DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on February 18, 2026. Claims 12 and 21 are amended.
The applicant contends:
(1) Tsuchiya discloses a shadow ring comprising an upper surface (14a), denoted by width ML in Figure 16, as well as a step (14b). The width of the upper surface is specified at 5 mm, but the width of the step is undefined. As such, because of the unknown dimension of the step, it cannot be concluded that the cross-sectional width of Tsuchiya’s shadow ring body is less than the claimed dimension 0.25 inches (pp. 9-10).
(2) Regarding claim 1, because Ouye’s shadow ring is of a distinct construction from Tsuchiya’s, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to size the former’s shadow ring in accordance with the latter’s guidance. Specifically, Tsuchiya’s focus ring comprises a step (14b) that Ouye’s ring lacks and, thus, is used for a different purpose, i.e., Tsuchiya’s ring bears a substrate (p. 10).
(3) Regarding claim 13, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to modify Peng in view of Tsuchiya because the latter’s shadow ring includes a step (14b) for bearing a wafer while the latter does not (p. 14).
In response,
(1) The examiner disagrees, as the upper surface (14a) of Tsuchiya’s shadow ring, corresponding to cross-sectional width ML, is analogous to the claimed “annular body.” Tsuchiya’s step portion (14b), although connected to the upper surface (14a), performs the divergent function of substrate support and is covered during processing. As such, it cannot meaningfully contribute to the associated tasks of a shadow ring and, therefore, is not a proper constituent of the shadow ring. One of ordinary skill, then, would not consider aspects of Tsuchiya’s step portion to bear upon a potential modification to a shadow ring.
For example, Peng provides a recessed substrate support (103), distinct from the disclosed shadow ring (135), that corresponds in function to Tsuchiya’s step (14b). It would be clear to one of ordinary skill that Peng’s recessed substrate support (103) is analogous to Tsuchiya’s step (14b), and that Peng’s shadow ring (135) is analogous to Tsuchiya’s upper surface (14b). Accordingly, given a characteristic pertaining narrowly to said upper surface (14b), one of ordinary skill would understand its direct relevance to Peng’s shadow ring. As can now be seen, because Tsuchiya’s step (14b) is external to the scope of the claimed “annular body,” its corresponding width dimension is not relevant to the sizing of the annular bodies respectively composing Ouye’s or Peng’s shadow ring. So the fact that Tsuchiya does not explicitly disclose this width dimension has no bearing upon the integrity of the outstanding 103 rejections.
Even so, the examiner observes that the step (14b) constitutes merely fifteen percent of the cross-sectional width of Tsuchiya’s ring (14). Given an upper surface width (ML) of 5 mm, the width of the step portion would be 0.75 mm, yielding a total cross-sectional width of 5.75 mm. This value is equivalent to 0.226 inches, which is smaller than the lowest threshold recited in Applicant’s claim set – the 0.25” threshold of claim 3. So even if the step portion were construed as a constituent of the “annular body,” arguendo, the prior art still teaches a width of “less than 0.25 inches.”
(2-3) As elaborated in the preceding paragraphs, one of ordinary skill would consider Tsuchiya’s step (14b) as external to the scope of a shadow ring annular body. This is because the step, rather than performing the functions of a shadow ring, executes non-related tasks like substrate support and is entirely occluded during processing. Conversely, Tsuchiya’s upper surface (14a) performs the functions of a shadow ring. Thus, one of ordinary skill would consider the upper surface (14a) as analogous to a shadow ring, whereby characteristics of the upper surface can be applied to Ouye’s or Peng’s shadow ring with a reasonable expectation of success.
Put differently, the fact that Tsuchiya’s shadow ring (14a) has a step (14b) extending from a lower portion of its inner diameter does not diminish the relevance of the shadow ring’s characteristics to the potential modification of other shadow rings, like Ouye’s or Peng’s. And this is because the step (14b) is not a proper constituent of a shadow ring; it is merely connected to a portion of a shadow ring and performs functions unrelated to the shadow ring.
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.
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of these claims has been amended to clarify that “an inner edge of the shadow ring is rounded,” but the subsequent line stipulates that said inner edge has a radius between 0.0 and 0.025 inches. Of course, an edge radius of 0 denotes a 90-degree corner lacking any roundedness. As such, because the recited range encompasses an embodiment where the inner edge is not rounded, yet the claim explicitly asserts that the edge is rounded, the claim is contradictory and rejected as being indefinite. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will accept the prior art disclosure of a cornered or rounded inner edge as satisfying the contested limitation.
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 of this title, 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouye et al., US 9,478,455, in view of Tsuchiya et al., US 5,716,534.
Claims 1-4: Ouye discloses a shadow ring (502) comprising an annular body having inner and outer diameters defining a cross-sectional width and three tabs extending radially outward from the annular body (7, 31-57; Fig. 5A). Ouye is silent regarding the value of said cross-sectional width, but Tsuchiya discloses an analogous shadow ring (14) tested in various embodiments of radial widths ranging from 5 to 90 millimeters (11, 6-20; Fig. 17). Modifying the radial width manipulates aspects such as planar uniformity and etching rate, thereby demonstrating radial width to be a result-effective variable. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and, given Tsuchiya’s suggestion of a 5 mm width (0.2 inches), it would have been obvious to configure the dimensions of Ouye’s shadow ring accordingly, as selecting an identified solution with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claims 5-6: As shown by Figure 5A of Ouye, an opening is formed within the tab to accommodate a lift pin.
Claim 7: As shown by Figures 8 and 9, Ouye’s shadow ring is sloped.
Claim 8: Figure 5A of Ouye depicts three lift pins engaging corresponding tabs of the shadow ring.
Claim 9: This claim refers to the outer edge of a substrate support, but this limitation is external to the scope of claim 1, which is directed narrowly to a shadow ring. The prior art, of course, need not address content external to the claimed invention; as such, the examiner observes that Ouye’s shadow ring would be theoretically compatible with a substrate support permitting the former’s extension over the latter’s outer edge.
Claim 10: This claim invokes the diameter of a substrate, but limitations directed to the article worked upon by the apparatus are not germane to patentability – expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969)).
Claim 11: This claim is drawn to the configuration of a substrate support, whose scope is external to the subject matter of claim 1, i.e., a shadow ring. The examiner observes that Ouye’s shadow ring would be compatible with the substrate support defined by claim 11.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouye in view of Tsuchiya, and in further view of Yudovsky, US 6,168,668.
Ouye does not clearly depict the configuration of the shadow ring’s inner diameter. Yudovsky, in supplementation, discloses a shadow ring (108) for use within the context of semiconductor processing. Figure 3a depicts the profile of the shadow ring’s inner diameter: an upper and lower surface form a rounded inner edge at an angle between 1 and 35 degrees (4, 41ff). Although the radius and thickness of the inner edge remain undefined, it is the position of the Office that these result-effective variables can be fine-tuned through routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to configure the inner diameter of Ouye’s shadow ring in accordance with Yudovsky’s paradigm, since applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claims 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al., US 2021/0225616, in view of Tsuchiya.
Claims 13-16: Peng provides a substrate support comprising a recess defined in an upper surface (133) of a substrate support, wherein the recess is configured to receive a substrate (Fig. 1C). Peng further provides a shadow ring (135) having an annular body whose cross-sectional width (WT1) is defined by an inner and outer diameter, where three tabs (135B1-B3) extend radially outward from the annular body (Fig. 1D). Lift pins (137A-C) are aligned with the corresponding tabs to move the shadow ring between lowered and raised positions [0096]. Peng is silent regarding the value of said cross-sectional width, but Tsuchiya discloses an analogous shadow ring (14) tested in various embodiments of radial widths ranging from 5 to 90 millimeters (11, 6-20; Fig. 17). Modifying the radial width manipulates aspects such as planar uniformity and etching rate, thereby demonstrating radial width to be a result-effective variable. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and, given Tsuchiya’s suggestion of a 5 mm width (0.2 inches), it would have been obvious to configure the dimensions of Peng’s shadow ring accordingly, as selecting an identified solution with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim 19: This claim invokes the diameter of a substrate, but limitations directed to the article worked upon by the apparatus are not germane to patentability – expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969)).
Claim 20: The operator can selectively raise the shadow ring during a shallow-trench etching process and lower the ring during a deep-trench etching operation – 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)).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Tsuchiya, and in further view of Ouye.
Claim 17: Peng does not clearly depict an opening formed in the tab to accommodate the lift pin. In supplementation, Figure 5A of Ouye depicts a series of tabs extending from the outer diameter of a shadow ring, where an opening is formed in each tab to accommodate a corresponding lift pin (Fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to form an opening in the underside of Peng’s tabs to achieve the predictable result of securing the lift pin.
Claim 18: Figure 9 of Ouye depicts a sloped shadow ring.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Tsuchiya, and in further view of Yudovsky.
Peng does not clearly depict the configuration of the shadow ring’s inner diameter. Yudovsky, in supplementation, discloses a shadow ring (108) for use within the context of semiconductor processing. Figure 3a depicts the profile of the shadow ring’s inner diameter: an upper and lower surface form a rounded inner edge at an angle between 1 and 35 degrees (4, 41ff). Although the radius and thickness of the inner edge remain undefined, it is the position of the Office that these result-effective variables can be fine-tuned through routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to configure the inner diameter of Peng’s shadow ring in accordance with Yudovsky’s paradigm, since applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Hiester et al., US 2020/0173018. Hiester discloses a shadow ring (432) comprising an annular body having a thin cross-sectional width, as well as three tabs (435a-c) extending radially outward from the annular body (Fig. 5A).
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