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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 12 and 14-15 have been cancelled; Claims 1 and 18 have been amended; 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Typo: “a substrate” is introduced twice in lines 1 and 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 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.
In regards to claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer edge of the exclusion ring” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation "the outer edge of the substrate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 8, claim 1 recites “an upper wall defined by the exclusion ring” in line 2. However, introducing “an upper wall” a second time makes it unclear whether the claims mean the same wall or a second one.
In regards to claims 4 and 20, claims 1 and 18 require “an annual groove…” in line 8. However, introducing “the undercut includes a groove” a second time makes it unclear whether the claims mean the same groove or a second one.
In regards to claim 13, claim 11 already defines the duration as running from “a seating of the exclusion ring at a first station and a reseating of the exclusion ring at a second station”. However, claim 13 redefining the endpoint as “the seating of the exclusion ring at the first station and an unseating of the exclusion ring at the first station” contradicts claim 11. Applicant is required to clarify.
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 De Bois et al. (US 2011/0159211 A1, hereinafter “De Bois”).
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 outer edge of the exclusion ring includes an undercut formed in an undersurface of the exclusion ring, the undercut comprising an annular groove having an upper wall defined by the exclusion ring, the annular groove extending at least partially around a circumference of the exclusion ring, and configured to at least partially thermally isolate the inner edge portion from the outer edge portion
De Bois while disclosing an apparatus to modify wafer edge and bevel deposition teaches (See, for example, Fig. 5) the outer edge of the exclusion ring includes an undercut (506) formed in an undersurface of the exclusion ring (500), the undercut (506) comprising an annular groove having an upper wall (507) defined by the exclusion ring (500), the annular groove extending at least partially around a circumference of the exclusion ring (500), and configured to at least partially thermally isolate the inner edge portion from the outer edge portion (“the reduction of material decreases the heat sink effect caused by the shadow ring, allowing the edge of the wafer to be heated more uniformly with respect to inner portions of the wafer. … the dielectric constant of the material of the shadow ring is significantly higher (8.9 for AlN) than that of the vacuum or gas (close to 1.0) that occupies the space where the removed material was located. The decrease in the overall dielectric constant of the space over the edge of the wafer allows greater coupling of the plasma, such that higher deposition rates can be achieved in the edge region of the wafer.”, See Par [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring of Reyland to include the annular groove (recesses slot) of Du Bois because this would help reduce the ring material facing the heated substrate support to decrease the ring’s heat sink effect and allows the edge of the wafer to be heated more uniformly.
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 outer edge of the exclusion ring includes an undercut formed in an undersurface of the exclusion ring, the undercut comprising an annular groove having an upper wall defined by the exclusion ring, the annular groove extending at least partially around a circumference of the exclusion ring, and configured to at least partially thermally isolate the inner edge portion from the outer edge portion
De Bois while disclosing an apparatus to modify wafer edge and bevel deposition teaches (See, for example, Fig. 5) the outer edge of the exclusion ring includes an undercut (506) formed in an undersurface of the exclusion ring (500), the undercut (506) comprising an annular groove having an upper wall (507) defined by the exclusion ring (500), the annular groove extending at least partially around a circumference of the exclusion ring (500), and configured to at least partially thermally isolate the inner edge portion from the outer edge portion (“the reduction of material decreases the heat sink effect caused by the shadow ring, allowing the edge of the wafer to be heated more uniformly with respect to inner portions of the wafer. … the dielectric constant of the material of the shadow ring is significantly higher (8.9 for AlN) than that of the vacuum or gas (close to 1.0) that occupies the space where the removed material was located. The decrease in the overall dielectric constant of the space over the edge of the wafer allows greater coupling of the plasma, such that higher deposition rates can be achieved in the edge region of the wafer.”, See Par [0030], the prior art then teaches the thermal function of the groove (recessed slot)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring of Reyland to include the annular groove (recesses slot) of Du Bois because this would help reduce the ring material facing the heated substrate support to decrease the ring’s heat sink effect and allows the edge of the wafer to be heated more uniformly.
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 DE Bois 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 De Bois 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. 5, De Bois) the annular groove includes edge gas in use (“…that of the vacuum or gas (close to 1.0) that occupies the space where the removed material was located.”, See Par [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, and 16-17 are allowed over the prior art of record. Not that claim 13 would be allowable if amended or clarified by the applicant to overcome the rejection under 112(b) set forth in the office action. Claim 13 is not rejected over the prior art; its only outstanding issue is the indefiniteness rejection set forth above.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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