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
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 12/09/2025.
4. Claims 1-13, 15-21, and 23-24 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1-5, 10, 12, 15-16, 19, and 23 have been amended.
6. Claims 14 and 22 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 1-13 and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “the flow optimizer comprising: … a bevel shadow ring defined between the ring and the wafer support, such that the bevel shadow ring is disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring for exhausting the gas from the plasma region”. The specification at the time of filing does NOT set forth that the flow optimizer comprises a bevel shadow ring. However, the plasma chamber is disclosed to comprise a bevel shadow ring [see original claim 14]. The flow optimizer is merely disclosed to comprise a ring [see original claims, fig 1B & 0033]. Furthermore, nothing in the specification at the time of filing sets forth that the “bevel shadow ring is disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring for exhausting the gas from the plasma region”. Applicant has confused the disclosed gap between the ring (flow optimizer 120) and the wafer support to be a gap between the bevel shadow ring and the wafer support. Applicant highlights this confusion by citing 0036 of the instant specification on page 9 of the Remarks filed 12/09/2025.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites “the bevel shadow ring includes a plurality of spacers”. The specification at the time of filing does NOT set forth that the bevel shadow ring comprises a plurality of spacers. The plurality of spacers are disclosed to be separate structures distinct from the bevel shadow ring [0048].
Regarding claims 3-11:
Claims 3-11 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 recites “the bevel shadow ring is disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring for exhausting the gas from the plasma region”. The specification at the time of filing does NOT set forth that the “bevel shadow ring is disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring for exhausting the gas from the plasma region”. Applicant has confused the disclosed gap between the ring (flow optimizer 120) and the wafer support to be a gap between the bevel shadow ring and the wafer support. Applicant highlights this confusion by citing 0036 of the instant specification on page 9 of the Remarks filed 12/09/2025.
Regarding claims 13 and 15-18
Claims 13 and 15-18 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 19-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara et al (US 2013/0000558).
Regarding claim 19:
Hara teaches a flow optimizer (baffle plate, 82) [fig 1-2 & 0061-0062], the flow optimizer (82) comprising: an inner disk (portion of 82 radially inward of 86) defined in a center and aligned with a diameter of the wafer support (see fig 1-2), an outer edge of the inner disk extends to a first diameter (diameter of portion of 82 radially inward of 86) [fig 2 & 0061-0062]; an outer ring (portion of 82 radially outward of 86) having an annular surface with an inner edge of the outer ring extending to a second diameter (inner diameter of portion of 82 radially outward of 86) and an outer edge of the outer ring extending to a third diameter (outer diameter of portion of 82 radially outward of 86), the inner edge of the outer ring is separated from the outer edge of the inner disk by a gap (86) defined to expose a portion of a wafer received on the wafer support [fig 1-2 & 0061-0062]; and a plurality of connector pins (portion of 82 between 86) disposed to connect the outer edge of the inner disk and the inner edge of the outer ring (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0061-0062].
The limitations “for use in a plasma chamber having side walls, a wafer support and a dielectric window disposed opposite to the wafer support to define a plasma region located therebetween, a gas inlet is provided through the dielectric window for directing gas to the plasma region” and “wherein the flow optimizer is configured to be positioned within the plasma chamber at a separation distance defined above the wafer support and between the wafer support and the dielectric window, wherein the inner disk is a replaceable component and is configured to be separated and moved out of the plasma chamber using a carrier ring, and wherein the outer ring is a fixed component” 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). Specifically, where one intends to place the ring does NOT patentably define the structure of the ring itself.
Regarding claims 20-21:
Hara teaches the first diameter of the inner disk (diameter of portion of 82 radially inward of 86) is less than the second diameter of the outer ring (inner diameter of portion of 82 radially outward of 86) [fig 2 & 0061-0062].
The limitations “wherein a size of the gap is defined based on the portion of the wafer and an amount of the portion of the wafer that is to be exposed for etching” and “wherein the first diameter of the inner disk, the second diameter of the outer ring, a width of the annular surface of the outer ring and a size of the gap are defined based on the portion of the wafer and an amount of the portion of the wafer that is to be exposed for etching” 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).
Regarding claim 23:
The limitations “wherein the separation distance is defined to be between about 0.5″ and about 1.5″” 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). Specifically, where one intends to place the ring does NOT patentably define the structure of the ring itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al (US 2013/0000558) as applied to claims 19-21 and 23 above, and further in view of Gang et al (US 2013/0102155).
The limitations of claims 19-21 and 23 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 24:
Hara does not specifically disclose the flow optimizer is made of ceramic material.
Gang teaches a flow optimizer (baffle, 270) is made of ceramic material (ceramic) [fig 2 & 0029].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flow optimizer of Hara to be made of a ceramic material, as in Gang, because such is a suitable material for a baffle [Gang – 0029]. It has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.07].
14. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gang et al (US 2013/0102155) in view of Todorow et al (US 2006/0000805) and Ye et al (US 5,891,348) with substantiating evidence provided by Kawakami (US 2020/0294775).
Regarding claim 1:
Gang teaches a flow optimizer (baffle, 270) for use in a plasma chamber (200) having side walls (205), a wafer support (215) and a dielectric window (207) disposed opposite to the wafer support (215) to define a plasma region located therebetween, a gas inlet (235) is provided through the dielectric window (207) for directing gas to the plasma region [fig 2 & 0027-0028], the flow optimizer (270) comprising: a ring having an annular surface with an inner edge that extends an inner diameter and an outer edge that extends to an outer diameter (see fig 2), the ring is disposed in the plasma chamber at a separation distance above the substrate support such that the outer edge of the ring is adjacent to the side walls of the plasma chamber and the inner diameter defines an opening, wherein the ring of the flow optimizer is positioned between the wafer support and the dielectric window so that the opening of the ring is substantially aligned with a diameter of the wafer support (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0027-0028].
Gang does not specifically disclose a second ring defined between the ring and the wafer support, such that the second ring is disposed at a first height above the wafer support and the ring is disposed at a second height above the second ring, wherein the first height and the second height together define the separation distance.
Todorow teaches a second ring (edge ring, 126) defined between the ring (170 which may have one aperture 174) and the wafer support (pedestal, 124), such that the second ring (126) is disposed at a first height above the wafer support (124) and the ring (170 which may have one aperture 174) is disposed at a second height above the second ring (126), wherein the first height and the second height together define the separation distance (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0027, 0031].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flow optimizer of Gang to include a second ring between the ring and the wafer support, as in Todorow, to improve the uniformity of plasma processing on the surface of the wafer [Kawakami – 0026].
Gang modified by Todorow does not specifically disclose the second ring being a bevel shadow ring, such that the bevel shadow ring is disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring for exhausting the gas from the plasma region.
Ye teaches a bevel shadow ring (90), such that the bevel shadow ring (90) is disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap (channel, 100) between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring (90) for exhausting the gas from the plasma region (controlled amount of radially dispersing process gas) [fig 2 & col 4, line 14 - col 5, line 14].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second ring of modified Gang to be a bevel shadow ring disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring for exhausting the gas from the plasma region, as in Ye, to reduce the formation and deposition of contaminant particles on the peripheral edge of the wafer surface [Ye – col 4, lines 43-53].
The claim limitations “for use in a plasma chamber having side walls, a wafer support and a dielectric window disposed opposite to the wafer support to define a plasma region located therebetween, a gas inlet is provided through the dielectric window for directing gas to the plasma region” and “the ring is disposed in the plasma chamber at a separation distance defined above the wafer support such that the outer edge of the ring is adjacent to the side walls of the plasma chamber and the inner diameter defines an opening, wherein the ring of the flow optimizer is positioned between the wafer support and the dielectric window so that the opening of the ring is substantially aligned with a diameter of the wafer support” 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). Specifically, where one intends to place the ring does NOT patentably define the structure of the ring itself.
Regarding claim 2:
Gang does not specifically teach the second ring includes a plurality of spacers distributed uniformly on a top surface and aligned with the annular surface of the ring, the plurality of spacers configured to support the ring of the flow optimizer, wherein the second ring has a distinct housing to receive a first end of each spacer of the plurality of spacers and the ring of the flow optimizer has a distinct housing to receive a second end of said each spacer.
Todorow teaches the second ring (126) includes a plurality of spacers (legs, 176) distributed uniformly on a top surface (top surface of 126) and aligned with the annular surface of the ring (170 which may have one aperture 174), the plurality of spacers (176) configured to support the ring of the flow optimizer (170 which may have one aperture 174), wherein the second ring (126) has a distinct housing (receiving hole formed in 126) to receive a first end of each spacer of the plurality of spacers (176) and the ring of the flow optimizer (170 which may have one aperture 174) has a distinct housing to receive a second end of said each spacer (press fit into a corresponding hole formed in 172) [fig 1 & 0027, 0031-0033].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second ring of modified Gang to include a plurality of spacers, as in Todorow, because such is an easily-replaceable structure for ease of use, maintenance, and replacement [Todorow – 0033-0034].
Gang modified by Todorow does not specifically disclose the second ring being a bevel shadow ring.
Ye teaches a bevel shadow ring (90) [fig 2 & col 4, lines 14-42].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second ring of modified Gang to be a bevel shadow, as in Ye, to guide the flow of fresh reactive process gas species to the wafer, while limiting flow or diffusive transport of stagnant process gas species circulating in the plasma chamber to the substrate [Ye – col 4, lines 14-42].
Regarding claims 3-8:
The limitations of claims 3-8 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). Specifically, where one intends to place the ring does NOT patentably define the structure of the ring itself.
15. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gang et al (US 2013/0102155) in view of Todorow et al (US 2006/0000805) and Ye et al (US 5,891,348) as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Ansell et al (US 2014/0352889).
The limitations of claims 1-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Gang does not specifically disclose wherein the ring of the flow optimizer is a wedge shaped annular ring.
Ansell teaches a ring of the flow optimizer (46) is a wedge shaped annular ring (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0051].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ring of the flow optimizer of modified Gang to be a wedge shaped annular ring, as in Ansell, because such a shape is effective to improve uniformity across the wafer [Ansell – 0055].
The limitations “a broad side of the wedge shaped annular ring is disposed adjacent to the side walls of the plasma chamber and a narrow side of the wedge shaped annular ring is disposed adjacent to the opening” 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). Specifically, where one intends to place the ring does NOT patentably define the structure of the ring itself.
16. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gang et al (US 2013/0102155) in view of Todorow et al (US 2006/0000805) and Ye et al (US 5,891,348) as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Schneider et al (US 6,364,957).
The limitations of claims 1-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 10-11:
Modified Gang teaches a ring of a flow optimizer (baffle, 270) [Gang - fig 2 & 0027-0028].
Modified Gang does not specifically teach the ring of the flow optimizer includes one or more stress relief cuts that extend from the inner diameter to the outer diameter of the ring; and wherein the ring of the flow optimizer includes a plurality of segments, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments includes a lip defined at a first end along a lower side and a complementary extension defined at a second end along an upper side, such that the lip of a first segment is configured to mate with the complementary extension of a second segment.
Schneider teaches a ring of a flow optimizer (collar, 130, may serve to preferentially direct plasma toward the substrate) includes one or more stress relief cuts (one or more slits, 150) that extend from the inner diameter to the outer diameter of the ring (see fig 5A) [fig 5A-5C & col 8, lines 17-53]; and wherein the ring of the flow optimizer includes a plurality of segments, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments includes a lip defined at a first end along a lower side and a complementary extension defined at a second end along an upper side, such that the lip of a first segment is configured to mate with the complementary extension of a second segment (see fig 5A-5C) [fig 5A-5C & col 8, lines 17-53].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ring of the flow optimizer of modified Gang to include one or more stress relief cuts, as in Schneider, to provide for thermal expansion compensation [Schneider – col 13, lines 53-61].
17. Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gang et al (US 2013/0102155) in view of Todorow et al (US 2006/0000805), Ye et al (US 5,891,348), and Sakuma et al (US 2001/0035131) with substantiating evidence provided by Kawakami (US 2020/0294775).
Regarding claim 12:
Gang teaches a plasma chamber (ICP chamber, 200) having side walls (205), a wafer support (215) and a dielectric window (207) disposed opposite to the wafer support (215) to define a plasma region located therebetween, a gas inlet (235) is provided through the dielectric window (215) for directing gas to the plasma region [fig 2 & 0027-0028], the plasma chamber (200) comprising: a flow optimizer (baffle, 270) having a ring with an annular surface, the annular surface defined by an inner edge that extends to an inner diameter and an outer edge that extends to an outer diameter (see fig 2), the ring is disposed in the plasma chamber (200) at a separation distance defined above the wafer support, such that the outer edge of the ring is adjacent to the side walls of the plasma chamber (205) and the inner diameter defines an opening (see fig 2), wherein the ring is positioned between the wafer support (215) and the dielectric window (207) so that the opening of the ring is substantially aligned with a diameter of the wafer support (see fig 2) [fig 2 & 0028].
Gang does not specifically disclose a second ring defined between the ring and the wafer support, such that the second ring is disposed at a first height above the wafer support and the ring is disposed at a second height above the second ring, wherein the first height and the second height together define the separation distance.
Todorow teaches a second ring (edge ring, 126) defined between the ring (170 which may have one aperture 174) and the wafer support (pedestal, 124), such that the second ring (126) is disposed at a first height above the wafer support (124) and the ring (170 which may have one aperture 174) is disposed at a second height above the second ring (126), wherein the first height and the second height together define the separation distance (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0027, 0031].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flow optimizer of Gang to include a second ring between the ring and the wafer support, as in Todorow, to improve the uniformity of plasma processing on the surface of the wafer [Kawakami – 0026].
Gang modified by Todorow does not specifically disclose the second ring being a bevel shadow ring, such that the bevel shadow ring is disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring for exhausting the gas from the plasma region.
Ye teaches a bevel shadow ring (90), such that the bevel shadow ring (90) is disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap (channel, 100) between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring (90) for exhausting the gas from the plasma region (controlled amount of radially dispersing process gas) [fig 2 & col 4, line 14 - col 5, line 14].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second ring of modified Gang to be a bevel shadow ring disposed at a first height above the wafer support to define a gap between the wafer support and the bevel shadow ring for exhausting the gas from the plasma region, as in Ye, to reduce the formation and deposition of contaminant particles on the peripheral edge of the wafer surface [Ye – col 4, lines 43-53].
Gang modified by Todorow and Ye does not specifically disclose the flow optimizer is supported on a plurality of support pegs defined on an inner side of the sidewalls of the plasma chamber at the separation distance defined above the wafer support.
Sakuma teaches a flow optimizer (58) is supported on a plurality of support pegs (60) defined on an inner side of the sidewalls (sidewall, 4A) of the plasma chamber (4) at the separation distance (L1) defined above the wafer support (worktable, 34) [fig 1-2 & 0060, 0073].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flow optimizer of modified Gang to be supported on a plurality of support pegs, as in Sakuma, because such is a suitable structure for supporting a flow optimizer [Sakuma – 0073].
Regarding claim 15:
Gang modified by Todorow teaches the second ring (126) is separated from the dielectric window (108) by a third height (see fig 1), and the flow optimizer (170) is separated from the dielectric window (108) by a fourth height (see fig 1), such that the flow optimizer (170) is above the wafer support (124) and below the plasma region (178) defined in the plasma chamber (102) and the second ring (126) is above the wafer support (124) and below the flow optimizer (170) [fig 1 & 0030, 0033].
Gang modified by Todorow does not specifically disclose the second ring being a bevel shadow ring.
Ye teaches a bevel shadow ring (90) [fig 2 & col 4, lines 14-42].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second ring of modified Gang to be a bevel shadow, as in Ye, to guide the flow of fresh reactive process gas species to the wafer, while limiting flow or diffusive transport of stagnant process gas species circulating in the plasma chamber to the substrate [Ye – col 4, lines 14-42].
18. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gang et al (US 2013/0102155) in view of Todorow et al (US 2006/0000805), Ye et al (US 5,891,348), and Sakuma et al (US 2001/0035131) as applied to claims 12 and 15 above, and further in view of Severson et al (US 2017/0236743).
The limitations of claims 12 and 15 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 13:
Modified Gang does not specifically disclose a plurality of lift pins distributed uniformly along the wafer support so as to align with a carrier ring used for moving a wafer into and out of the plasma chamber, the plurality of lift pins configured to support and move the carrier ring with the wafer between a raised position and a rested position, wherein the wafer support has a housing to receive corresponding lift pin of the plurality of lift pins, the plurality of lift pins connected to a lift pin mechanism that is coupled to a controller, signals from the controller configured to control movement of the plurality of lift pins.
Severson teaches a plurality of lift pins (lift pins, 196) distributed uniformly along the wafer support (substrate support, 122) so as to align with a carrier ring (lift ring, 192) used for moving a wafer (126) into and out of the plasma chamber [fig 1 & 0038], the plurality of lift pins configured to support and move the carrier ring with the wafer between a raised position and a rested position (see fig 2A-2C), wherein the wafer support has a housing to receive corresponding lift pin of the plurality of lift pins (see fig 1), the plurality of lift pins connected to a lift pin mechanism (motors) that is coupled to a controller (controller, 404), signals from the controller (404) configured to control movement of the plurality of lift pins (selectively raise and lower lift pins) [fig 2A-2C, 4 & 0046].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plasma chamber of modified Gang to further include a plurality of lift pins, as in Severson, to allow for lifting a substrate for transfer [Severson – 0017].
19. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gang et al (US 2013/0102155) in view of Todorow et al (US 2006/0000805), Ye et al (US 5,891,348), and Sakuma et al (US 2001/0035131) as applied to claims 12 and 15 above, and further in view of Honda et al (US 2009/0269940).
The limitations of claims 12 and 15 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Gang does not specifically disclose the third height is defined to be between about 2.5″ and about 3.5″, and wherein the fourth height is defined to be between about 1.5″ and about 2.5″.
Honda teaches a third height is defined to be between about 2.5″ and about 3.5″ (H2 + T1 + H1 = 25mm + 2mm + 50mm = 77mm) [fig 1 & 0063, 0067, 0129], and wherein a fourth height is defined to be between about 1.5″ and about 2.5″. (H1 = 50mm) [fig 1 & 0063, 0067, 0129].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second height of modified Gang with the ranges disclosed in Honda to make it possible to nitride silicon uniformly while preventing a plasma damage from occurring [Honda – 0063].
20. Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gang et al (US 2013/0102155) in view of Todorow et al (US 2006/0000805), Ye et al (US 5,891,348), and Sakuma et al (US 2001/0035131) as applied to claims 12 and 15 above, and further in view of Oyabu (US 6,508,199).
The limitations of claims 12 and 15 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 17-18:
Modified Gang teaches a plasma confining liner (ring extension, 373) [Gang - fig 3 & 0030].
Modified Gang does not specifically disclose a plasma confining liner disposed to surround the wafer support, the plasma confining liner configured to extend downward from an underside surface of the ring up to a bottom surface of the wafer support, so that a gap exists between the plasma confining liner and walls of the wafer support for plasma to escape; and wherein a diameter of the plasma confining liner is greater than the inner diameter of the ring and a diameter of the wafer support.
Oyabu teaches a plasma confining liner (124) disposed to surround the wafer support (see fig 1), the plasma confining liner (124) configured to extend downward from an underside surface of the ring (122) up to a bottom surface of the wafer support (see fig 1), so that a gap (142) exists between the plasma confining liner and walls of the wafer support for plasma to escape [fig 1 & col 4-5, lines 65-15]; and wherein a diameter of the plasma confining liner (124) is greater than the inner diameter of the ring and a diameter of the wafer support (see fig 1) [fig 1 & col 4-5, lines 65-15].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plasma confining liner of modified Gang to be disposed to surround the substrate support, as in Oyabu, to make it possible to maintain a constant conductance even if the position of the substrate support is adjusted [Oyabu – col 5, lines 16-29].
Response to Arguments
21. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 16 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 16 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 16.
22. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 9 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.
23. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 10-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ring of Schneider is a collar that is part of the substrate support assembly and not in an annular ring that is disposed above the substrate support surface and below a showerhead. Therefore, it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Schneider with Gang.
In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As set forth in the body of the rejection above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ring of the flow optimizer of modified Gang to include one or more stress relief cuts, as in Schneider, to provide for thermal expansion compensation [Schneider – col 13, lines 53-61]. It is noted that, similar to Schneider, the ring of the flow optimizer of Gang is disposed in a substrate processing chamber. As such, because the ring of the flow optimizer of Gang is exposed to high temperature processing, it would be obvious to include one or more stress relief cuts for the reason set forth above (i.e. to provide for thermal expansion compensation [Schneider – col 13, lines 53-61]).
24. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 12-18 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.
25. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/09/2023, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 19-23 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim 24 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the baffle of Hara is not a distinct component that is disposed below the gas inlet and above the wafer support. Further, the baffle of Hara supplies the gas outside of the process region and is not gas inlets that are designed to introduce gas into the process region.
In response, 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). Specifically, where one intends to place the ring does NOT patentably define the structure of the ring itself.
Applicant argues that the space between the discharge ports 86 of Hara are not connector pins because there is no mention of connector pins in the written disclosure.
In response, examiner maintains that the space between the discharge ports may be interpreted to be “connector pins” based on figure 2 of Hara. The fact that Hara does not refer to this space as “connector pins” in the written specification does NOT change the fact that such a structure may reasonably be interpreted to be “connector pins” in light of applicant’s specification because they are the same structure disposed in the same location.
Applicant argues that Hara does not teach the inner disk being a replaceable component and is configured to be separated and moved out of the plasma chamber using a carrier ring.
In response, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suda (US 5,229,081), Hills et al (US 5,685,914), Wu et al (US 2002/0142612), Kumar et al (US 2007/0017898), Cooke et al (US 2007/0158305), Okita et al (US 2007/0178698), Fu et al (US 2017/0190582) teach a flow optimizer [fig 1, 2, 2b, 1, 6, 4, 3, respectively].
27. 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.
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896