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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of (Group I, claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 09/05/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected (Group II, method, claims 17-21), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/05/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first set of contact surfaces,” “second set of contact surfaces” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Rotational indexers/indexers (spider forks, para. [0051]) in at least claims 8-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7 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.
The term “sufficiently” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Sufficiently” is unclear because there are no meets and bounds on what is an appropriate spaced apart distance. Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 10-16 are 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 10 recites the limitation "a nominal diameter D" and “a first diameter D” in the claim. It is unclear if the first diameter D is the same as the nominal diameter D or not. Examiner interprets as the same. Appropriate clarification is requested. Additionally, it is unclear what is a “rotational transform;” is it a structure or a use limitation? Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190062918 to Shaikh.
Claim 1: Shaikh discloses a multi-station plasma processing system, comprising: a first processing station (first chamber station, para. [0046]) comprising a first set of support features (first 130 [spacers], Fig. 1-2) configured to support a substrate (128 [wafer]) at a first set of positions on a backside of the substrate when the substrate is processed at the first processing station (para. [0046]); and
a second processing station (second chamber station, para. [0046]) comprising a second set of support features (second 130) configured to hold the substrate at a second set of positions on the backside of the substrate when the substrate is processed at the second processing station (para. [0046]).
Regarding the limitations, “wherein the first set of positions are non-overlapping with the second set of positions,” the apparatus of Shaikh teaches that spider forks (132) use an engagement and rotation mechanism (220) which raise up and left the carrier rings and then rotate the at least one or more stations before lowering the carrier rings to a next location for the purpose of achieving further processing, treatment, and/or film deposition can take place on respective wafers (para. [0046]). It is interpreted that the first and second positions won’t necessarily overlap due to rotation of the station before placing the carrier ring on the station, which is obvious, and an intended use of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-overlap of the first set of positions and second set of positions via rotation of the stations as taught by Shaikh with motivation to achieve further processing, treatment, and/or film deposition can take place on respective wafers.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first processing station (first chamber station, Fig. 1-3, Shaikh) further comprises a first shower-pedestal (first 106 [show-ped]) and wherein the second processing station (second chamber station) further comprises a second shower-pedestal (second 106, Fig. 2).
Claim 3: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first set of support features (first 130, Fig. 1-4, Shaikh) comprises first spacers (first 130) configured to support the substrate (128) in a first spaced apart relationship from the first shower-pedestal (first 106) and wherein the second set of support features (second 130) comprises second spacers (second 130) configured to support the substrate (128) in a second spaced apart relationship from the second shower-pedestal (second 106).
Claim 4: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first processing station (first chamber station, Fig. 1-3, Shaikh) further comprises a first gas manifold (first 112 [gas manifold], Fig. 1B) coupled to the first shower-pedestal (first 106) and to provide a first gas from a first gas source (first 114 [gas sources]) when the substrate (128) is processed at the first processing station (first chamber station) and wherein the second processing station (second chamber station) further comprises a second gas manifold (second 112, para. [0068]) coupled to the second shower-pedestal (second 106) and to provide a second gas from a second gas source (second 114) when the substrate is processed at the second processing station (second chamber station, para. [0048]).
Claim 5: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses further comprising at least one radio-frequency (RF) power supply (122 [power supply], Fig. 1B, Shaikh) configured to provide power to the first shower-pedestal (first 106) to generate a plasma for depositing a first film on the backside while the substrate (backside of 128) is supported by the first set of support features (first 130, para. [0039]), wherein the at least one RF power supply (122) is configured to provide power to the second shower-pedestal (second 106) to generate an additional plasma for depositing a second film on the backside of the substrate while the substrate is supported by the second set of support features (second 130, para. [0039]).
Claim 6: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first set of positions are non-overlapping with the second set of positions (para. [0046] and see claim 1). Regarding the limitation “such that all of the backside of the substrate has deposited thereupon at least one of the first and second films,” this is drawn to an intended use of the apparatus, as the apparatus of Shaikh is capable of performing as necessary. The courts have held that 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. MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 7: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first set of support features (first 130, Fig. 1-4, Shaikh) and the second set of support features (second 130) each comprise at least three support features (para. [0059], Fig. 5B) sufficiently spaced apart to support the substrate in a stable manner (para. [0057]).
Claim 8: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses further comprising: at least one rotational indexer (220 [rotation mechanism], Fig. 2, Shaikh), the rotational indexer (220) being configured transfer the substrate from the first processing station to the second processing station (para. [0046]).
Claim 9: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses further comprising: at least one rotational indexer (132/220 [spider forks]/[rotation mechanism], Fig. 2, Shaikh), the rotation indexer (220) being configured to lift a carrier ring (124 [carrier ring]) such that the carrier ring (124) engages with and lifts the substrate (128) off of the first set of support features (first 130), transfer the carrier ring and the substrate from the first processing station to the second processing station, and lower the carrier ring such that the substrate rests on the second set of support features and the carrier ring disengages from the substrate (para. [0046]).
It is noted that the limitations in claim 9 are drawn to intended use, see above case law regarding intended use.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190062918 to Shaikh.
Claim 10: Shaikh discloses a multi-station plasma processing system for processing a substrate having a nominal diameter of D, comprising: a first processing station (first chamber station, Fig. 1-4) having a first set of support features (first 130 [spacers]); a second processing station (second chamber station) having a second set of support features (second 130); and
an indexer (132/220 [spider forks]/[rotation mechanism]) configured to rotate about a center axis (center axis of 102 [chamber]) and to thereby transfer the substrate (128) from the first processing station to the second processing station (Fig. 2), wherein: the first set of support features (first 130) has a first set of contact surfaces (first 130) positioned within a first circular region having a first diameter of D and centered on a first center point of the first processing station (first chamber station, Fig. 1-4),
the second set of support features (second 130) has a second set of contact surfaces (second 130) positioned within a second circular region having a second diameter of D and centered on a second center point of the second processing station (second chamber station, Fig. 2), and
Regarding the limitations, “a rotational transform of the first center point and the first set of contact surfaces about the center axis such that the rotationally transformed first center point aligns with the second center point results in no overlap between the second set of contact surfaces and the rotationally transformed first set of contact surfaces when viewed along the center axis,” Shaikh teaches that spider forks (132) use an engagement and rotation mechanism (220) which raise up and left the carrier rings and then rotate the at least one or more stations before lowering the carrier rings to a next location for the purpose of achieving further processing, treatment, and/or film deposition can take place on respective wafers (para. [0046]). It is interpreted that the first and second positions won’t necessarily overlap due to rotation of the station before placing the carrier ring on the station, which is obvious, and an intended use of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-overlap of the first set of positions and second set of positions via rotation of the stations as taught by Shaikh with motivation to achieve further processing, treatment, and/or film deposition can take place on respective wafers.
Claim 11: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first processing station (first chamber station, Fig. 1-3, Shaikh) further comprises a first shower-pedestal (first 106 [show-ped]) and wherein the second processing station (second chamber station) further comprises a second shower-pedestal (second 106, Fig. 2).
Claim 12: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first set of support features (first 130, Fig. 1-4, Shaikh) comprises first spacers (first 130) configured to support the substrate (128) in a first spaced apart relationship from the first shower-pedestal (first 106) and wherein the second set of support features (second 130) comprises second spacers (second 130) configured to support the substrate (128) in a second spaced apart relationship from the second shower-pedestal (second 106).
Claim 13: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first set of support features (first 130, Fig. 1-4, Shaikh) and the second set of support features (second 130) each comprise at least three support features (para. [0059], Fig. 5B) sufficiently spaced apart to support the substrate in a stable manner (para. [0057]).
Claim 14: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first processing station (first chamber station, Fig. 1-4, Shaikh) comprises first equipment (first 106 [show-ped]) for depositing a first film on a backside of the substrate (128) and wherein the second processing station (second chamber station) comprises second equipment (second 106) for depositing a second film on the backside of the substrate (128, para. [0048]).
Claim 15: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first set of contact surfaces (first 130, Fig. 1-4, Shaikh) are configured to contact the backside of the substrate at a first set of backside positions, wherein the second set of contact surfaces (second 130) are configured to contact the backside of the substrate at a second set of backside positions, wherein the first set of support features (first 130) block deposition of the first film at the first set of backside positions, and wherein the second set of support features (second 130) permit deposition of the second film at the first set of backside positions (interpreted as para. [0046-0050]).
Claim 16: The apparatus of Shaikh discloses wherein the first set of support features (first 130, Fig. 1-4, Shaikh) permit deposition of the first film at the second set of backside positions, and wherein the second set of support features (second 130, Fig. 1-4, Shaikh) block deposition of the second film at the second set of backside positions (interpreted as moving the substrate between the two positions; Fig. 3-5, para. [0046-0050]).
Claims 17-21: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240096605 (para. [0034-0036], Fig. 1-4), US 20080066684 (para. [0061]), US 20210166940 (para. [0033]) disclose a backside deposition apparatus for wafer with rotation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718