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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 03/27/2026. Claims 1-15 and 23-28 are pending in the current office action. Claims 1, 3, 23, and 26 have been amended by the applicant. Claims 10-15 remain withdrawn.
Status of the Rejection
The Claim objections have been overcome by the applicant's amendments.
Some 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Some 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Imai (US 20110042007 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US-20070072432-A1), Finster et al. (WO-2009036218-A1), and Penelon et al. (US-20060156983-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Imai teaches a method of etching a bevel edge of a substrate (Paragraph [0015]), comprising:
providing a substrate with a bevel edge after a thin film has been deposited on a top surface of the substrate (Paragraphs [0046-0047] Figure 5 wafer (element) comprising film (elements 21 and 22));
rotating the substrate about a center axis (Paragraph [0033] wafer (element 7) can be rotated. Figures 1 and 3 show rotating around a center axis); and
during the rotating etching the bevel edge (Paragraphs [0030-0033] bevel etching is conducted during rotation).
Imai further teaches that the etching is conducted using atmospheric plasma (Paragraph [0035]). However, Imai fails to teach generating an atmospheric plasma in an atmospheric plasma unit comprising a nozzle and directing a flow of output in a planar sheet from the nozzle towards the bevel edge, and wherein the nozzle comprises a slit configured to produce is the flow as the planar sheet parallel to the top surface of the substrate.
Yoon teaches a method for removing material from a substrate (Paragraph [0017]) and that this method can be used for bevel edge etching (Paragraph [0038]). Yoon further teaches that an atmospheric pressure plasma jet apparatus is used for etching (Paragraph [0037] APPJ (atmospheric pressure plasma jet) device is used). Yoon teaches that this apparatus comprises an atmospheric plasma unit where the plasma is formed (Paragraph [0037] Figure 4, Plasma formed in "discharge chamber cavity" (element 410)) and plasma is output through a nozzle (Paragraph [0037] Figure 4, plasma effluent leaves “discharge orifice” (element 417) to etch substrate). Yoon further teaches a nozzle that comprises a linear slit (Paragraph [0039] discharge orifice (element 506), equivalent to the claimed nozzle, is comprises a linear opening with a width as seen in Figure 5), which by its design would form a flow as a planar sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Imai by using an atmospheric pressure plasma jet apparatus comprising a chamber for generating plasma and a nozzle for generation plasma and directing that plasma towards the substrate during the etching process as taught by Yoon.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of a plasma jet system uses relatively small inert gas flow rates which decreases costs (Paragraph [0037] plasma jet avoids costs of large volume of inert gas or inert gas recycling equipment). Additionally, this modification would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The combination would have had the predictable result of supplying a stream of plasma effluents from the nozzle for the bevel etching process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Modified Imai as outlined above, fails to teach that the flow of output from the nozzle is parallel to the top surface of the substrate.
Finster teaches methods for etching a bevel region (Paragraph [0001] method for removing residue from an edge exclusion and bevel region). Finster teaches an embodiment where a nozzle directs a plasma towards the wafer being etched in a direction that is parallel to the top surface of the wafer (Paragraphs [0052-0053] Figures 4a and 4b. Plasma flows from inside of the nozzle tip (element 240) and is directed to the wafer (element 155). The flow from one emitter (element 230c) is configured to impact the wafer with a normal angle, and therefore this flow would be parallel to the top surface of the wafer, see Reference Image 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Imai as outlined above, such that the atmospheric pressure plasma jet apparatus is oriented so that the nozzle creates a flow that would be parallel to the top surface of the substrate.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The combination would have had the predictable result of directing a flow from the nozzle to the bevel edge being etched. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Reference Image 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
591
1173
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Imai as outlined above fails to teach that the slit has a height in the range of 5 to 100 millimeters and that the flow from the nozzle has a flow height is orthogonal to a direction of flow. Yoon further teaches that the width of the slit is less than 200 millimeters (Paragraph [0039] the width of the slit may be as wide as the substrate. Paragraph [0047] substrates could be 200 mm wide) and displays in Figures that the shape of the slit is rectangular, such that the height would be less than the width of the slit and the flow of output from the nozzle would be a planar sheet (Figure 5, the height of the slit is less than the width, therefore the height of the slit could be less than 200 millimeters), but fails to explicitly teach a height of the slit.
Penelon teaches methods and apparatuses for generating atmospheric plasma (Paragraph [0005]). Penelon teaches one embodiment of a plasma apparatus that utilizes a rectangular housing as the nozzle from which the plasma exists as a sheet to be directed towards a substrate, and teaches that in that embodiment the height of the housing can be 0.1-5 millimeters (Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Imai by selecting as the height of the slit, 5 millimeters as taught by Penelon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a nozzle with a slit height at a level within the disclosed range of 0.1-5 millimeters, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 5-100 millimeters. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The combination would have had the predictable result of selecting a suitable height for a slit that was used for directing the flow of atmospheric plasma towards a substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Imai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a plane containing a region of the bevel edge being etched” would allow for a plane at any orientation, so long as it contains any portion of the bevel edge. Therefore, regardless of the orientation of the direction of flow, there would be some plane that is orthogonal to the flow and meets the claimed limitation. Finster further teaches a flow that is orthogonal to the bevel edge being etched (Paragraphs [0052-0053] Figures 4a and 4b. Plasma flows from inside of the nozzle tip (element 240) and is directed to the wafer (element 155). The flow from one emitter (element 230c) is configured to impact the wafer with a normal angle). As shown below in Reference Image 2, there is one such plane within modified Imai, as taught by Finster.
Reference Image 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
591
1173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, modified Imai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Imai fails to teach an embodiment where the rotation rate is within a range of 10 to 500 RPM.
Imai does teach, however, that the rotation speed during bevel etching can be 10 rpm or faster (Paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a rotation speed at a level within the disclosed range of 10 rpm or faster, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 10-500 rpm. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Imai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Imai further teaches wherein the substrate is exposed to atmospheric pressure during the method (Paragraph [0033] etching is conducted under atmospheric pressure).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Imai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Imai further teaches wherein the providing step (Paragraph [0030-0033], Figure 1) includes positioning the substrate (wafer, element 7) upon a rotation mechanism operable to perform the rotating step (Paragraph [0033] “unshown drive mechanism”) and wherein the rotation mechanism comprises a rotating stage (wafer chuck, element 8).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Imai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Modified Imai further teaches wherein a direction of flow height is orthogonal to the top surface (as outlined above in the rejection of claim 1, the flow of output from the nozzle is parallel to the top surface of the substrate and a flow height is orthogonal to the direction of flow, and therefore the flow height would also be orthogonal to the top surface).
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Yoon and Finster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sriraman (WO 2021071999 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Imai all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Imai further teaches the use of an atmospheric plasma for the etching and that the atmospheric plasma can contain argon and oxygen ions (Paragraph [0031]).
Imai is silent on the source of the oxygen ions and therefore fails to teach that the atmospheric plasma comprises an Ar/02 atmospheric plasma, as required by the instant claim.
Sriraman teaches a method of plasma etching a bevel edge (Paragraph [0026]). Sriraman teaches that O2 can be the reactive gas utilized by the plasma etching (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Imai to use O2 as the gas for plasma generation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as it would have been the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted O2 into the method taught by Imai to obtain the predictable result of generating an Ar/02 atmospheric plasma.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Imai all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Imai further teaches the use of an atmospheric plasma for the etching and that the atmospheric plasma will contain oxygen ions (Paragraph [0031]).
Imai is silent on the source of the oxygen ions and therefore fails to teach that the atmospheric plasma is an 02 atmospheric plasma, as required by the instant claim.
Sriraman teaches a method of plasma etching a bevel edge (Paragraph [0026]). Sriraman teaches that O2 can be the reactive gas utilized by the plasma etching (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Imai to use O2 as the gas for plasma generation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as it would have been the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted O2 into the method taught by Imai to obtain the predictable result of generating an 02 atmospheric plasma.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Imai all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Imai further teaches that the bevel etching method is used to etch a region that is a predetermined distance from the outer edge of a substrate (Paragraph [0015]).
Imai fails to teach that etching is performed without loss of thickness of the thin film on the top surface at a radius spaced apart from an outer radius of the substrate less 5 mm as required by the instant claim.
Sriraman teaches a method of plasma etching a bevel edge (Paragraph [0026]). Sriraman teaches that the outermost 2mm of a substrate should be selectively etched such that the rest of the substrate is not exposed to plasma (Paragraphs [0023], [0035], and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Imai to have selected as the predetermined distance from the outer edge of the substrate to be etched, 2mm as taught by Sriraman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the outermost 2mm is not used in subsequent manufacturing steps yet contains unwanted material (Sriraman Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Imai all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Imai further teaches the use of an atmospheric plasma for the etching and that the atmospheric plasma can contain oxygen and nitrogen ions (Paragraph [0031]).
Imai is silent on the source of the oxygen and nitrogen ions and therefore fails to teach that the atmospheric plasma is an N2/02 atmospheric plasma, as required by the instant claim.
Sriraman teaches a method of plasma etching a bevel edge (Paragraph [0026]). Sriraman teaches that O2 and N2 can be the reactive gases utilized by the plasma etching (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Imai to use N2 and O2 as the gas for plasma generation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as it would have been the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted O2 and N2 into the method taught by Imai to obtain the predictable result of generating an atmospheric plasma that comprised N2 and O2.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Yoon and Finster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hausmann et al. (US 20190157076 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Imai all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Imai teaches methods of bevel etching and a bevel etching apparatus. However, Imai is silent on the placement of the bevel etching apparatus within a larger system and therefore fails to teach that the rotation mechanism is located in a space of a plasma deposition system that is maintained at atmospheric pressure during operations of the plasma deposition system, as required by the instant claim.
Hausmann teaches methods and apparatus for processing semiconductor substrates (Paragraph [0002]). Hausmann teaches an apparatus with at least 1 process chamber, including a chamber for performing plasma deposition (Paragraph [0021]). Hausmann teaches the plasma deposition chamber is a part of a system that includes a system control (Paragraphs [0101-0105]) that can be connected to a bevel edge etch chamber (Paragraph [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Imai, such that the method was conducted by a system as taught by Hausmann that comprised a system control that was connected to both a plasma deposition chamber and a bevel edge etch chamber. With this modification, the rotation mechanism would be located within the bevel edge chamber, which itself would be a part of the plasma deposition system. As no vacuum system is necessary for the bevel edge etch chamber taught by Imai (Paragraph [0019]), the rotation mechanism would remain at atmospheric pressure during any operation of the separate plasma deposition chamber. Additionally, as the plasma deposition chamber in the system taught by Hausmann would be separate from the bevel edge etching chamber, the bevel edge etching chamber would not be activated and at any pressure other than the ambient atmospheric pressure during the operations of the plasma deposition chamber.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Hausmann taught a plasma deposition system, which could include a bevel edge etch chamber. Imai taught a bevel edge etch chamber and method of its use which meets all the claimed limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the two elements of a plasma deposition system and a bevel edge etch chamber, with the method taught by Hausmann, and each element would have performed the same function as it would have separately. The result of the combination would have been the predictable result of a plasma deposition system that contained a bevel edge etch chamber and could be operated with the taught methods.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Yoon and Finster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demmin et al. (US-6635185-B2) and Cheng et al. (WO-2020101793-A2).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Imai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Imai fails to teach wherein the flow has a flow rate in the range of from 10 to 100 L/min.
Cheng teaches methods of cleaning and etching (Paragraph [0003] methods of using plasma apparatus for cleaning and etching) where an atmospheric pressure plasma is used (Paragraph [0046] method produces an atmospheric pressure plasma). Cheng teaches an example for cleaning where a flow rate used is 40.32 liters per minute (Paragraphs [0061-0063] plasma is used to remove organic compounds. The plasma source is 40 liters per minute of argon and 0.32 liters per minute of oxygen, therefore 40.32 liters per minute is the flow rate for the plasma). Cheng teaches an example for etching a substrate where a flow rate of 16 liters a minute is used (Paragraph [0075] an embodiment for etching is taught. Paragraph [0077] A flow rate 1 liters per minute of argon and 1 liter per minute of forming gas are used for the plasma).
Demmin teaches methods of plasma etching (Column 1 lines 7-12). Demmin teaches that etching process parameters, including the etching gas flow rate, can be changed to affect the results of an etching process (Column 7 lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Imai by adjusting the flow rate used to be a flow rate taught by Cheng, either 40.32 or 16 liters per minute.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Demmin teaches that changing the etching process parameters, such as changing the flow rate, is a result-effective variable that can be optimized. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-28 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is considered to be Finster. Finster teaches methods for etching a bevel region (Paragraph [0001] method for removing residue from an edge exclusion and bevel region). Finster teaches an embodiment where nozzles direct a plasma upward and downward towards the wafer edge at an angle ranging from about 40 to 60 degrees from vertical, which is equivalent to about 50 to 30 degrees from a horizontal plane (Paragraph [0053] Figure 4a, the nozzles of 230a and 230b are direct the flow of plasma towards the bevel edge at an angle, with nozzle 230a directing the flow downward and nozzle 230b directing the flow upward).
Finster fails to teach directing a flow of plasma that is tilted upward or downward from the horizontal plane and directed radially inward toward the bevel edge.
These claims are therefore considered to be patentably distinguished from the prior art of record. The prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 26. Claims 27-28 are dependent from or otherwise include the limitations of claim 26 and are allowable for the same reasons as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 1-3, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claim 1-9 and 23-25 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Penelon teaches a process that includes a flow orthogonal to the top surface of the substrate and therefore cannot be relied upon to teach a flow height.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that 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. In this specific situation, Penelon is relied upon for the teaching of a size of a nozzle and the resulting flow of a plasma in an etching process, the orientation of the flow is taught by the other cited prior art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights