner respectfully disagrees as although the method depicted in Jin is primarily directed to a cleaning process without the substrate present, the apparatus of Jin is still directed to a substrate processing apparatus; Jin discloses that the substrate processing system 100 may be used for performing etching using RF plasma and/or other suitable substrate processing [Jin - 0026]. As such, benefits involving plasma uniformity would still be beneficial to the chamber of Jin. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the backing plate of de la Llera since the backing plate provides mechanical security and thermal uniformity. It is further noted that de la Llera provides a backing plate to both inner and outer electrodes (electrodes 120 and 130, respectively, of de la Llera) [de la Llera - Col. 5 lines 13-21 and lines 40-56, Col. 8 lines 55-60].
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein an outer edge of the conductive tuning ring is in direct contact with the conductance liner, wherein the conductance liner only contacts the edge ring on the lower surface of the edge ring,” because the shroud 450 of Benzing et al. (US 20020170881) is entirely different structural element from the claimed conductance liner, and because the shroud 450 of Benzing does not only contact the edge ring on the lower surface of the edge ring.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the applicant's conductance liner is merely described as defining the process volume. The shroud 450 of Benzing also defines the processing volume, and as such, can be reasonably considered an analogous structure. Furthermore, what the examiner considers the shroud 450 of Benzing does not include the slots 456; it is the slots 456 that contact a side surface of the focus ring 426, not the shroud 450 [Benzing - 0039 - 0040]. Furthermore, although the method depicted in Jin is primarily directed to a cleaning process without the substrate present, the apparatus of Jin is still directed to a substrate processing apparatus; Jin discloses that the substrate processing system 100 may be used for performing etching using RF plasma and/or other suitable substrate processing [Jin - 0026]. As such, benefits involving plasma uniformity would still be beneficial to the chamber of Jin. Therefore it would not be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the conductive liner of Benzing in the apparatus of Jin, since the arrangement of Benzing substantially minimizes plasma-wall interactions, reduces system maintenance, improves process stability, and decreases system-to-system variations [Benzing - 0022].
It is noted that all the utilized references are directed to substrate processing apparatuses that utilize plasma, and as such, motivations directed to improving aspects of a substrate processing apparatus would lead those of ordinary skill in the art to find it reasonable to combine certain aspects of each reference with each other; the examiner has provided specific motivations as to why each modification by each reference would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art (see the rejection above).
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the conductive tuning ring has at least one stepped portion on the lower surface that forms an extended bottom surface with a face, and a non-stepped portion at an outer periphery of the lower surface of the conductive tuning ring that is positioned directly above the edge ring,” because Dhindsa et al. (US 6391787) does not arrive at the claimed geometry and because Dhindsa is directed to correcting plasma for a singular upper electrode.
While the examiner agrees that in one embodiment, the step 11 of Dhindsa '787 is not specifically on a separate tuning ring, the reference is not being used to disclose the separate tuning ring in its entirety. Rather, Dhindsa '787 is being used to modify the conductive tuning ring of Jin. As such, the combination of references would disclose a separate tuning ring with the claimed geometry. Furthermore, the step 11 of Dhindsa '787 is disposed in an edge region of the chamber, and as such, it would not be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the reference's teachings to modify the geometry of other outer peripheral structures (such as the outer electrode 224 of Jin); since the step 11 of Dhindsa '787 is directed to an outer portion of an upper electrode (and itself discloses alternative embodiments with separate electrodes), one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably consider the step 11 of Dhindsa '797 to have analogous structural context to the outer electrode 224 of Jin [Dhindsa '787 - Fig. 1C]. Furthermore, the examiner respectfully disagrees that modifying the outer electrode 224 of Jin with the geometry of the step 11 of Dhindsa '787 would alter the principle of operation of Jin's outer electrode 224, as the apparatus of Jin also may be used for performing etching using RF plasma and/or other suitable substrate processing [Jin - 0026]. As such, benefits involving plasma uniformity would still be beneficial to the chamber of Jin.
Furthermore, the applicant has not provided specific reasons as to why the claimed geometric features provides unpredictable results. Dhindsa '787 is being used to disclose that the geometry and angles of an outer electrode can be adjusted as necessary to obtain desired plasma profiles. Because adjustment of these geometric features has been established as merely being routine optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the claimed limitations [Dhindsa ‘787 - Col. 11 lines 60-67, Col. 12 lines 1-3]. Furthermore, not only has Dhindsa '787 been used to disclose a routine optimization, it also explicitly discloses the claimed structures (as shown in the annotated drawings below). It's also noted that making a structure separable would require only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 V).
PNG
media_image1.png
642
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a controller configured to increase substrate deposition or etching uniformity by adjusting a gas flow through the at least one gas port of the conductive tuning ring to control a plasma sheath of plasma formed in the process volume of the process chamber to alter an edge deposition rate on a substrate during a substrate deposition process,” because Jin is directed to deposition without a substrate.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as although the method depicted in Jin is primarily directed to a cleaning process with the substrate present, the apparatus of Jin is still directed to a substrate processing apparatus; Jin discloses that the substrate processing system 100 may be used for performing etching using RF plasma and/or other suitable substrate processing [Jin - 0026]. Furthermore, Jin explicitly discloses that its controller is capable of controlling gas flow rates through all gas outlets [Jin - 0057]. It's also noted that the side tuning holes 284 may be arranged to direct gases in an outer edge region of the substrate specifically [Jin - 0039]. As such, Jin has specific support for the positively recited step of "by adjusting a gas flow through the at least one gas port of the conductive tuning ring.” In summary, since Jin provides support for the positively recited step, the combination of references is capable of performing the intended result of " to increase substrate deposition or etching uniformity, to control a plasma sheath of plasma formed in the process volume of the process chamber to alter an edge deposition rate on a substrate during a substrate deposition process.
Furthermore, the applicant's arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims; the applicant argues that Jin doesn't specifically control flow rates, however the aforementioned claim limitation has no mention of flow rate, rather that flow is adjusted. Adjustment of flow can be reasonably interpreted to include adjustment to directions and composition. As such, by this interpretation, the apparatus of Jin would perform the positively recited steps since the side tuning holes 284 direct gases in desired directions [Jin - 0039].
Furthermore, evidentiary references can be used to support an assertion even if that specific teaching isn't found in an original reference; a specifical physical occurrence not being explicitly disclosed in a single reference does not render that physical occurrence nonexistent if supported by evidentiary reference. It is very well known in the art that adjusting side gas profiles would affect deposition rates. The applicant would need to disprove, specifically, how that physical property would not be applicable.
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a heating source with a temperature sensor configured to control a temperature of the conductive tuning ring independent of the upper electrode,” because Dhindsa et al. (US 20090111276) is directed to an heating plate above a singular structure and does not provide specific teaching to providing independent temperature control for a tuning ring and an upper electrode.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Dhindsa '276 utilizes a temperature-controlled backing plate interfacing separated structures (see Fig. 4). Specifically, Dhindsa '276 is being used to modify the backing plate of Modified Jin to include independently controllable temperature zones. As such, the combination of references would disclose a heating source capable of heating the tuning ring and upper electrode. Furthermore, the benefit of providing more control over temperature and etching uniformity would still be beneficial to Jin because Jin is still directed to a substrate processing apparatus [Dhindsa ‘276 - Fig. 4 & 0013, 0031; Jin - 0026].
It’s also noted that the heating elements 320 of Dhindsa ‘276 are independently controlled, and as such, would be capable of independently controlling the temperature of structures beneath their respective zones; the temperature control structure of Dhindsa ‘276 includes independently controllable heating/cooling zones for minimizing temperature variation across the showerhead electrode assembly [Dhindsa ‘276 – 0015, 0029, 0031-0032, 0039]. This method of heating is consistent with the heaters displayed in the applicant’s specification; the applicant’s specification does not disclose heaters embedded within the tuning electrode and upper electrode, but rather, separate heaters above the respective components [IA – Fig. 1]. If Modified Jin was further modified to include the heaters of Dhindsa ‘276, placing the heaters above the electrodes (in a similar fashion to the Fig. 4 embodiment of Dhindsa ‘276) would result in separate, independently controllable heating zones.
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the conductive tuning ring is configured to control a plasma sheath of plasma formed in a process volume of the process chamber to alter an edge deposition rate on a substrate,” because Jin is directed to chamber cleaning without a wafer/substrate.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Jin explicitly discloses that its controller is capable of controlling gas flow rates through all gas outlets [Jin - 0057]. It's also noted that the side tuning holes 284 may be arranged to direct gases in an outer edge region of the substrate specifically [Jin - 0039]. Furthermore, although the method disclosed in Jin is primarily directed to chamber cleaning absent the substrate, Jin still discloses that the substrate processing system 100 may be used for performing etching using RF plasma and/or other suitable substrate processing [Jin - 0026]. As such, it is unclear how the apparatus of Jin would be completely incapable of adjusting a plasma sheathe during processing when Jin itself discloses that its chamber may be used for substrate processing and that respective flow rates can be controlled. Furthermore, the aforementioned limitation is not a controller limitation but merely an intended use; the apparatus need only be capable of performing the intended use. The assertion that the apparatus of Jin, which is a substrate processing apparatus comprising a controller and side/outer electrodes with gas holes, would be completely incapable of performing the aforementioned intended use is respectfully considered unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (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 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights