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
Applicant’s request for reconsideration for the finality of the rejection of the last Office Action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 3-26 are pending
Claim 2 has been cancelled
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites the limitation “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.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the apparatus structurally has an asymmetric electromagnetic field or a uniform magnetic field (since the insert corrects the asymmetry). In summary, it is unclear if the apparatus physically comprises an asymmetric electromagnetic field, or a uniform magnetic field via the presence of the showerhead insert. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “
Regarding Claims 16-20:
Claims 16-20 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 15.
Regarding Claim 21:
Claim 20 recites the limitation “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.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the apparatus structurally has an asymmetric electromagnetic field or a uniform magnetic field (since the insert corrects the asymmetry). In summary, it is unclear if the apparatus physically comprises an asymmetric electromagnetic field, or a uniform magnetic field via the presence of the showerhead insert. As such, for purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “
Regarding Claim 22:
Claims 22 is rejected at least based on its dependency on claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-14, 23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser et al. (US 20130269609) in view of Kang et al. (US 20160079036) and Powell et al. (US 6287643), with Ota (JP 2004296553) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Leeser teaches A processing chamber (reactor 200; it is noted that individual elements or features of a particular embodiment are generally not limited to that particular embodiment, but, where applicable, are interchangeable and can be used in a selected embodiment, even if not specifically shown or described) comprising: a showerhead (showerhead 124) delivering one or more process gases into the processing chamber; a showerhead insert (housing portion 90), comprising: a body shaped and configured to associate with the showerhead in the processing chamber, the body having at least one surface thereon (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the housing portion 90 associates with the showerhead 124 and comprises a surface); and a formation in the body sized to accommodate a stem (stem portion 126) of the showerhead; 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 (as evidenced by Figs. 3-4, the housing portion 90 appears to increase in distance from a radial inner location of the showerhead 124 to a radially outward location) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054, 0090].
Leeser does not specifically disclose wherein the showerhead insert comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface.
Kang teaches wherein the showerhead insert (showerhead cover 320) comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the showerhead cover 320 comprises a concave, recessed lower surface) [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 showerhead insert of Leeser to comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, as in Kang, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Modified Leeser does not specifically disclose 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.
Powell teaches 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. 6A, the profiler 130 has an inner annular wall with that flares outwardly) [Powell - Fig. 6A & Col. 10 lines 9-16].
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 Leeser to comprise an annular wall that flares, as in Powell, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
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. Furthermore, the aforementioned limitations are merely limitations that show how/why the insert was shaped a particular way. This is not given patentable weight since what is important to the apparatus is what the physical structure of the insert is and not how or why the structure was selected.
Regarding Claim 3:
Leeser 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 showerhead insert of Leeser to comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, as in Kang, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Regarding Claim 4:
Leeser teaches wherein a profile of a portion of the at least one surface bounding the off-centered processing station substantially matches a profile of the substrate-support assembly (as evidenced by Fig. 4, at least a portion of the housing portion 90 matches the profile of the pedestal 120) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054, 0090].
Leeser does not specifically the at least one surface bounding the off-centered processing station comprises a rounded or curved portion.
Kang teaches (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 showerhead insert of Leeser to comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, as in Kang, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
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 the walls of the chamber of Leeser would be capable of contributing to electromagnetic field disconformity along with the pedestal 120) [Leeser - Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 5:
Leeser teaches 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 (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the housing portion 90 comprises an annulus sized to accommodate the stem portion 126) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 6:
Leeser teaches wherein the at least one surface is located in the annulus of the annular body (as evidenced by Fig. 4, at least a portion of the surface of housing portion 90 is located next to an opening accommodating the stem portion 126) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 7:
Leeser teaches wherein the at least one surface is not located in the annulus of the annular body (as evidenced by Fig. 4, at least a portion of the surface of housing portion 90 is not located next to an opening accommodating the stem portion 126) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 8:
Leeser teaches wherein the at least one surface covers a substantial entirety of the body of the showerhead insert (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the surface of housing portion 90 covers a substantial entirety of the housing portion 90) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 9:
Leeser 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. 4, at least a portion of the surface of the housing portion 90 is aligned in use with a surface of the showerhead 124) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 10:
Leeser teaches 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 (as evidenced by Fig. 4, at least a portion of the surface of the housing portion 90 is inclined) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 11:
Leeser 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. 4, at least a portion of the surface of the housing portion 90 modifies an internal geometry of its chamber) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 12:
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 housing portion 90 of Leeser takes up a volume within the chamber, and as such, it would be capable of affecting an electromagnetic field within the chamber. Furthermore, since all man-made objects can be reshaped or moved, the housing portion 90 of Leeser is also capable of being moved and being modulated in shape to alter an electromagnetic field [Leeser - Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054]. Lastly, the combination of reference herein reads upon the structural limitations of the claim, and as such, would be capable of performing the aforementioned intended use.
Regarding Claim 13:
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 housing portion 90 of Leeser takes up a volume within the chamber, and as such, it would be capable of affecting an electromagnetic field within the chamber. Furthermore, since all man-made objects can be reshaped or moved, the housing portion 90 of Leeser is also capable of being moved and being modulated in shape to alter an electromagnetic field [Leeser - Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054]. Lastly, the combination of reference herein reads upon the structural limitations of the claim, and as such, would be capable of performing the aforementioned intended use.
Regarding Claim 14:
The limitations “wherein the showerhead insert can be adjusted, repositioned, or mechanically modulated in shape or position 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 all man-made objects can be reshaped or moved, and as such, the housing portion 90 of Leeser is also capable of being moved and being modulated in shape to alter an electromagnetic field [Leeser - Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 23:
Leeser teaches a quad station process module (QSM), wherein an array of the QSM comprises four processing stations disposed at four corners of the QSM (the substrate processing system may include one or more processing station assemblies; the reactor 80 includes one or more additional stations. The reactor 200 includes a plurality of processing station assemblies 204-1, 204-2, 204-3...204-P) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 25:
The limitations of claim 25 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 the walls and support assemblies of each processing station of Leeser would be capable of forming disconformity with adjacent processing stations (see Fig. 2, and Figs. 5-6) [Leeser - Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 26:
Leeser teaches 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 (as evidenced by Figs. 3-4, the housing portion 90 appears to increase in distance from a radial inner location of the showerhead 124 to a radially outward location) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Leeser does not specifically disclose wherein the configuration of the showerhead insert comprises: a shaped, recessed lower surface including at least one curved profile disposed adjacent, at least in part, a surface of the showerhead,
Kang teaches wherein the configuration of the showerhead insert comprises: a shaped, recessed 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 showerhead insert of Leeser to comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, as in Kang, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser et al. (US 20130269609) in view of Kang et al. (US 20160079036) and Powell et al. (US 6287643), with Ota (JP 2004296553) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1, 3-14, 23, and 25-26 above, and further in view of Carpenter et al. (US 7234412) also utilizing Ota as an evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1, 3-14, 23, and 25-26 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 24:
Modified Leeser does not specifically disclose a substrate support with a round profile.
Carpenter teaches a substrate support with a round profile (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the substrate holder 24 is rounded) [Fig. 2 & Col. 3 lines 63-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Modified Leeser to be rounded, as in Carpenter, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
The limitations “wherein the asymmetry is caused at least in part by a disconformity between a round profile of a substrate- support assembly of a processing station and a square profile of a corner of the QSM,” 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 Ota discloses having rounded corners, and the chamber of Fig. 4 comprises square corners. As such, the apparatus of the combination of references would be capable of forming a disconformity between a round profile of a substrate- support assembly of a processing station and a square profile of a corner.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser et al. (US 20130269609) in view of Kang et al. (US 20160079036) and Powell et al. (US 6287643), with Ota (JP 2004296553) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 15:
Leeser teaches a processing chamber (reactor 200; it is noted that individual elements or features of a particular embodiment are generally not limited to that particular embodiment, but, where applicable, are interchangeable and can be used in a selected embodiment, even if not specifically shown or described) comprising: a showerhead (showerhead 124) delivering one or more process gases into the processing chamber; a showerhead insert (housing portion 90), comprising: a body shaped and configured to associate with the showerhead in the processing chamber, the body having at least one surface thereon (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the housing portion 90 associates with the showerhead 124 and comprises a surface); and a formation in the body sized to accommodate a stem (stem portion 126) of the showerhead; 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. 4, housing unit 90 has at least a portion of its surface accommodating the stem portion 126); and an array of off-centered processing stations, each of the off-centered processing stations in the array being off-centered relative to a center of the array (the substrate processing system may include one or more processing station assemblies; the reactor 80 includes one or more additional stations. The reactor 200 includes a plurality of processing station assemblies 204-1, 204-2, 204-3...204-P), wherein the showerhead is located in an off-centered processing station among the array of off-centered processing stations in the processing chamber (as evidenced by Figs. 3-6, the showerhead 124 is located within a processing station), 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 (as evidenced by Figs. 3-4, the housing portion 90 appears to increase in distance from a radial inner location of the showerhead 124 to a radially outward location) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054, 0090].
Leeser does not specifically disclose a shaped, recessed lower surface including at least one curved profile disposed adjacent, at least in part, a surface of the showerhead; and wherein the showerhead insert comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface.
Kang teaches and wherein the showerhead insert (showerhead cover 320) comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the showerhead cover 320 comprises a concave, recessed lower surface); and wherein the showerhead insert (showerhead cover 320) comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the showerhead cover 320 comprises a concave, recessed lower surface) [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 showerhead insert of Leeser to comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, as in Kang, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Modified Leeser does not specifically disclose 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.
Powell teaches 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. 6A, the profiler 130 has an inner annular wall with that flares outwardly) [Powell - Fig. 6A & Col. 10 lines 9-16].
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 Leeser to comprise an annular wall that flares, as in Powell, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Furthermore, the limitations “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:
Leeser teaches 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 (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the showerhead 124 comprises a formation sized to accommodate the stem portion 126) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054, 0090].
Regarding Claim 17:
Leeser does not specifically disclose wherein the shaped, recessed 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 and wherein the showerhead insert (showerhead cover 320) comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface (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 showerhead insert of Leeser to comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, as in Kang, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Regarding Claim 18:
Leeser teaches 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 (as evidenced by Figs. 3-4, the housing portion 90 appears to increase in distance from a radial inner location of the showerhead 124 to a radially outward location) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Leeser does not specifically disclose a shaped, recessed lower surface including at least one curved profile disposed adjacent, at least in part, a surface of the showerhead.
Kang teaches and wherein the showerhead insert (showerhead cover 320) comprises a shaped, recessed lower surface including at least one curved profile disposed adjacent, at least in part, a surface of the showerhead (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the showerhead cover 320 comprises a concave, recessed lower 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 showerhead insert of Leeser to comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, as in Kang, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Regarding Claim 19:
Leeser teaches wherein the upper surface of the showerhead insert is substantially flat (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the upper surface of housing portion 90 is flat) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054].
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Leeser 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.
Powell 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 (as evidenced by Fig. 6A, the profiler 130 has an inner annular wall with that flares outwardly) [Powell - Fig. 6A & Col. 10 lines 9-16].
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 Leeser to comprise an annular wall that flares, as in Powell, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeser et al. (US 20130269609) in view of Kang et al. (US 20160079036) and Powell et al. (US 6287643), with Ota (JP 2004296553) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 21:
Leeser teaches a processing chamber (reactor 200;it is noted that individual elements or features of a particular embodiment are generally not limited to that particular embodiment, but, where applicable, are interchangeable and can be used in a selected embodiment, even if not specifically shown or described) comprising: a substrate-support (pedestal 120) assembly supporting a substrate; a showerhead (showerhead 124) 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 (the substrate processing system may include one or more processing station assemblies; the reactor 80 includes one or more additional stations. The reactor 200 includes a plurality of processing station assemblies 204-1, 204-2, 204-3...204-P), wherein each of the off-centered processing stations in the array is off-centered relative to a center of the array (as evidenced by Figs. 2 and 5-6, the processing stations are off center), a radio frequency power energizing the one or more process gases into a plasma in a space between the substrate and the showerhead (the showerhead 295 or the RF electrode 297 may be connected to a plasma generator to generate plasma inside the corresponding reaction volume; an RF power source to power the showerhead may be reasonably inferred); and a showerhead insert (housing portion 90) configured to associate with the showerhead, 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 (as evidenced by Figs. 3-4, the housing portion 90 appears to increase in distance from a radial inner location of the showerhead 124 to a radially outward location) [Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054, 0090].
Leeser does not specifically disclose wherein the showerhead insert comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface.
Kang teaches and wherein the showerhead insert (showerhead cover 320) comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the showerhead cover 320 comprises a concave, recessed lower surface) [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 showerhead insert of Leeser to comprises a concave, downwardly-recessed lower surface, as in Kang, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Modified Leeser does not specifically disclose 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.
Powell taches 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. 6A, the profiler 130 has an inner annular wall with that flares outwardly) [Powell - Fig. 6A & Col. 10 lines 9-16].
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 Leeser to comprise an annular wall that flares, as in Powell, since Ota (JP 2004296553) discloses that rounding corners and edges of members in a chamber can help reduce arcing [Ota - Page 1 lines 48-52, Page 2 lines 1-20, Page 3 lines 11-20].
Regarding Claim 22:
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 housing portion 90 of Leeser takes up a volume within the chamber, and as such, it would be capable of affecting an electromagnetic field within the chamber. Furthermore, since all man-made objects can be reshaped or moved, the housing portion 90 of Leeser is also capable of being moved and being modulated in shape to alter an electromagnetic field [Leeser - Fig. 3-6 & 0004, 0045-0047, 0051, 0054]. Lastly, the combination of reference herein reads upon the structural limitations of the claim, and as such, would be capable of performing the aforementioned intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-26 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, however a new grounds of rejection has been set forth.
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose the structural limitations of the claims, but this argument is now moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Leeser et al. (US 20130269609), Powell et al. (US 6287643), and Ota (JP 2004296553) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
The applicant argues that the limitation “wherein a configuration of the showerhead insert is selected to affect or correct an asymmetry of an electromagnetic field generated the processing chamber in use,” is not an intended use. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the aforementioned limitations are merely limitations that show how/why the insert was shaped a particular way. This is not given patentable weight since what is important to the apparatus is what the physical structure of the insert is and not how or why the structure was selected.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2113 I]. In summary, since all the structural limitations (the product) of the claim are met by the prior art, how the structure is made (i.e., the process) is not given patentable weight.
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
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights