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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 12 and 14-15 have been cancelled; Claims 1 and 18 have been amended; claims
21-22 have been newly added; and Claims 1-11, 13, and 16-22 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 03/19/2026 has been acknowledged and a signed copy of the PTO-1449 is attached herein.
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 1-4, 6-9, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynold et al. (US 2014/0273460 A1, hereinafter “Reyland”) in view of Gopinath et al. (USPN 6550484 B1, hereinafter “Gopinath”).
In regards to claim 1, Reyland discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3, annotated and included below) an exclusion ring for locating a substrate on a substrate-support assembly in a processing chamber; the exclusion ring comprising:
an inner edge portion (320) to cover an edge of a substrate (202) in the processing chamber;
an outer edge portion (2102) to support the exclusion ring (210) on the substrate support (250) assembly in the processing chamber,
the outer edge portion (2102) including an outer edge (3062) of the exclusion ring (210);
wherein a separation zone (3142) between the inner edge portion (320) and the outer edge (3062) of the exclusion ring (210) includes an undercut (314) in an undersurface of the exclusion ring (210).
Reyland is silent about the undercut comprising an annular groove extending at least partially around a circumference of the exclusion ring, wherein the annular groove is configured to at least partially thermally isolate the inner edge portion from the outer edge portion.
Gopinath while disclosing apparatus for maintaining wafer back side and edge exclusion teaches (See, for example, annotated and attached Fig. 2F below) the undercut (“groove/undercut”) comprising an annular groove (“groove/undercut”) extending at least partially around a circumference of the exclusion ring (203).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reyland by Gopinath because this would help prevent reactant from contacting the back side, bevel and a circumferential front edge of the wafer, during surface modification process.
In regards to intended use or functional language of the annular groove being configured to at least partially thermally isolate the inner edge portion from the outer edge portion, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claimed limitation. See MPEP §2114; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure, the burden shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess the claimed characteristics or capabilities. See, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In conclusion, the recitation of intended use or functional language in the present claim does not impose any additional structural limitation that would distinguish the claimed apparatus over the prior art, and therefore does not carry patentable weight.
In regards to claim 18, Reyland discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3, annotated and included below) an exclusion ring for locating a substrate on a substrate-support assembly in a processing chamber; the exclusion ring comprising:
an inner edge portion (320) to cover an edge of a substrate (202) in the processing chamber:
an outer edge portion (2102) to support the exclusion ring (210) on the substrate support (250) assembly in the processing chamber;
wherein a separation zone (3142) between the inner edge portion (320) and the outer edge (3062) of the exclusion ring (210) includes an undercut (314) in an undersurface of the exclusion ring (210),
wherein the undercut (314) at least partially thermally isolates the inner edge portion (320) from the outer edge of the substrate (202).
Reyland is silent about the undercut comprising an annular groove extending at least partially around a circumference of the exclusion ring, wherein the annular groove is configured to at least partially thermally isolate the inner edge portion from the outer edge portion.
Gopinath while disclosing apparatus for maintaining wafer back side and edge exclusion teaches (See, for example, annotated and attached Fig. 2F below) the undercut (“groove/undercut”) comprising an annular groove (“groove/undercut”) extending at least partially around a circumference of the exclusion ring (203).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reyland by Gopinath because this would help prevent reactant from contacting the back side, bevel and a circumferential front edge of the wafer, during surface modification process.
In regards to intended use or functional language of the annular groove being configured to at least partially thermally isolate the inner edge portion from the outer edge portion, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claimed limitation. See MPEP §2114; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure, the burden shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess the claimed characteristics or capabilities. See, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In conclusion, the recitation of intended use or functional language in the present claim does not impose any additional structural limitation that would distinguish the claimed apparatus over the prior art, and therefore does not carry patentable weight.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Reynold discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3, annotated and include below) the undercut (314) at least partially thermally isolates the inner edge portion (320) from the outer edge of the substrate (202).
In regards to claims 3 and 19, Reynold discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3, annotated and included below) a wall of the undercut (314) is clear of the substrate support assembly (250) when the substrate (202) is placed on the substrate support assembly (250).
In regards to claims 4 and 20, Reynold discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3, annotated and included below) the undercut (314) includes a groove extending at least partially in a circumferential direction around the exclusion ring (210).
In regard to claim 6, Reynold discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3 annotated and included below) the groove is discontinuous in the circumferential direction around the exclusion ring (210).
In regards to claim 7, Reynold discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3 annotated and included below) the undercut (314) is disposed adjacent one or more support formations (216), the one or more support formations (216) contacting the substrate support assembly (250) when the substrate (202) is placed on the substrate support assembly (250).
In regards to claim 8, Reynold discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3 annotated and included below) the one or more support formations (216) are connected to a thermal bridge (302) defining an upper wall of the undercut (314). 302
In regards to claim 9, Reynold discloses (See, for example, Fig. 3 annotated and included below) a width of the undercut (314) extends between an inner edge (306) and the outer edge (3062) of the exclusion ring (210).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynold in view of Gopinath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endoh.
In regards to claim 5, Reynold discloses all limitations of claim 4 above except that the groove is continuous in the circumferential direction around the exclusion ring.
Endoh discloses (See, for example, Figs. 6, 7A and 7B) the groove (44A, 44B) is continuous in the circumferential direction around the exclusion ring (30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reynold by Endoh because this would help improve the efficiency of cooling of the focus ring while preventing an increase in the cost of the susceptor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynold in view of Gopinath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Onishi (US 2016/0196995 A1, hereinafter “Onishi”).
In regards to claim 10, Reynold discloses (See, Fig. 3) the undercut (314) is a first undercut.
Reynold fails to explicitly teach that the exclusion ring further comprises at least one ear for manipulating the exclusion ring in use, a portion of the at least one ear including a second undercut in an undersurface of the at least one ear.
However, Onishi while disclosing a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus teaches (See, for example, Figs. 1A-1C) the exclusion ring (13) further comprises at least one ear for manipulating (See, “position controller”, Par [0016]) the exclusion ring in use (three adjustment pins 19 which has undercut), a portion of the at least one ear including a second undercut in an undersurface of the at least one ear (the undercut is right under adjustment pins 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reynold by Onishi because this would help move the exclusion ring instead of the wafer as a result avoid or prevent damaging film by the adjustment pins.
In regards to claims 21 and 22, Reyland as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2F, Gopinath) the annular groove includes edge gas in use (“a channel is formed through which reactant-free supercritical fluid will be passed (as indicated by the heavy arrows). Thus fluid will flow through aperture 213, between the inner surface of exclusion ring 203 and the outer surface of pedestal 201, over lip 208 and under overhang 221”, See, for example, Col. 11 lines 27-38).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, and 16-17 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights