DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (8/22/2022), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-20) were examined in a Non-Final on 1/28/2025. A Final office action in response to Applicants submission of 5/28/2025 was mailed on 7/15/2025. Claims 1-20 were examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and arguments
The amendment dated 12/11/2025 does not change the scope of the claims and therefore the rejection stays. Applicant’s arguments regarding sec 112 rejection did not clearly respond to the rejection.
Applicant’s argument regarding Kawano is not persuasive since in Kawano, the ground bowl conductor 8 is disposed above the top plane (14) of the ground bowl. The ground bowl conductor is disposed around the pedestal in order to create a sealed plasma processing environment when it contacts the pumping plate in the elevated processing position.
Applicant’s argument regarding Li is similarly unpersuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The claims include terms which could only be understood in the context of the specification. The term ground bowl refers to a structure denoted by 302 in Fig 1C or 1D or an equivalent structure, pumping plate refers to the structure 114 or an equivalent. Ground bowl conductor appears to be a bellows 304 or 306 disposed around pedestal 138 and above ground bowl 302.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the specification notes that the surface area refers to reduced surface area for RF energy to propagate. This is how the claims are interpreted.
Amendment to claims 1, 8 and 14 are discussed below and interpreted accordingly.
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 1-20 are 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.
Applicant added a limitation “the ground bowl conductor coupled to the ground bowl, the ground bowl conductor disposed between a bottom plane of the pedestal and a top plane of the ground bowl and contacting the pumping plate when the ground bowl is in the elevated processing position.” to claims 1, 8 and 14.
The claims of this application appear to correspond to the embodiments of Fig 1C and 1D. According to the drawings the ground bowl conductor 304 is disposed above the top plane of the ground bowl 302 but not between a bottom plane of the pedestal and a top plane of the ground bowl. The ground bowl conductor in fact is disposed around the pedestal in order to create a sealed plasma processing environment when it contacts the pumping plate in the elevated processing position.
Therefore, the limitation is interpreted according to the drawing to mean that the ground bowl conductor which is a compressible bellows to be around the pedestal. This is consistent with the fact that in lifted position the bellow gets compressed around the pedestal to contact pumping plate and allow the substrate processing to occur in the enclosed volume.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Baiei Kawano (US 7267725).
Kawano discloses a chamber suitable for processing semiconductor substrates, comprising: a chamber body (Fig 1,1);
a chamber lid coupled to the chamber body to define a process volume (11);
a faceplate coupled to the chamber lid (10);
a pedestal (4) disposed in the processing volume,
a pumping plate disposed concentric to the pedestal in the processing volume (7);
a ground bowl (4) positioned in the processing volume, the ground bowl coupled to a lift system that moves the ground bowl between an elevated processing position and a lowered processing position; and
a ground bowl conductor (8) coupled to the ground bowl, the ground bowl conductor contacting the pumping plate when the ground bowl is in the elevated processing position (As noted in Col 10 lines 36-43 the bellows 8 could be attached to the step 14).
Regarding the amendment, the ground bowl conductor is around the pedestal 4 or between the pedestal and ground bowl end at 14.
Regarding claim 2 the stem would be (4).
Regarding claim 7 lift pins (9) are disclosed.
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 17 are rejected with claim 1 as ground bowl conductor bellows is disclosed to be constituted of aluminum or nickel-based alloy (Col 10 lines 11-17).
Regarding claim 12 and 15, bellows are ground bowl conductors (Fig 1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 13 with the interpretation of surface area as above it is noted that since Kawano discloses the claimed structure, claimed surface area for RF to propagate is also disclosed.
Claim 14 is rejected with claim1 with the interpretation of surface area as above.
Regarding claim 16 bellows are compressed in elevated position (Fig 1B).
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-16, 18 and20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yicheng Li (US 7740705).
Li discloses a chamber suitable for processing semiconductor substrates, comprising: a chamber body (Fig 1A);
a chamber lid coupled to the chamber body to define a process volume (130);
a faceplate coupled to the chamber lid (144);
a pedestal (302) disposed in the processing volume,
a pumping plate disposed concentric to the pedestal in the processing volume (304, 310);
a ground bowl (302) positioned in the processing volume, the ground bowl coupled to a lift system that moves the ground bowl between an elevated processing position and a lowered processing position; and
a ground bowl conductor (306, 314, 320) coupled to the ground bowl, the ground bowl conductor contacting the pumping plate when the ground bowl is in the elevated processing position.
Regarding claim 2 a vertical stem is attached to 302.
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses RF source (150) connected to an electrode through a match network (Col 9 lines 39-54) in support 302.
Regarding claim 4 and 16 ground bowl conductor (306, 314 or 320) is in a compressed state when ground bowl is elevated.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 15 ground bowl conductor could be a bellow (Fig 5 and description).
Regarding claim 6 ground bowl ground bowl conductor (306, 320) would be spaced from the pumping plate (304, 310).
Regarding claims 8, 10, 18, 20 bellows 320 is constituted by stainless steel (Col 15 lines 31-36).
Regarding claims 13-14 with the interpretation of surface area as above it is noted that since Li discloses the claimed structure, claimed surface area for RF to propagate is also disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-6, 8, 10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baiei Kawano (US 7267725) in view of Yicheng Li (US 7740705).
Regarding claim 3 Baiei Kawano disclose that RF is applied between the susceptor and the showerhead (Col 8 lines 50-57) but does not disclose through a conductive rod through the stem.
Li however, discloses RF source (150) connected to an electrode through a conductor and a match network (Col 9 lines 39-54) in support 302.
Therefore, having RF source connected to an electrode through a match network in Kawano would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Regarding claims 4 ground bowl conductor (8) is in a compressed state when ground bowl is elevated.
Regarding claim 5, 12 and 15, bellows (8) are disclosed are ground bowl conductors.
Regarding claim 6 ground bowl conductor (8) would be spaced from the pumping plate (7) (Col 10 lines 36-43) in the lowered position.
Regarding claims 10, 18 and 20 directed to the ground bowl or conductor being constituted of stainless steel, as noted in Kawano (Col 10 lines 11-17) the bellows need to be heat and corrosion resistant.
Yicheng Li discloses regarding claims 8, 10, 18, 20 bellows 320 is constituted by stainless steel (Col 15 lines 31-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have alternatively bellows of stainless steel for their property of being heat and corrosion resistant.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baiei Kawano (US 7267725) in view of Yicheng Li (US 7740705) and Yudovsky (US 20150236566).
Regarding claim 19, Yudovsky discloses a semiconductor processing apparatus using plasma in vacuum and being analogous of ground bowl and bellows being of stainless steel (Para 56 and 66).
Since stainless steel is corrosion resistant having this as a ground bowl would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daisuke Toriya (US 20140130743) discloses a chamber where a pedestal 34 supporting a substrate, lifts to contact a pumping plate (51) using a bellows (Fig 2).
Einosuke Tsuda (US 20100310772) discloses a chamber where a pedestal 34 supporting a substrate, lifts to contact a pumping plate (26) using a bellows (Fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716