DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the reply filed 12/9/2025.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 and 8-28 are pending.
Claims 5, 14, 17-21, and 23 are withdrawn.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 22, 24, 26 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 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is regarded as indefinite because it recites a physical feature of the confinement ring (inner/outer slot radii) as a function of an object/quantity that is variable (wear rate of the slot). See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II). A PHOSITA would recognize that the wear rate of any component of a PECVD apparatus is highly dependent on processing parameters- chemistry, plasma power, plasma geometry/trajectory, gas flow rates, processing times, etc. As such, there is no way to reasonably determine the bounds of the claim. In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim as not adding additional structure beyond claim 10.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12-13, 22, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0244793) in view of Kim (US 2014/0034240).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Chen teaches a plasma processing chamber for confining plasma within ([0028] and Fig. 1, chamber #102), the plasma processing chamber includes a lower electrode for supporting a substrate ([0030] and Fig. 1, conductive baseplate/lower electrode #110 supporting substrate #108) and an upper electrode disposed over the lower electrode ([0028] and Fig. 1, upper electrode #104), the plasma processing chamber comprising a confinement ring ([0038] and Fig. 2, confinement shroud #244) for use in a plasma processing chamber ([0028] and Fig. 1, processing chamber #102), including: an upper horizontal section extending between an upper inner radius and an outer radius of the confinement ring (see Fig. 2); a lower horizontal section extending between a lower inner radius and the outer radius of the confinement ring (see Fig. 2), the lower horizontal section having an extension section that extends along the lower inner radius (see Fig. 2); and a vertical section disposed between the outer radius and an inside radius of the confinement ring (see Fig. 2), the vertical section integrally connects the upper horizontal section to the tower horizontal section of the confinement ring (see Fig. 2) to define a C-shaped structure (see Fig. 2).
Chen does not teach wherein a top surface of the lower horizontal section provides for an angle down toward the lower inner radius to define a slope along the top surface.
However, Kim teaches this feature (Kim – [0070]-[0074] and Figs. 1-2, 5: baffle #5010 can have curved/straight sloping surface).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the confinement ring of Chen to comprise an angled upper surface in order to adjust the flow of process gas via exhaust (Kim – [0070]) in order to achieve process uniformity (Kim – [0088]).
Regarding claims 2-3, Chen teaches wherein a bottom surface of the lower horizontal section is flat (see Fig. 2).
Chen does not teach that a first thickness of the lower horizontal section near the inside radius is greater than a second thickness of the lower horizontal section at the lower inner radius (by about 10% to about 40%).
However, Kim teaches this feature (Kim – [0070]-[0074] and Figs. 1-2, 5: baffle #5010 with thinner inner portion and larger outer portion; the breadth of the word “about” can reasonably be met by the structure depicted by Kim, even considering that the drawings are not necessarily to scale).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the confinement ring of Chen to comprise an angled upper surface in order to adjust the flow of process gas via exhaust (Kim – [0070]) in order to achieve process uniformity (Kim – [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches wherein the angle defines a slope along the top surface of the lower horizontal section, the slope is between about 0.200 and about 10 measured from a horizontal x-axis (Kim – Fig. 1, inclination of #500 begins at 00 at an inner portion and increases to an unspecified larger angle, which would easily encompass the claimed range even though the drawings are not necessarily to scale).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the confinement ring of Chen to comprise an angled upper surface in order to adjust the flow of process gas via exhaust (Kim – [0070]) in order to achieve process uniformity (Kim – [0088]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen does not teach wherein a first height defined between the bottom surface of the upper horizontal section and the top surface of the lower horizontal section near the inside radius is less than a second height defined between the bottom surface of the upper horizontal section and the top surface of the lower horizontal section at the lower inner radius of the confinement ring (Chen teaches two parallel flat surfaces, thus no difference in height).
However, Kim teaches this feature (Kim – [0070]-[0074] and Figs. 1-2, 5: baffle #5010 can have curved/straight sloping surface).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the confinement ring of Chen to comprise an angled upper surface in order to adjust the flow of process gas via exhaust (Kim – [0070]) in order to achieve process uniformity (Kim – [0088]).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Chen teaches wherein the upper inner radius is greater than the lower inner radius (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches wherein the extension section extends vertically downward at the lower inner radius (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Chen teaches wherein the confinement ring is made from one of silicon, or polysilicon, or silicon carbide, or boron carbide, or ceramic, or aluminum ([0036]: silicon, polysilicon).
Regarding claim 27, Chen teaches wherein the extension section is integral with the lower horizontal section, the vertical section and the upper horizontal section of the confinement ring, the extension section configured to extend vertically below a bottom surface of the lower horizontal section (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, Chen teaches wherein the upper electrode is electrically grounded and the lower electrode is connected to a radio frequency power source through a corresponding match network ([0031]: RF generating system #120 with generator #122 and matcher #124 can output RF power to the lower electrode with the upper electrode RF grounded).
Claims 8-11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0244793) and Kim (US 2014/0034240), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 12-13, 22, and 25-28 above, further in view of Sasaki (US 2017/0025256) and Kalnin (US 2018/0233327).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 12-13, 22, and 25-28 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 8-9, Chen teaches wherein the lower horizontal section further includes a plurality of slots, wherein each slot extends radially from an inner diameter to an outer diameter along the lower horizontal section (Chen – [0036] and Fig. 1, slots #184) extending horizontally).
Modified Chen does not explicitly teach wherein an inner slot radius at an inner end of each slot is equal to an outer slot radius at an outer end of each slot.
However, Sasaki teaches wherein an inner slot radius of each slot at the inner diameter is equal to an outer slot radius of each slot at the outer diameter (Sasaki – [0053] and Fig. 2, holes #180 can be circular, oval, or elliptical shapes).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the slots of Chen to comprise the claimed shape in order to adjust the gas conductance therethrough to minimize processing non-uniformity (Kalnin – [0031]).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 24, Chen teaches wherein the lower horizontal section further includes a plurality of slots, wherein each slot extends radially from an inner diameter to an outer diameter along the lower horizontal section (Chen – [0036] and Fig. 1, slots #184) extending horizontally).
Modified Chen does not teach wherein an inner slot radius of each slot at the inner diameter is less than an outer slot radius of each slot at the outer diameter.
However, Sasaki teaches wherein an inner slot radius of each slot at the inner diameter is equal to an outer slot radius of each slot at the outer diameter (Sasaki – [0053] and Fig. 2, holes #180 can be fan-shaped; the breadth of the word “about” can be reasonably met by a fan-shaped structure, especially due to the narrow range claimed- this would read on nearly every fan-shaped slot).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the slots of Chen to comprise the claimed shape in order to adjust the gas conductance therethrough to minimize processing non-uniformity (Kalnin – [0031]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0244793) and Kim (US 2014/0034240), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 12-13, 22, and 25-28 above, and further in view of Kellogg (US 2015/0044873)
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 12-13, 22, and 25-28 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Chen does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kellogg teaches wherein the top surface of the upper horizontal section includes a plurality of holes (Kellogg – [0018] and Fig. 3L/M, bosses #338), each hole of the plurality of holes is configured to receive a portion of a fastener means (Kellogg – [0018] and Fig. 3L/M, are internally threaded) defined on a bottom surface of the upper electrode for coupling the confinement ring to the upper electrode of the plasma processing chamber (Kellogg – [0018]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Chen apparatus to include the hole/fastening means of Kellogg in order to securely couple a confinement ring and an upper support structure (Kellogg – [0031]).
Examiner’s note: the claim is drawn to a confinement ring “for use in a plasma processing chamber” (preamble, claim 1). As such, the plasma processing chamber and/or any of its components are not structurally limiting of the claim since it merely embodies an intended use of the claimed confinement ring. As such, claim 15 merely requires the plurality of holes configured to receive a portion of a fastener means.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0244793) and Kim (US 2014/0034240), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 12-13, 22, and 25-28 above, and further in view of Dhindsa (US 2017/0330735).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 12-13, 22, and 25-28 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, modified Chen does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Dhindsa teaches wherein the extension section of the lower horizontal section is configured to rest on a radio frequency gasket defined on a top surface of a lower electrode of the plasma processing chamber (Dhindsa – [0023] and Fig. 3B, RF gasket #350).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to configure the modified Chen apparatus to rest on a radio frequency gasket as claimed in order to create an RF return path outside the chamber volume to prevent plasma unconfinement (Dhindsa – [0037]).
Examiner’s note: the claim is drawn to a confinement ring “for use in a plasma processing chamber” (preamble, claim 1). As such, the plasma processing chamber and/or any of its components are not structurally limiting of the claim since it merely embodies an intended use of the claimed confinement ring. As such, claim 16 merely requires that the bottom surface of the lower horizontal section be capable of resting on anything. In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, however, the Examiner has supplied the Dhindsa reference to meet the presumed intent of the claim.
The Applicant is advised that claim 16 can be rejected over Chen in view of Kim without Dhindsa. This alternative rejection should be considered as included herewith despite not being set forth in particular, as the Examiner’s explanation above explains the position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the title as suggested, thus the objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claim 1 and withdrawn claim 5 (with the suggested amendment), thus the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claim 3, 9 (via claim 8), and 24 to alleviate indefinite claim language, thus their §112(b) rejections are withdrawn. Claim 11, however, remains rejected under §112(b) on substantially the same grounds.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Kim as applied to claims 1 and 22 have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. Particularly, Applicant appears to argue that Kim teaches a baffle adjacent to a focus ring, thus does not teach a “c-shaped structure”. This is not found to be persuasive because:
1) Applicant has not attempted to physically distinguish “a baffle” from the “c-shaped structure” beyond merely calling them by different names,
2) Applicant has not attempted to refute the combination of references as presented by the Examiner- that is, modifying the shape of the c-shaped structure of Chen with a shape similar to Kim, and/or
3) Applicant has not attempted to dispute how the structure of Kim reads on the claimed invention, particularly the sloped feature.
The Applicant also alleges that Kim does not teach the feature of claim 12, but this feature is shown in Chen and relied upon therefrom in the rejection.
Considering all of the above, the Examiner regards the entire response as mere attorney arguments, not a reasoned rebuttal. The arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718