DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on April 27, 2026. Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are amended; claim 11 is canceled.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the new material recited by each independent claim – that is, a mask edge portion having a thickness between 0.15 and 0.7 mm. The Office cites McMillin, for example, but this reference discloses a lower bound thickness value of 0.76 mm, which exceeds the claimed range (p. 7).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization and has withdrawn the outstanding rejections. Subsequent further search, new rejections have been applied below.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen et al., US 2005/0196971, in view of McMillin et al., US 2014/0235063, and Setton et al., US 2023/0298929.
Claims 1, 4, 13, 15: Sen discloses a plasma deposition apparatus, comprising:
A vacuum chamber (200) (Fig. 2);
A plasma generation electrode disposed in the vacuum chamber [0066-0073];
A susceptor for supporting wafer (Fig. 8A), including:
An upper surface;
A raised peripheral element defined by the upper surface;
An electrode [0108-0112];
A mask, including:
An annular bulk portion (880) having a beveled surface (880a) facing into the vacuum chamber [0110];
Wherein a slope of the beveled surface begins above the raised peripheral element and extends beyond an inner wall of said element;
Wherein the mask is supported by the upper surface.
Sen’s mask does not terminate in an edge portion “extending from the beveled surface,” but alternative configurations are known. For example, Figure 2 of McMillin depicts an annular mask (300) comprising a beveled surface, where a planar edge portion (222) extends from the beveled surface to cover a peripheral portion of a wafer [0030]. Given McMillin’s demonstration that a mask comprising an edge portion can effectively control the plasma sheath and regulate gas flow, it would have been obvious to implement this design within Sen’s chamber, since choosing among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
The examiner notes that McMillin discloses a edge portion width of 0.76 mm, yet the independent claims stipulate an upper bound of thickness of 0.7 mm. In supplementation, Figure 4D of Setton limns a mask comprising a beveled surface terminating in a planar edge portion. Setton specifies the width of the edge portion as “less than about 0.01 inches,” i.e., less than about 0.254 mm. The examiner understands this syntax to ratify a width dimension of approximately 0.2 mm or less, which is within Applicant’s claimed range. Setton seeks to minimize the width of the edge portion to “minimize the impact on the plasma sheath” relative to a “round or square profile having a greater thickness” [0056-57]. It would have been obvious to configure the width of McMillin’s edge portion at 0.2 mm, since applying a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.
Lastly, the examiner observes that the claimed equality of D2 = D1 + 2*W1 is tautological, as any annular mask having a edge portion will necessarily satisfy its terms. Because McMillin and Setton both disclose annular masks comprising edge portions extending from a beveled surface, the prior art satisfies the equality.
Claim 2: Sen fails to teach wherein the edge portion has a planar cross sectional shape. However, McMillin teaches wherein the edge portion has a planar cross sectional shape (McMillin, Fig. 5, inner edge portion 312 has a uniform thickness rectangular cross section). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the shadow ring of Sen to incorporate the inner edge portion and associated dimension design considerations as taught by McMillin as doing so would allow one to manipulate the plasma sheath and/or gas transport efficiency near the edge of the ring to achieve desired process results (McMillin, [0028], [0031]).
Claims 3, 14: Sen fails to teach wherein the edge portion has a width of at least 1 millimeter (mm) and less than or equal to 6 millimeters. However, McMillin teaches wherein the edge portion has a width of at least 1 millimeter (mm) and less than or equal to 6 millimeters (McMillin, Fig. 2, [0041], wafer edge protection ring extends 0.5 mm to 3 mm over outer edge 222 of wafer 220, which corresponds to the length of the inner edge portion extension). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the shadow ring of Sen to incorporate the inner edge portion and associated dimension design considerations as taught by McMillin as doing so would allow one to manipulate the plasma sheath and/or gas transport efficiency near the edge of the ring to achieve desired process results (McMillin, [0028], [0031]).
Claims 5, 16-17: Sen teaches wherein the raised peripheral element is a ring structure comprising an inner wall (Sen, Fig. 8A-8C, [0108]-[0115], ring 880 rests on raised surface of annular support 828, where the inner wall corresponds to the vertical wall of support 828 extending between recessed wafer pocket area 828b and raised surface of support 828 upon which sloped portion 880a rests).
Claim 6: Sen teaches wherein the end of the sloped portion is radially inward of the inner wall (Sen, Fig. 8A, end tip of sloped portion 880a is positioned inward of the wall that is defines the first wall of the pocket where wafer 882 is located.). Sen fails to teach the edge portion. However, McMillin teaches the edge portion (McMillin, Fig. 5, [0041], inner edge portion 312 of wafer edge protection ring 300 extends over top periphery edge of wafer 220). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the shadow ring of Sen to incorporate the inner edge portion and associated dimension design considerations as taught by McMillin as doing so would allow one to manipulate the plasma sheath and/or gas transport efficiency near the edge of the ring to achieve desired process results (McMillin, [0028], [0031]).
Claim 7: Sen fails to teach wherein the bulk portion has a minimum thickness greater than or equal to a thickness of the edge portion. However, McMillin teaches wherein the bulk portion has a minimum thickness greater than or equal to a thickness of the edge portion (McMillin, Fig. 6, [0044], the bulk area, defined under upper surface 384, is thicker than thickness of sloped surface 382 and thickness of inner edge portion 312). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have modified the shadow ring of Sen to incorporate the inner edge portion and associated dimension design considerations as taught by McMillin as doing so would allow one to manipulate the plasma sheath and/or gas transport efficiency near the edge of the ring to achieve desired process results (McMillin, [0028], [0031]).
Claim 8: Sen teaches wherein the raised peripheral element comprises an outer wall (Sen, Fig. 8A, [0108]-[0112], from right to left of figure 8A, top surface of support 828 is raised in height moving from the surface under wafer 882 to the surface that first touches shadow ring 880, then lowers in height corresponding to area under mask part 880c), wherein the susceptor comprises an outer ledge extending from the outer wall (Sen, Fig. 8A, [0108]-[0112], recess 828a), wherein the mask extends beyond the outer wall (Sen, Fig. 8A, [0108]-[0112], mask part 880c extends beyond the outer wall), and wherein the mask is supported by the outer ledge (Sen, Fig. 8A, [0108]-[0112], mask part 880c of mask 880 is received and supported in recess 828a).
Claim 9: Sen teaches wherein the mask is composed of aluminum nitride (Sen, [0129], shadow ring can be constructed of aluminum nitride).
Claim 10: This is a matter of intended use, where the operator can manipulate the apparatus to generate a film comprising the claimed elements – it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Claim 18: Sen teaches wherein the outer ledge extends from an outer wall of the raised peripheral element (Sen, Fig. 8A, [0108]-[0112], recess 828a extends outwardly from the outer wall, where the outer wall corresponds to the vertical wall of support 828 extending between raised surface of support 828 upon which sloped portion 880a rests and recess 828a).
Claim 19: Sen teaches wherein the mask is composed of at least one of aluminum nitride, silicon, silicon oxide, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, or metal impregnated ceramic (Sen, [0129], shadow ring can be constructed from aluminum nitride).
Claim 20: The rejection of claim 1 substantially addresses these limitations. In addition, the width of McMillin’s edge portion may be 3.0 mm in certain embodiments, which satisfies Applicant’s claimed range pertaining to this observable [0041].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen in view of McMillin and Setton, and further in view of Kaido et al., US 2007/0065597.
Modified Sen fails to teach wherein the beveled surface has a bevel angle as measured from a top surface of the susceptor in the range of 10 to 45 degrees. However, Kaido teaches wherein the beveled surface has a bevel angle as measured from a top surface of the susceptor in the range of 10 to 45 degrees (Kaido, Fig. 11, [0059], inwardly tapered portion has angle of 10 to 45 degrees with respect to a top surface of the wafer 30 which sits on the susceptor 75). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Kaido in order to choose an ideal taper angle of the beveled surface that would result in improved film thickness uniformity by affecting plasma intensity at the wafer edge (Kaido, [0059]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is Flanigan, US 6,051,122, who teaches a deposition shield with sloped surface leading to horizontally running portion with varying thickness.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights