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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 5-8, 13, 16-18, and 20 are currently amended.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the claim limitation “wherein a slope of the beveled surface begins above a raised peripheral element on a susceptor top surface and extends beyond the inner edge”. As currently written, “the inner edge” must refer to the previously recited “an inner edge of the bulk portion”. However, it is unclear as to how the slope of the beveled surface (423) can extend beyond the inner edge of the bulk portion since the extension edge portion (426) protrudes from the end of the beveled surface (Fig. 4), and also the bulk portion itself is defined as including the beveled surface (Spec, [0012]). For the purposes of examination, the Examiner construes “the inner edge” as recited in the last line of claim 20 to instead refer to an inner wall, in line with Fig. 4 of the instant Specification and also similar to amended claim 1.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen (US 20050196971 A1), and further in view of McMillin (US 20140235063 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sen teaches a plasma deposition apparatus for forming a thin film on a wafer (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], process chamber 200, where plasma is generated), comprising:
a vacuum chamber (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], chamber 200 has body 202 defining processing region 220);
a plasma generation electrode in or coupled to the vacuum chamber (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], pedestal 228 located in chamber body 202 is coupled to an RF power supply to generate RF bias during PECVD);
a susceptor for supporting the wafer (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], pedestal 228 supports substrate 312, where Fig. 8A shows a modified support 828 that can be applied to the apparatuses described in Figs. 1-7, [0108]), wherein the susceptor comprises an upper surface (Sen, Fig. 8A, [0108]-[0110], top surface of support 828), a raised peripheral element defined in part by the upper surface, and an electrode (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), wherein the susceptor is provided in the vacuum chamber (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], pedestal 228 is located in chamber body 202, where Fig. 8A shows a modified support 828 that can be applied to the apparatuses described in Fig. 1-7, [0108]); and
a mask including a bulk portion extending about a periphery of the wafer (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], ring 880 surrounds outer edge of wafer 882), wherein the bulk portion includes a beveled surface facing into the vacuum chamber (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], portion 880a of ring 880 slopes towards interior of chamber 402), wherein a slope of the beveled surface begins above the raised peripheral element and extends beyond an inner wall of the raised peripheral element (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], portion 880a begins sloping while over the raised height surface of support 828), and wherein the mask is supported by the upper surface (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], ring 880 sits on support 828).
Sen fails to teach wherein the mask further includes an edge portion extending from the beveled surface to cover a peripheral portion of an upper surface of the wafer.
However, McMillin teaches wherein the mask further includes an edge portion extending from the beveled surface to cover a peripheral portion of an upper surface of the wafer (McMillin, Fig. 5, [0041], inner edge portion 312 of wafer edge protection ring 300 extends over top periphery edge of wafer 220).
McMillin is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. 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]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “for forming a thin film on a wafer“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Sen possesses the necessary subsystems (vacuum, RF, gas, etc) to process a wafer by plasma for a deposition process. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding 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]).
Regarding claim 3, 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). McMillin provides sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim, and prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range disclosed the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. See MPEP 2131.03(II).
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]).
Alternatively/additionally, if Applicant believes McMillin does not disclose sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range, the Examiner submits that the claimed range would be obvious to a PHOSITA. 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). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of McMillin to determine the optimal length of the edge portion. 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).
Regarding claim 4, Sen fails to teach wherein the edge portion has a thickness of at least 0.15 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm.
However, McMillin teaches wherein the edge portion has a thickness of at least 0.15 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm (McMillin, Fig. 5, [0041], inner edge portion 312 has thickness 311 of 0.03 to 0.06 inches, equal to 0.76 mm to 1.524 mm). McMillin provides sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim, and prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range disclosed the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. See MPEP 2131.03(II).
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]).
Alternatively/additionally, if Applicant believes McMillin does not disclose sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range, the Examiner submits that the claimed range would be obvious to a PHOSITA. McMillin teaches wherein the edge portion has a thickness of at least 0.15 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm (McMillin, Fig. 5, [0041], inner edge portion 312 has thickness 311 of 0.03 to 0.06 inches, equal to 0.76 mm to 1.524 mm). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of McMillin to determine the optimal thickness of the edge portion. 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).
Regarding claim 5, Sen teaches wherein the raised peripheral element is a ring structure, and wherein the mask is supported by the ring structure (Sen, Fig. 8A-8C, [0108]-[0115], ring 880 rests on raised surface of annular support 828).
Regarding 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]).
Regarding 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]).
Regarding 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).
Regarding claim 9, Sen teaches wherein the mask is composed of aluminum nitride (Sen, [0129], shadow ring can be constructed of aluminum nitride).
Regarding claim 10, Sen teaches wherein the thin film formed on the wafer comprises carbon and hydrogen (Sen, [0052], [0068], deposition by PECVD using a gaseous hydrocarbon such as C3H6 and other gases to form a carbonaceous layer).
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the thin film formed on the wafer comprises carbon and hydrogen“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Sen possesses the necessary subsystems (vacuum, RF, gas, etc) to process a wafer by plasma for a deposition process, including gaseous hydrocarbons. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 11, Sen fails to teach wherein the edge portion is parallel to a top surface of the susceptor
However, McMillin teaches wherein the edge portion is parallel to a top surface of the susceptor (McMillin, Fig. 2, [0039] , inner edge portion 312 extends horizontally over substrate 220 and the bottom surface of inner edge portion 312 is parallel to a top surface of baseplate 210).
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]).
Regarding claim 13, Sen teaches a plasma deposition apparatus for forming a thin film on a wafer, comprising:
a reaction chamber (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], process chamber 200);
a susceptor comprising a raised peripheral element and a recessed area (Sen, Fig. 8A, [0108]-[0114], from right to left of figure 8A, from recessed area wafer pocket 828b, top surface of support 828 is raised in height moving towards the surface that first touches shadow ring 880, and then lowers in height moving towards area 828a), the susceptor disposed within the reaction chamber for supporting the wafer (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], pedestal 228 is located in chamber body 202, where Fig. 8A shows a modified support 828 that can be applied to the apparatuses described in Fig. 1-7, [0108]); and
an annular-shaped mask supported directly on the susceptor (Sen, Fig. 8A-8C, [0108]-[0115], ring 880 rests on raised surface of annular support 828), wherein the annular-shaped mask includes a bulk portion (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], ring 880 surrounds outer edge of wafer 882), and wherein an angled surface of the bevel begins above the raised peripheral element and extends to above the recessed area (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], portion 880a begins sloping while over the raised height surface of support 828, and extends above recessed area wafer pocket 828b).
Sen fails to teach wherein the annular-shaped mask includes an edge portion, wherein the edge portion extends from the bulk portion adjacent a bevel to cover an outer portion of an upper surface of the wafer, and wherein the edge portion has a planar cross sectional shape and extends parallel to the upper surface of the wafer.
However, McMillin teaches wherein the annular-shaped mask includes an edge portion (McMillin, Fig. 5, [0041], inner edge portion 312 of wafer edge protection ring 300 extends over top periphery edge of wafer 220), wherein the edge portion extends from the bulk portion adjacent a bevel to cover an outer portion of an upper surface of the wafer (McMillin, Fig. 5, [0041], inner edge portion 312 of wafer edge protection ring 300 extends over top periphery edge of wafer 220), and wherein the edge portion has a planar cross sectional shape and extends parallel to the upper surface of the wafer (McMillin, Fig. 2, inner edge portion 312 extends horizontally over substrate 220 and the bottom surface of inner edge portion 312 is parallel to a top surface of baseplate 210).
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]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “for forming a thin film on a wafer“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The apparatus of Sen possesses the necessary subsystems (vacuum, RF, gas, etc) to process a wafer by plasma for a deposition process. 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. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 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]).
Regarding claim 15, Sen fails to teach wherein the edge portion has a thickness of at least 0.15 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm.
However, McMillin teaches wherein the edge portion has a thickness of at least 0.15 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm (McMillin, Fig. 5, [0041], inner edge portion 312 has thickness 311 of 0.03 to 0.06 inches, equal to 0.76 mm to 1.524 mm). 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]).
Regarding claim 16, 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).
Regarding claim 17, Sen teaches wherein the susceptor comprises an outer ledge (Sen, Fig. 8A, [0108]-[0112], recess 828a), 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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding 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).
Regarding claim 20, Sen teaches a plasma deposition apparatus for forming a thin film on a wafer (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], process chamber 200, where plasma is generated), comprising:
a vacuum chamber (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], chamber 200 has body 202 defining processing region 220);
a plasma generation electrode in or coupled to the vacuum chamber (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], pedestal 228 located in chamber body 202 is coupled to an RF power supply to generate RF bias during PECVD);
a susceptor for supporting the wafer, wherein the susceptor is provided in the vacuum chamber and has an electrode therein (Sen, Figs. 2 and 3, [0066]-[0073], pedestal 228 is located in chamber body 202 and is coupled to an RF power supply to generate RF bias during PECVD, pedestal 228 supports substrate 312, and where Fig. 8A shows a modified support 828 that can be applied to the apparatuses described in Figs. 1-7, [0108]); and
a mask including a bulk portion extending about a periphery of the wafer (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], ring 880 surrounds outer edge of wafer 882),
wherein the mask is supported by an upper surface of the susceptor (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], ring 880 sits on support 828),
wherein the mask comprises a beveled surface (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], portion 880a of ring 880 slopes towards interior of chamber 402), and
wherein a slope of the beveled surface begins above a raised peripheral element on a susceptor top surface and extends beyond the inner edge (Sen, Figs. 8A and 8B, [0108]-[0114], portion 880a begins sloping while over the raised height surface of support 828 and extends past the inner wall, 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).
Sen fails to teach an edge portion extending from an inner edge of the bulk portion to cover a peripheral portion of an upper surface of the wafer, wherein the edge portion has a width of at least 1 millimeter (mm) and less than or equal to 6 millimeters.
However, McMillin teaches an edge portion extending from an inner edge of the bulk portion to cover a peripheral portion of an upper surface of the wafer (McMillin, Fig. 5, [0041], inner edge portion 312 of wafer edge protection ring 300 extends over top periphery edge of wafer 220),
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). McMillin provides sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim, and prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range disclosed the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. See MPEP 2131.03(II).
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]).
Alternatively/additionally, if Applicant believes McMillin does not disclose sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range, the Examiner submits that the claimed range would be obvious to a PHOSITA. 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). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of McMillin to determine the optimal length of the edge portion. 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen (US 20050196971 A1) in view of McMillin (US 20140235063 A1), as applied in claims 1-11 and 13-20, and further in view of Kaido (US 20070065597 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-11 and 13-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, 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]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 10/30/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly McMillin in view of Kaido, teach the claim limitation “wherein a slope of the beveled surface begins above the raised peripheral element and extends beyond an inner wall of the raised peripheral element” of independent claim 1 as newly amended, and similarly set forth in claims 13 and 20. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Flanigan (US 6051122 A) teaches a deposition shield with sloped surface leading to horizontally running portion with varying thickness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718