DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on August 11, 2025. Claims 1, 13-14, 18, and 20 are amended.
The applicant contends:
(1) Bailey supplies an admixture of processing and inert gases, whereas claims 1 and 14 have been amended to recite a “first gas source consisting of an inert gas,” which is then supplied to the substrate’s central area (p. 9).
(2) The outstanding Office letter identifies ring 128 of Bailey as the claimed “insulation ring,” but this feature is outside the lower electrode (126). Conversely, claims 1 and 14 now require the insulation ring to be disposed between the chuck and lower electrode. The Office also cites Noorbakhsh, but this reference also fails to situate the purported insulation ring (246) between a chuck and a lower electrode (p. 10).
In response,
(1) As previously acknowledged, it is unclear if Bailey provides a dedicated inert gas source. As such, the outstanding 103 rejections have been withdrawn yet, subsequent further search, new rejections have been applied below.
(2) After further consideration, the examiner observes that ring 124 of Bailey may be composed of a dielectric-coated ceramic material [0018]. As these materials are insulative, ring 124 may be accurately designated as an insulation ring. Further, this insulation ring (124) is disposed between the chuck (104) and lower electrode (126), as claims 1 and 14 require. (An additional reference, of course, has been applied to address the claim requirement of spacing between the insulation ring and the bottom surface of the substrate.)
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 of this title, 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 1-6 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey III et al., US 2008/0179010, in view of Bello et al., US 2014/0017903, Inada et al., US 2006/0086461, and Yanai, US 2016/0010210.
Claim 1: Bailey discloses a substrate treating apparatus, comprising:
A housing (102) having a treatment space (Fig. 1A);
A support unit including a chuck (104, 502) configured to support a substrate (514) in the treatment space (Fig. 1A, Fig. 5);
A gas supply unit, including [0045]:
A first gas supply source (516a) configured to supply an inert gas to a central area of the substrate (Fig. 5);
A second gas supply source (516c) configured to supply a process gas excited into a plasma state to an edge area of the substrate [0027];
A dielectric plate (522) configured to face an upper surface of the substrate [0045];
An insulation ring (124) configured to the surround the chuck when viewed from above ([0017-18], Fig. 1A);
Whereby the insulation ring (124) is disposed between the chuck (104) and a lower electrode (126);
Wherein a height of a lower surface of a central area of the dielectric plate and height of a lower surface of an edge area of the dielectric plate are different [0033, 0048];
Wherein a height of an upper surface of a central area of the chuck and a height of an upper surface of an edge area of the chuck are different;
Wherein an entirety of the upper surface of the insulation ring (128) is spaced apart from a bottom surface of the substrate (106) (Fig. 1A).
As shown by Figure 1, it is Bailey’s insulation ring (124) which bears the substrate rather than the vacuum support chuck (104). Bello, however, describes a support chuck of concave shape which avails a vacuum source (34) to adsorb the substrate to the chuck surface in a curved manner [0018]. Critically, the chuck, rather than a ring peripheral to the chuck, bears the substrate, with Figures 2 and 3 depicting different embodiments for securing the substrate to the chuck’s concave upper surface [0020-22]. The examiner understands Bello’s invention as offering an alternative solution to the matter of vacuum adsorbing a substrate in a curved orientation, whereby it would have been obvious to try an identified, predictable solution having a reasonable expectation of success.
Bello, though, is silent regarding the feature of an insulation ring and cannot, by definition, offer guidance as to its configuration when said ring is not tasked with bearing a substrate. In supplementation, Inada, like Bailey, discloses a bevel etching apparatus comprising the structural composite of a central support chuck (112), an insulation ring (108) immediately surrounding the chuck, and a lower electrode (104) surrounding the insulation ring ([0049]; Fig. 3). Inada supports the substrate exclusively via the support chuck and, in this case, truncates the height of the insulation ring so that it is spaced apart from a bottom surface of the substrate. Thus, given the aforesaid modification where the substrate is supported by the chuck, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to provide a gap between the upper surface of the insulation ring and the bottom surface of the substrate to permit the unobstructed flow of gas to the latter’s backside, thereby furthering the objective of bevel etching.
Lastly, it is unclear if Bailey provides a dedicated inert gas source rather than a premixed compound of inert and process gases. Yanai cures this omission via the disclosure of a gas supply network for supplying fluid to both the central and peripheral regions of a showerhead. As shown by Figure 1, Yanai couples multiple gas sources (244, 403), including inert gas source 249b, to both the central conduit (242) and the peripheral supply pipes (400) [0074, 0079]. It would have been obvious to provide dedicated source containers for each type of gas to enable the generation of the precise fluid mixture required for the instant process.
Claim 2: As delineated by Figure 5 of Bailey, the height of the dielectric plate’s (504) central area is higher than that of the edge area [0048].
Claim 3: As delineated by Figure 5 of Bailey, the height of the chuck’s (502) central area is lower than that of the edge area.
Claim 4: The rejection of claims 2 and 3, collectively, address these limitations.
Claims 5-6: Bailey’s chuck and dielectric plate are both concave (Fig. 5).
Claims 12, 17: Bailey provides an absorption line and a pressure reduction member, i.e., a vacuum pump, to absorb the substrate to the chuck [0021].
Claims 13, 18: Bailey teaches a configuration comprising upper (120) and lower (126) electrodes disposed in an opposing orientation [0017].
Claims 14-16: The rejections of claims 1, 5, and 6, collectively, address these limitations.
Claim 19: As shown by Figure 2, Bailey’s upper (208) and lower (210) electrodes are grounded while the chuck couples to an RF source (212) [0033].
Claim 20: Although the inner-diameter height of Bailey’s insulation ring (124) is higher than its outer-diameter height, the ring slopes outward rather than being “stepped,” as the claim requires. Even so, the examiner understands stepped and sloped designs as art-recognized equivalents, whereby the selection of either alternative would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. It should be noted that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, MPEP 3144.04, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Bello, Inada, and Yanai, and in further view of Ohmi et al., US 2004/0094094.
Claim 8: Bailey does not form a recess within the dielectric plate. Ohmi, though, contemplates an alternative configuration in which gas is first fed to a recess (104) formed at an upper portion of a manifold (103) and then dispersed through a series of ejection holes (107) to the treatment space (Fig. 1A; [0008]). It would have been obvious to incorporate a manifold within Bailey’s dielectric plate to permit the uniform diffusion of the process gas prior to its distribution to the substrate.
Claim 9: As shown by Figure 1A, Ohmi provides a base (102) which encloses the recess (104) to form a buffer space.
Claim 10: Subsequent the incorporation of the recess within Bailey’s plate, the first gas supply part would feed gas to this volume.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Bello, Inada, Yanai, and Ohmi, and in further view of Chandrasekharan et al., US 2015/0315706.
Bailey is silent regarding the diameter of the ejection holes but does acknowledge that the diameter of the ejection holes can be optimized to achieve a desired pressure gradient [0044]. In supplementation, Glukhoy discloses a showerhead of analogous structure and prescribes an ejection hole diameter of .08 inches, which converts to 2 mm [0062]. It would have been obvious to set the diameter of Bailey’s ejection holes at 2 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215, CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Bailey III et al., US 2008/0182412. Bailey discloses a bevel etching apparatus comprising inner (212) and outer (222) gas supply parts to deliver inert and process gases, respectively ([0017]; Fig. 2).
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716