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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-40 are pending
Claims 7-40 have been withdrawn
Claim 1 has been amended
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vukovic et al. (US 20080236497) in view of Koshiishi et al. (US 20070169891), Farrens et al. (US 20030003684), and Zhang et al. (US 20180053629), with Fischer (US 20170250059) and Kikuchi et al. (JP 2004200353) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Vukovic teaches An edge ring (edge ring 330) for a substrate processing system, the edge ring comprising; an annular body (body of edge ring 330); an annular channel (gas plenums 334A-F) disposed in the annular body circumferentially along an inner diameter of the annular body (as evidenced by Figs. 4 and 5, gas plenums 334a-F are arranged along an inner diameter of edge ring 330), the annular channel including N disjoint sections (as evidenced by Fig.4, the plenums 334A-F are disjoint sections), where N is an integer greater than 1 (as evidenced by Fig. 4, here are a plurality of gas plenums 334A-F); N injection ports (gas distribution passages 332A-F) arranged circumferentially on the annular body to respectively inject one or more gases into the N disjoint sections of the annular channel (the plurality of gas plenums 334A-F are configured to receive a flow of additive process gas from a plurality of gas distribution passages 332A-F); the plurality of orifices being in fluid communication with the annular channel (gas injection orifices 336A-F are in fluid communication with gas plenums 334A-F) [Fig. 4 & 0045].
PNG
media_image1.png
659
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vukovic does not specifically disclose a flange extending radially inwards from the inner diameter of the annular body; an inner edge of the flange being chamfered.
Koshiishi teaches a flange (the inclined portion 10b) extending radially inwards from the inner diameter of the annular body; an inner edge of the flange being chamfered (the inclined portion 10b is chamfered) [Fig. 2 & 0074, 0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the edge ring of Vukovic to have flange with a chamfered inner edge, as in Koshiishi, to create a uniform plasma sheathe [Koshiishi - 0090-0091, 0098].
Modified Vukovic does not specifically disclose wherein the edge ring has rounded edges.
Farrens does not specifically disclose rounding the edges of an edge ring, but it does disclose chamber parts in the interior of a chamber can have their edges rounded to reduce the likelihood of arcing [Fig. 1 - 0026]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the edge ring of Modified Vukovic to have rounded edges, as in Farrens, to reduce the chance of arcing [Farrens - 0026].
Modified Vukovic (Vukovic modified by Koshiishi and Farrens) does not specifically disclose a plurality of slits arranged in the flange, and extending radially inwards from the annular channel to deliver the one or more gases.
Zhang teaches a plurality of slits arranged in the flange (edge ring nozzles 240 are disposed in an inner peripheral portion of the edge ring 516), and extending radially inwards from the annular channel to deliver the one or more gases (as evidenced by Fig. 5A, the nozzles 240 are in fluid communication with plenum 544) [Fig. 5A & 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the slits of Modified Vukovic to extend into a flange of the edge ring, as in Zhang, since Zhang establishes that injection angle is a result effective variable. Specifically, injection angle and position can be adjusted to affect process results such as gas velocity profile and etch rate [Zhang - 0019-0020, 0042]. As such, it would be obvious to find an optimum angle and position for a gas slit to obtain desired process results. 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 further noted that Zhang establishes nozzle shape and size as result effective variables (adjusting shape and size can change byproduct distribution) [Zhang - 0019-0020, 0042], as such, having slit shaped gas openings would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Fischer (US 20170250059) and Kikuchi et al. (JP 2004200353) also disclose that slit shaped openings for a gas feed is a known structure in the art [Fischer - Fig. 3A & 0034; Kikuchi - Fig. 3, 12 & Page 3 lines 47-50, Page 5 lines 14-17].
Furthermore, since modified Vukovic would have a chamfered inner edge (with curved edges), placing the slits along those curved edges of the chamfered edge would result in the slits being curved along the chamfered inner edge of the flange. It is noted that Zhang discloses that both gas slit position and shape are result effective variables. As such, it would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art to place curved slits on a flange of an edge ring [Zhang - 0019-0020, 0042]. Zhang further discloses that the inner diameter 556 of edge ring 516 may be beveled or curved [Zhang - 0042].
The limitations “the slits configured to deliver the one or more gases locally to an edge of a substrate,” are merely 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 claim 1 is directed to “an edge ring,” and as such, structures outside the edge ring (such as a substrate) are non-structural, as an edge ring can be placed anywhere desired. Furthermore, the edge ring nozzles 540 of Zhang provide additional side-tuning gases, and as such, the combination of references would be capable of delivering gas to an edge of a substrate [Zhang - 0041].
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 is merely intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that claim 1 is directed to “an edge ring,” and as such, structures outside the edge ring (such as a substrate) are non-structural, as an edge ring can be placed anywhere desired. Furthermore, the edge ring nozzles 540 of Zhang provide additional side-tuning gases, and as such, the combination of references would be capable of delivering gas to an edge or periphery of a substrate [Zhang - 0041].
Regarding Claim 3:
Vukovic teaches wherein the annular channel includes N partitioning blocks that partition the annular channel into the N disjoint sections (the partitioning blocks are shown in the annotated drawings above) [Fig. 4 & 0045].
Regarding Claim 4:
Vukovic teaches the N injection ports are equidistant from each other (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the gas distribution passages 332A-F are symmetrical and equidistant from each other)
and each of the N partitioning blocks is arranged between two of the N injection ports and is equidistant from the two of the N injection ports (the partitioning blocks, as shown in the annotated drawings above, are equidistant from respective gas distribution passages 332A-F) [Fig. 4 & 0045].
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 is merely intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that claim 1 is directed to “an edge ring,” and as such, structures outside the edge ring (such as an evacuation port) are non-structural, as an edge ring can be placed anywhere desired.
Regarding Claim 6:
Vukovic teaches wherein the edge ring is made of at least one of silicon and silicon carbide (the edge ring 399 may be made of silicon) [Fig. 4 & 0046].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 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 Koshiishi et al. (US 20070169891) and Farrens et al. (US 20030003684) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718