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
Claims 1 and 3-26 are pending
Claims 1, 4, 11-13, 15, 21, and 23-25 have been amended
Claim 2 has been cancelled
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is
eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)
has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to
37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan (US 20180076028) in view of Kang et al. (US 20160079036), Lee et al. (US 20080095953), and Wang et al. (US 7824519), with Ruh et al. (US 4066491) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Swaminathan teaches a processing chamber (processing tool 300) comprising: a showerhead (showerhead electrode 150a) delivering one or more process gases into the processing chamber [Fig. 1B, 2 & 0035-0036].
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose a showerhead insert, comprising: a body shaped and configured to associate with the showerhead in the processing chamber, the body having at least one surface thereon; and a formation in the body sized to accommodate a stem of the showerhead, wherein the formation comprises an inner annular wall that flares outwardly such that a radial clearance between a wall of the processing chamber and the stem of the showerhead increases with vertical distance from a top to a bottom of the showerhead insert.
Kang teaches and a showerhead insert (cover 320 and collar 308) configured to associate with the showerhead (showerhead 14), in the processing chamber, the body having at least one surface thereon (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the cover 320 has at least one surface thereon); and a formation (collar 308) in the body sized to accommodate a stem (stem portion 190) of the showerhead [Fig. 5 & 0047-0048]; and wherein the formation comprises an inner annular wall that flares outwardly such that a radial clearance between a wall of the processing chamber and the stem of the showerhead increases with vertical distance from a top to a bottom of the showerhead insert (as evidenced by Fig. 5, at least a portion of central opening 326 flares outward) [Fig. 5 & 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Modified Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the showerhead insert comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, wherein a spatial distance between a lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "wherein the showerhead insert comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, wherein a spatial distance between a lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert," Lee does disclose that nozzle opening dimensions (width, depth, shape, and length) are result effective variables. Specifically, adjusting nozzle opening dimensions affect gas directionality, gas uniformity, and gas flow rate [Lee - Fig. 2A & 0038, 0044, 0066-0067]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum nozzle opening dimensions to obtain a desired gas profile. 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. It is noted that the showerhead cover 320 can be reasonably considered as a "nozzle" since it is directed to feeding a gas. Therefore, in line with the teachings of Lee, it would be reasonable to modify the dimensions and shape of at least the peripheral part of the showerhead cover 320 to obtain a desired gas profile. Ruh et al. (US 4066491) also teaches that nozzle dimensions affect gas profile [Ruh - Col. 2 lines 50-67].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein an electromagnetic field generated within the off-centered processing station in use is asymmetric,” are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that any structure taking up volume within a processing chamber is capable of affecting the electromagnetic field of the chamber. Therefore, despite Kang not specifically disclosing that its showerhead insert affects the electromagnetic field, the insert in itself is still capable of affecting the electromagnetic field of a chamber since it takes up a volume in the chamber. It’s also noted that a configuration of an insert can be chosen based on any variable. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of configuring the showerhead insert of Kang to obtain a desired electromagnetic field. Furthermore, the control module 110 of Swaminathan is able to control power levels, timing parameters, process gasses, mechanical movement of the wafer 101, etc. [Swaminathan – 0026]. As such, the apparatus is capable of forming non-uniform electromagnetic fields and is also capable of controlling parameters in such a way such that the specific geometry of a showerhead insert corrects a field asymmetry in a chamber.
Additionally/alternatively, Wang teaches wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated (moveable liner 401 is moveable) [Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the showerhead insert of Modified Swaminathan to be movable, inclined, and match the profile of a support, as in Wang, to optimize plasma/gas flow within a chamber [Wang - Col. 8 lines 24-46]. It is noted that the moveable liner 401 is moveable, so it would be capable of being adjusted to affect the electromagnetic field within a chamber [Wang - Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58]. As such, the combination of references would be capable of configuring the showerhead insert to correct asymmetry.
Regarding Claim 3:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one surface of the showerhead insert includes a rounded or curved portion.
Kang teaches wherein the at least one surface of the showerhead insert includes a rounded or curved portion (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the cover 320 has at least a portion that is curved) [Fig. 5 & 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Modified Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Swaminathan (Swaminathan modified by Kang) does not specifically disclose wherein a profile of the rounded or curved portion of the at least one surface bounding the off-centered processing station substantially matches a profile of the substrate-support assembly.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "wherein a profile of the rounded or curved portion of the at least one surface bounding the off-centered processing station substantially matches a profile of the substrate-support assembly," Lee does disclose that nozzle opening dimensions (width, depth, shape, and length) are result effective variables. Specifically, adjusting nozzle opening dimensions affect gas directionality, gas uniformity, and gas flow rate [Lee - Fig. 2A & 0038, 0044, 0066-0067]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum nozzle opening dimensions to obtain a desired gas profile. 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.It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the showerhead insert of Modified Swaminathan to be movable, inclined, and match the profile of a support, as in Wang, to optimize plasma/gas flow within a chamber [Wang - Col. 8 lines 24-46]. It is noted that the showerhead cover 320 can be reasonably considered as a "nozzle" since it is directed to feeding a gas. Therefore, in line with the teachings of Lee, it would be reasonable to modify the dimensions and shape of at least the peripheral part of the showerhead cover 320 to obtain a desired gas profile. Ruh et al. (US 4066491) also teaches that nozzle dimensions affect gas profile [Ruh - Col. 2 lines 50-67]
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the asymmetry is caused at least in part by a disconformity between a wall of the off-centered processing station, or an adjacent off-centered processing station, and a substrate- support assembly disposed therein,” are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that no surface is perfectly smooth, so walls of the processing system 100a of Swaminathan would be capable of contributing to field non-uniformity [Swaminathan - Fig. 5 & 0047-0048]. Furthermore, the control module 110 of Swaminathan is able to control power levels, timing parameters, process gasses, mechanical movement of the wafer 101, etc. [Swaminathan – 0026]. Therefore, parameters can be controlled in such a way as to create an electromagnetic field such that the specific geometry of a chamber causes non-uniformity.
Regarding Claim 5:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the body is an annular body, the formation in the body including an annulus of the annular body sized to accommodate the stem of the showerhead.
Kang teaches wherein the body is an annular body, the formation in the body including an annulus (central cavity 309) of the annular body sized to accommodate the stem of the showerhead (collar 308 is arranged around the stem portion 190 and includes a central cavity 309 that receives the stem portion 190 of the showerhead 14; as evidenced by Fig. 7B, the stem portion 190b is annular in shape) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Regarding Claim 6:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one surface is located in the annulus of the annular body.
Kang teaches wherein the at least one surface is located in the annulus of the annular body (as evidenced by Fig. 5, at least a portion of the surface of collar 308 is located next to the central cavity 309) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Regarding Claim 7:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one surface is not located in the annulus of the annular body.
Kang teaches wherein the at least one surface is not located in the annulus of the annular body (as evidenced by Fig. 5, at least a portion of the surface of cover 320 is not located next to the central cavity 309) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Regarding Claim 8:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one surface covers a substantial entirety of the body of the showerhead insert.
Kang teaches wherein the at least one surface covers a substantial entirety of the body of the showerhead insert (as evidenced by Fig. 5, cover 320 and collar 308 have a surface) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Regarding Claim 9:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the least one surface of the showerhead insert is aligned in use with a wall or surface of the processing chamber or the showerhead.
Kang teaches wherein the least one surface of the showerhead insert is aligned in use with a wall or surface of the processing chamber or the showerhead (as evidenced by Fig. 5, at least a portion of the surface of cover 320 is aligned in use with a surface of the showerhead 14) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Swaminathan (Swaminathan modified by Kang) does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one surface of the showerhead insert is planar and in use is inclined in relation to a surface of the showerhead.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "wherein the at least one surface of the showerhead insert is planar and in use is inclined in relation to a surface of the showerhead," Lee does disclose that nozzle opening dimensions (width, depth, shape, and length) are result effective variables. Specifically, adjusting nozzle opening dimensions affect gas directionality, gas uniformity, and gas flow rate [Lee - Fig. 2A & 0038, 0044, 0066-0067]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum nozzle opening dimensions to obtain a desired gas profile. 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. It is noted that the showerhead cover 320 can be reasonably considered as a "nozzle" since it is directed to feeding a gas. Therefore, in line with the teachings of Lee, it would be reasonable to modify the dimensions and shape of at least the peripheral part of the showerhead cover 320 to obtain a desired gas profile. Ruh et al. (US 4066491) also teaches that nozzle dimensions affect gas profile [Ruh - Col. 2 lines 50-67]
Regarding Claim 11:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one surface of the showerhead insert modifies an internal geometry or volume of the off- centered processing station.
Kang teaches wherein the at least one surface of the showerhead insert modifies an internal geometry or volume of the off- centered processing station (as evidenced by Fig. 5, at least a portion of the surface of the cover 320 modified an internal geometry of the processing system 300) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Swaminathan (Swaminathan modified by Kang) does not specifically disclose wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated.
Wang teaches wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated (moveable liner 401 is moveable) [Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the showerhead insert of Modified Swaminathan to be movable, inclined, and match the profile of a support, as in Wang, to optimize plasma/gas flow within a chamber [Wang - Col. 8 lines 24-46].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the showerhead insert induces a substantially uniform electromagnetic field around a substrate-support assembly disposed within the off-centered processing station,” are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that the moveable liner 401 is moveable, so it would be capable of being adjusted to affect the electromagnetic field within a chamber [Wang - Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Swaminathan (Swaminathan modified by Kang) does not specifically disclose wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated.
Wang teaches wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated (moveable liner 401 is moveable) [Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the showerhead insert of Modified Swaminathan to be movable, inclined, and match the profile of a support, as in Wang, to optimize plasma/gas flow within a chamber [Wang - Col. 8 lines 24-46].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the showerhead insert induces a substantially non-uniform electromagnetic field around a substrate- support assembly disposed within the off-centered processing station,” are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that the moveable liner 401 is moveable, so it would be capable of being adjusted to affect the electromagnetic field within a chamber [Wang - Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Swaminathan (Swaminathan modified by Kang) does not specifically disclose wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated.
Wang teaches wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated (moveable liner 401 is moveable) [Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the showerhead insert of Modified Swaminathan to be movable, inclined, and match the profile of a support, as in Wang, to optimize plasma/gas flow within a chamber [Wang - Col. 8 lines 24-46].
Furthermore, the limitations “to alter an electromagnetic field profile within off-centered processing station,” are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that the moveable liner 401 is moveable, so it would be capable of being adjusted to affect the electromagnetic field within a chamber [Wang - Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
Regarding Claim 23:
Swaminathan teaches a quad station process module (QSM), the array of the off-centered processing stations comprising four processing stations disposed at four corners of the QSM (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 2, each processing system 100a is located within processing tool 300, and each processing system 100a is off center relative to a center of the processing tool 300) [Fig. 1B, 2 & 0035-0036].
Regarding Claim 24:
The limitations of claim 24 are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that no surface is perfectly smooth, so walls of the processing system 100a of Swaminathan would be capable of contributing to field non-uniformity [Swaminathan - Fig. 5 & 0047-0048]. Furthermore, the control module 110 of Swaminathan is able to control power levels, timing parameters, process gasses, mechanical movement of the wafer 101, etc. [Swaminathan – 0026]. Therefore, parameters can be controlled in such a way as to create an electromagnetic field such that the specific geometry of a chamber causes non-uniformity. It's further noted that each processing system 100a may have square corners, as evidenced by [Swaminathan - Fig. 1B & 0033].
Regarding Claim 25:
The limitations of claim 24 are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that no surface is perfectly smooth, so walls of the processing system 100a of Swaminathan would be capable of contributing to field non-uniformity [Swaminathan - Fig. 5 & 0047-0048]. Furthermore, the control module 110 of Swaminathan is able to control power levels, timing parameters, process gasses, mechanical movement of the wafer 101, etc. [Swaminathan – 0026]. Therefore, parameters can be controlled in such a way as to create an electromagnetic field such that the specific geometry of a chamber causes non-uniformity.
Regarding Claim 26:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose a lower surface including at least one curved profile disposed adjacent, at least in part, a surface of the showerhead.
Kang teaches a lower surface including at least one curved profile disposed adjacent, at least in part, a surface of the showerhead (as evidenced by Fig. 5, cover 320 has at least a curved portion adjacent to a surface of the showerhead 14) [Fig. 5 & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Modified Swaminathan does not specifically disclose a shaped, recessed lower surface, wherein a spatial distance between the shaped, recessed lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "a shaped, recessed lower surface, wherein a spatial distance between the shaped, recessed lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert," Lee does disclose that nozzle opening dimensions (width, depth, shape, and length) are result effective variables. Specifically, adjusting nozzle opening dimensions affect gas directionality, gas uniformity, and gas flow rate [Lee - Fig. 2A & 0038, 0044, 0066-0067]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum nozzle opening dimensions to obtain a desired gas profile. 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. It is noted that the showerhead cover 320 can be reasonably considered as a "nozzle" since it is directed to feeding a gas. Therefore, in line with the teachings of Lee, it would be reasonable to modify the dimensions and shape of at least the peripheral part of the showerhead cover 320 to obtain a desired gas profile. Ruh et al. (US 4066491) also teaches that nozzle dimensions affect gas profile [Ruh - Col. 2 lines 50-67].
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan (US 20180076028) in view of Kang et al. (US 20160079036) and Lee et al. (US 20080095953), with Ruh et al. (US 4066491) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 15:
Swaminathan teaches a processing chamber (processing tool 300) comprising: a showerhead (showerhead electrode 150a) delivering one or more process gases into the processing chamber; and an array of off-centered processing stations (processing system 100a), each of the off-centered processing stations in the array being off-centered relative to a center of the array (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 2, each processing system 100a is located within processing tool 300, and each processing system 100a is off center relative to a center of the processing tool 300), and the showerhead being located in an off-centered processing station among an array of off-centered processing stations in the processing chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 2, each showerhead electrode 150a is located within each processing system 100a within the processing tool 300) [Fig. 1B, 2 & 0035-0036]/
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose a showerhead insert, comprising: a body shaped and configured to associate with the showerhead in the processing chamber, the body having at least one surface thereon; a formation in the body sized to accommodate a stem of the showerhead; an upper surface through which the stem of the showerhead can pass when the showerhead insert is fitted to the showerhead; and a lower surface including at least one curved profile disposed adjacent, at least in part, a surface of the showerhead; wherein the formation comprises an inner annular wall that flares outwardly such that a radial clearance between a wall of the processing chamber and the stem of the showerhead increases with vertical distance from a top to a bottom of the showerhead insert.
Kang teaches and a showerhead insert (cover 320 and collar 308) configured to associate with the showerhead (showerhead 14), in the processing chamber, the body having at least one surface thereon (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the cover 320 has at least one surface thereon); and a formation (collar 308) in the body sized to accommodate a stem (stem portion 190) of the showerhead [Fig. 5 & 0047-0048]; an upper surface through which the stem of the showerhead can pass when the showerhead insert is fitted to the showerhead (as evidenced by Fig. 5, cover 320 and collar 308 have at least a portion of their surfaces accommodating the stem portion 190); and a lower surface including at least one curved profile disposed adjacent, at least in part, a surface of the showerhead (as evidenced by Fig. 5, cover 320 has at least a curved portion adjacent to a surface of the showerhead 14) [Fig. 5 & 0047-0048]; and wherein the formation comprises an inner annular wall that flares outwardly such that a radial clearance between a wall of the processing chamber and the stem of the showerhead increases with vertical distance from a top to a bottom of the showerhead insert (as evidenced by Fig. 5, at least a portion of central opening 326 flares outward) [Fig. 5 & 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Modified Swaminathan does not specifically disclose a shaped, recessed lower surface, and wherein the showerhead insert comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, wherein a spatial distance between a lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "a shaped, recessed lower surface, wherein the showerhead insert comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, wherein a spatial distance between a lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert," Lee does disclose that nozzle opening dimensions (width, depth, shape, and length) are result effective variables. Specifically, adjusting nozzle opening dimensions affect gas directionality, gas uniformity, and gas flow rate [Lee - Fig. 2A & 0038, 0044, 0066-0067]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum nozzle opening dimensions to obtain a desired gas profile. 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. It is noted that the showerhead cover 320 can be reasonably considered as a "nozzle" since it is directed to feeding a gas. Therefore, in line with the teachings of Lee, it would be reasonable to modify the dimensions and shape of at least the peripheral part of the showerhead cover 320 to obtain a desired gas profile. Ruh et al. (US 4066491) also teaches that nozzle dimensions affect gas profile [Ruh - Col. 2 lines 50-67]
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein an electromagnetic field generated within the off-centered processing station in use is asymmetric, and wherein a configuration of the showerhead insert is selected to affect or correct an asymmetry of the electromagnetic field generated within the off-centered processing station in the processing chamber in use,” are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that any structure taking up volume within a processing chamber is capable of affecting the electromagnetic field of the chamber. Therefore, despite Kang not specifically disclosing that its showerhead insert affects the electromagnetic field, the insert in itself is still capable of affecting the electromagnetic field of a chamber since it takes up a volume in the chamber. It’s also noted that a configuration of an insert can be chosen based on any variable. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of configuring the showerhead insert of Kang to obtain a desired electromagnetic field. Furthermore, the control module 110 of Swaminathan is able to control power levels, timing parameters, process gasses, mechanical movement of the wafer 101, etc. [Swaminathan – 0026]. As such, the apparatus is capable of forming non-uniform electromagnetic fields and is also capable of controlling parameters in such a way such that the specific geometry of a showerhead insert corrects a field asymmetry in a chamber.
Regarding Claim 16:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the body is an annular body, the formation in the body including an annulus of the annular body sized to accommodate the stem of the showerhead.
Kang teaches wherein the body is an annular body, the formation in the body including an annulus (central cavity 309) of the annular body sized to accommodate the stem of the showerhead (collar 308 is arranged around the stem portion 190 and includes a central cavity 309 that receives the stem portion 190 of the showerhead 14; as evidenced by Fig. 7B, the stem portion 190b is annular in shape) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Regarding Claim 17:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the lower surface of the showerhead insert defines, at least in part, a free volume sized and configured to accept and surround a substantial entirety of the showerhead.
Kang teaches wherein the lower surface of the showerhead insert defines, at least in part, a free volume sized and configured to accept and surround a substantial entirety of the showerhead (as evidenced by Fig. 5, cover 320 has at least a portion that is accommodates a substantial entirety of the showerhead 14) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Modified Swaminathan does not specifically disclose a shaped, recessed lower surface.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "a shaped, recessed lower surface," Lee does disclose that nozzle opening dimensions (width, depth, shape, and length) are result effective variables. Specifically, adjusting nozzle opening dimensions affect gas directionality, gas uniformity, and gas flow rate [Lee - Fig. 2A & 0038, 0044, 0066-0067]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum nozzle opening dimensions to obtain a desired gas profile. 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. It is noted that the showerhead cover 320 can be reasonably considered as a "nozzle" since it is directed to feeding a gas. Therefore, in line with the teachings of Lee, it would be reasonable to modify the dimensions and shape of at least the peripheral part of the showerhead cover 320 to obtain a desired gas profile. Ruh et al. (US 4066491) also teaches that nozzle dimensions affect gas profile [Ruh - Col. 2 lines 50-67]
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Swaminathan (Swaminathan modified by Kang) does not specifically disclose wherein a spatial distance between the shaped, recessed lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "wherein a spatial distance between the shaped, recessed lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert," Lee does disclose that nozzle opening dimensions (width, depth, shape, and length) are result effective variables. Specifically, adjusting nozzle opening dimensions affect gas directionality, gas uniformity, and gas flow rate [Lee - Fig. 2A & 0038, 0044, 0066-0067]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum nozzle opening dimensions to obtain a desired gas profile. 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. It is noted that the showerhead cover 320 can be reasonably considered as a "nozzle" since it is directed to feeding a gas. Therefore, in line with the teachings of Lee, it would be reasonable to modify the dimensions and shape of at least the peripheral part of the showerhead cover 320 to obtain a desired gas profile. Ruh et al. (US 4066491) also teaches that nozzle dimensions affect gas profile [Ruh - Col. 2 lines 50-67]
Regarding Claim 19:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the upper surface of the showerhead insert is substantially flat.
Kang teaches wherein the upper surface of the showerhead insert is substantially flat (as evidenced by Fig. 4B, the cover 320 has an upper surface that is flat) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Regarding Claim 20:
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein a spatial distance between a wall of the annulus of the annular body and the stem of the showerhead increases from a vertically higher location to a vertically lower location of the showerhead insert.
Kang teaches wherein a spatial distance between a wall of the annulus of the annular body and the stem of the showerhead increases from a vertically higher location to a vertically lower location of the showerhead insert (central opening 326 comprises a portion of cover 320 that has a greater distance from the stem portion 190 at a vertically lower distance compared to a vertically higher distance) [Fig. 5, 7B & 0047-0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047].
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan (US 20180076028) in view of Kang et al. (US 20160079036), Wang et al. (US 7824519), and Lee et al. (US 20080095953), with Ruh et al. (US 4066491) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 21:
Swaminathan discloses a processing chamber (processing tool 300) comprising: a substrate-support assembly (pedestal 140A) supporting a substrate; a showerhead (showerhead electrode 150a) delivering one or more process gases into the processing chamber, the showerhead being located in an off-centered processing station among an array of off-centered processing stations in the processing chamber (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 2, each showerhead electrode 150a is located within each processing system 100a within the processing tool 300) [Fig. 1B, 2 & 0035-0036], each of the off-centered processing stations in the array being off-centered relative to a center of the array (as evidenced by Fig. 1B and 2, each processing system 100a is located within processing tool 300, and each processing system 100a is off center relative to a center of the processing tool 300), a radio frequency power (RF power supply 104) energizing the one or more process gases into a plasma in a space between the substrate and the showerhead (the plasma is often generated by applying radiofrequency power to a process gas in a controlled environment) [Fig. 1B & 0002].
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose a showerhead insert configured to associate with the showerhead, and wherein the formation comprises an inner annular wall that flares outwardly such that a radial clearance between a wall of the processing chamber and the stem of the showerhead increases with vertical distance from a top to a bottom of the showerhead insert.
Kang teaches a showerhead insert (cover 320 and collar 308) configured to associate with the showerhead (showerhead 14) [Fig. 4B & 0047-0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber of Swaminathan to have a showerhead with the insert shaped around it, as in Kang, to reduce parasitic plasma formation, and reduce substrate non-uniformity [Kang - 0043, 0047]; and wherein the formation comprises an inner annular wall that flares outwardly such that a radial clearance between a wall of the processing chamber and the stem of the showerhead increases with vertical distance from a top to a bottom of the showerhead insert (as evidenced by Fig. 5, at least a portion of central opening 326 flares outward) [Fig. 5 & 0049].
Modified Swaminathan does not specifically disclose wherein the showerhead insert comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, wherein a spatial distance between a lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert.
Although Lee does not specifically disclose "wherein the showerhead insert comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, wherein a spatial distance between a lower surface of the showerhead insert and an upper surface of the showerhead increases continuously from a radially inner location to a radially outer location of the showerhead insert," Lee does disclose that nozzle opening dimensions (width, depth, shape, and length) are result effective variables. Specifically, adjusting nozzle opening dimensions affect gas directionality, gas uniformity, and gas flow rate [Lee - Fig. 2A & 0038, 0044, 0066-0067]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum nozzle opening dimensions to obtain a desired gas profile. 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. It is noted that the showerhead cover 320 can be reasonably considered as a "nozzle" since it is directed to feeding a gas. Therefore, in line with the teachings of Lee, it would be reasonable to modify the dimensions and shape of at least the peripheral part of the showerhead cover 320 to obtain a desired gas profile. Ruh et al. (US 4066491) also teaches that nozzle dimensions affect gas profile [Ruh - Col. 2 lines 50-67]
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein an electromagnetic field generated within the off-centered processing station in use is asymmetric,” are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that any structure taking up volume within a processing chamber is capable of affecting the electromagnetic field of the chamber. Therefore, despite Kang not specifically disclosing that its showerhead insert affects the electromagnetic field, the insert in itself is still capable of affecting the electromagnetic field of a chamber since it takes up a volume in the chamber. It’s also noted that a configuration of an insert can be chosen based on any variable. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of configuring the showerhead insert of Kang to obtain a desired electromagnetic field. Furthermore, the control module 110 of Swaminathan is able to control power levels, timing parameters, process gasses, mechanical movement of the wafer 101, etc. [Swaminathan – 0026]. As such, the apparatus is capable of forming non-uniform electromagnetic fields and is also capable of controlling parameters in such a way such that the specific geometry of a showerhead insert corrects a field asymmetry in a chamber.
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein an electromagnetic field generated within the off-centered processing station in use is asymmetric, wherein a configuration of the showerhead insert is selected to affect or correct an asymmetry of the electromagnetic field generated within the off-centered processing station in the processing chamber in use.,” are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that any structure taking up volume within a processing chamber is capable of affecting the electromagnetic field of the chamber. Therefore, despite Kang not specifically disclosing that its showerhead insert affects the electromagnetic field, the insert in itself is still capable of affecting the electromagnetic field of a chamber since it takes up a volume in the chamber. It’s also noted that a configuration of an insert can be chosen based on any variable. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of configuring the showerhead insert of Kang to obtain a desired electromagnetic field. Furthermore, the control module 110 of Swaminathan is able to control power levels, timing parameters, process gasses, mechanical movement of the wafer 101, etc. [Swaminathan – 0026]. As such, the apparatus is capable of forming non-uniform electromagnetic fields and is also capable of controlling parameters in such a way such that the specific geometry of a showerhead insert corrects a field asymmetry in a chamber.
Additionally/alternatively, Wang teaches wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated (moveable liner 401 is moveable) [Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the showerhead insert of Modified Swaminathan to be movable, inclined, and match the profile of a support, as in Wang, to optimize plasma/gas flow within a chamber [Wang - Col. 8 lines 24-46]. It is noted that the moveable liner 401 is moveable, so it would be capable of being adjusted to affect the electromagnetic field within a chamber [Wang - Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58]. As such, the combination of references would be capable of configuring the showerhead insert to correct asymmetry.
Regarding Claim 22:
Modified Swaminathan (Swaminathan modified by Kang) does not specifically disclose wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated in shape or position.
Wang teaches wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated (moveable liner 401 is moveable) [Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the showerhead insert of Modified Swaminathan to be movable, inclined, and match the profile of a support, as in Wang, to optimize plasma/gas flow within a chamber [Wang - Col. 8 lines 24-46].
Furthermore, the limitations “to alter an electromagnetic field profile within off-centered processing station,” are merely an intended use and are 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). It is noted that the moveable liner 401 is moveable, so it would be capable of being adjusted to affect the electromagnetic field within a chamber [Wang - Fig. 4A, 4B & Col. 8 lines 47-58].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-26 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Lee et al. (US 20080095953) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Conclusion
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
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718