DETAILED ACTION
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 02/04/2026.
4. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, and 15-16 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita et al (US 2018/0158713) in view of Adachi et al (US 2019/0221432).
Regarding claim 1:
Okita teaches a process kit (100) for a substrate process chamber (etching apparatus, 50) [fig 2A-2B & 0039-0041], comprising: a cover ring (cover, 100) configured to extend over a radially outer portion of a dicing tape (one portion of dicing tape 26a) of a tape frame substrate (26) during use and having a central opening (window portion) configured to expose a semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer, 10) supported on a radially inner portion of the dicing tape (central portion of 26a) during use [fig 2A-2B & 0041, 0054]; and a conductive shield (conductive layer) disposed adjacent to at least a portion of a lower surface of the cover ring such that the conductive shield at least partially lines the lower surface (formed on a lower surface of cover 100, i.e. a portion that comes into contact with 72) [0050].
Okita does not specifically disclose the conductive shield being a metallic shield.
Adachi teaches a metallic shield (metal film, 92) [fig 15 & 0056].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conductive shield of Okita to be a metallic shield, as in Adachi, to adjust a shape of a plasma end portion thereby improving uniformity of processing [Adachi – 0039-0040].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield comprises a continuous annular shield (conductive layer formed on portion of 100 that comes into contact with 72) [Okita – 0050 and Adachi – 0056].
Furthermore, modified Okita also teaches the position where the metallic shield (metal film) is formed is a result-effective variable [Adachi – 0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum configuration for the metallic shield through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041].
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Okita does not specifically disclose “wherein the metallic shield includes a plurality of segments that are spaced apart and that are disposed at regular intervals along the lower surface of the cover ring and partially cover a lower surface of a body of the cover ring” but teaches the position where the metallic shield (metal film) is formed is a result-effective variable [Adachi – 0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum configuration for the metallic shield through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041].
Regarding claim 4:
Okita teaches the cover ring is made of quartz (cover 100 is made from quartz) [0050].
Regarding claims 5-6:
Okita does not specifically teach the metallic shield includes an outer portion, a ledge extending radially inward from the outer portion, and a lip extending downward from a radially inner edge of the ledge; and wherein a lowermost surface of the lip is disposed vertically between a lowermost surface of the outer portion of the metallic shield and a lowermost surface of an inner lip of the cover ring.
Adachi teaches a metallic shield (92) includes an outer portion, a ledge extending radially inward from the outer portion, and a lip extending downward from a radially inner edge of the ledge (see fig 15) [fig 15 & 0056]; and wherein a lowermost surface of the lip is disposed vertically between a lowermost surface of the outer portion of the metallic shield (lowermost surface of 92) and a lowermost surface of an inner lip of the cover ring (lowermost surface of 84b) [fig 15 & 0056].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conductive shield of Okita with a metallic shield disposed as claimed, as in Adachi, to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041]
Furthermore, although specifically disclosed, Adachi also teaches the position where the metallic shield (metal film) is formed is a result-effective variable [Adachi – 0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum configuration for the metallic shield through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041].
Regarding claims 7-8:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) comprises a metallic coating (metal film) on the lower surface of the cover ring (84) [Adachi - fig 15 & 0034, 0056]; and wherein the metallic coating (metal film) has a thickness of about 100 microns to about 500 microns (thickness may be set to 100 µm or more) [Adachi – 0034].
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9:
Okita teaches a substrate support (stage, 60) for a substrate process chamber (etching apparatus, 50) [fig 2A-2B & 0039-0040], comprising: a pedestal (74) having a support surface (top surface of 74) configured to support a tape frame substrate (26) and having one or more electrodes (86) disposed therein [fig 2A-2B & 0041]; a process kit (100) configured to be disposed on the pedestal (74) and to cover a portion of the pedestal (74) to define a gap between a lower surface of the process kit and the support surface (gap between 100 and 74) sufficient to extend over and accommodate a radially outer portion of a dicing tape (one portion of dicing tape 26a) of the tape frame substrate (26) during use [fig 2A-2B & 0041, 0054], the process kit (100) comprising: a cover ring (cover, 100) configured to extend over the radially outer portion of the dicing tape (one portion of dicing tape 26a) of the tape frame substrate (26) during use and having a central opening (window portion) configured to expose a semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer, 10) supported on a radially inner portion of the dicing tape (central portion of 26a) during use [fig 2A-2B & 0041, 0054]; and a conductive shield (conductive layer) disposed adjacent to at least a portion of a lower surface of the cover ring such that the conductive shield at least partially lines the gap (formed on a lower surface of cover 100, i.e. a portion that comes into contact with 72) [0050]; and wherein the pedestal (72) includes one or more substrate lift openings (openings through which 96 pass) and includes one or more process kit lift openings (openings through which 106 pass) disposed radially outward (see fig 2A-2B) of the one or more substrate lift openings (openings through which 96 pass) [fig 2A-2B & 0041, 0052].
Okita does not specifically disclose the conductive shield being a metallic shield electrically connected to the pedestal.
Adachi teaches a metallic shield (metal film, 92) electrically connected to the pedestal (electrically connected to the susceptor, 16) [fig 15 & 0053, 0056].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conductive shield of Okita to be a metallic shield electrically connected to the pedestal, as in Adachi, to adjust a shape of a plasma end portion thereby improving uniformity of processing [Adachi – 0039-0040].
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield comprises a continuous annular shield (conductive layer formed on portion of 100 that comes into contact with 72) [Okita – 0050 and Adachi – 0056].
Furthermore, modified Okita also teaches the position where the metallic shield (metal film) is formed is a result-effective variable [Adachi – 0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum configuration for the metallic shield through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041].
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Okita does not specifically disclose “wherein the metallic shield includes a plurality of segments that are spaced apart and that are disposed at regular intervals along the lower surface of the cover ring and partially covers a lower surface of a body of the cover ring” but teaches the position where the metallic shield (metal film) is formed is a result-effective variable [Adachi – 0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum configuration for the metallic shield through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041].
Regarding claim 12:
Okita teaches the cover ring (cover, 100) includes a body (body of 100) and an inner lip (104) extending down from the body (body of 100) [fig 2A-2B & 0055].
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) comprises a metallic coating (metal film) on the lower surface of the cover ring (84) [Adachi - fig 15 & 0034, 0056].
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Okita teaches an outer surface of the cover ring is substantially coplanar with an outer surface of the metallic shield (conductive layer formed on portion of 100 that comes into contact with 72) [Okita – 0050 and Adachi – 0056].
Similarly, Adachi teaches an outer surface of the cover ring (bottom surface of 84 is an outer surface) is substantially coplanar with an outer surface of the metallic shield (bottom surface of 92 is an outer surface) [fig 15 & 0056].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conductive shield of Okita with a metallic shield disposed as claimed, as in Adachi, to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041]
Furthermore, although specifically disclosed, Adachi also teaches the position where the metallic shield (metal film) is formed is a result-effective variable [Adachi – 0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum configuration for the metallic shield through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041].
Regarding claim 15:
Okita teaches a process chamber (50) [fig 2A & 0037], comprising: a chamber body (chamber, 52) having an interior volume (reaction room, R) [fig 2A & 0038] therein; a pedestal (74) disposed in the interior volume (R) and having a support surface (top surface of 74) for a tape frame substrate (26) and one or more electrodes (86) disposed therein [fig 2A-2B & 0041]; a cover ring (cover, 100) configured to extend over a radially outer portion of a dicing tape (one portion of dicing tape 26a) of the tape frame substrate (26) during use and having a central opening (window portion) configured to expose a semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer, 10) supported on the dicing tape (26a) during use [fig 2A-2B & 0041, 0054]; and a conductive shield (conductive layer) disposed adjacent to at least a portion of a lower surface of the cover ring such that the conductive shield at least partially lines the lower surface (formed on a lower surface of cover 100, i.e. a portion that comes into contact with 72) [0050], and wherein a radially outermost surface of the cover ring is substantially coplanar with a radially outermost surface of the conductive shield (conductive layer formed on portion of 100 that comes into contact with 72) [0050].
Okita does not specifically disclose the conductive shield being a metallic shield electrically connected to the pedestal.
Adachi teaches a metallic shield (metal film, 92) electrically connected to the pedestal (electrically connected to the susceptor, 16) [fig 15 & 0053, 0056].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conductive shield of Okita to be a metallic shield electrically connected to the pedestal, as in Adachi, to adjust a shape of a plasma end portion thereby improving uniformity of processing [Adachi – 0039-0040].
Additionally/alternatively, Adachi does not specifically disclose “a radially outermost surface of the cover ring is substantially coplanar with a radially outermost surface of the metallic shield” but teaches the position where the metallic shield (metal film) is formed is a result-effective variable [Adachi – 0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum configuration for the metallic shield through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041].
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) comprises a metallic coating (metal film) on the lower surface of the cover ring (84) [Adachi - fig 15 & 0034, 0056].
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) is separate from the cover ring (84) [Adachi – fig 15 & 0056].
Regarding claim 18:
Okita teaches an RF power source (90) coupled to the one or more electrodes (86) in the pedestal (74) [fig 2A-2B & 0041].
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) is made of aluminum or copper (aluminum) [Adachi - fig 15 & 0034, 0056].
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) includes an outer portion, a ledge extending radially inward from the outer portion, and a lip extending downward from a radially inner edge of the ledge (see fig 15) [Adachi - fig 15 & 0056].
Modified Okita does not specifically disclose “wherein a gap between the lip and the pedestal is between about 0.2 to about 2 mm” but teaches the position where the metallic shield (metal film) is formed is a result-effective variable [Adachi – 0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum configuration for the metallic shield through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041].
9. Additionally/alternatively, Claim(s) 2-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita et al (US 2018/0158713) in view of Adachi et al (US 2019/0221432) as applied to claims 1, 4-9, and 12-20 above, and further in view of Kon (US 2021/0057194).
The limitations of claims 1, 4-9, and 12-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 2 and 10:
Modified Okita does not specifically disclose the metallic shield comprises a continuous annular shield.
Kon teaches a shield comprises a continuous annular shield (25b formed in a ring shape) [fig 2A-2B & 0040-0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the metallic shield of modified Okita to be a continuous annular shield, as in Kon, because such a configuration ensures the cover ring is adsorbed to the electrostatic chuck [Kon – 0047].
Regarding claims 3 and 11:
Modified Okita does not specifically disclose the metallic shield includes a plurality of segments that are spaced apart and that are disposed at regular intervals along the lower surface of the cover ring and partially cover(s) a lower surface of a body of the cover ring.
Kon teaches a shield (25b) includes a plurality of segments (plurality of parts, 25b1) that are spaced apart (groove is formed between each of the parts 25b1) and that are disposed at regular intervals (evenly disposed in the circumferential direction) along the lower surface of the cover ring (25a) and partially cover(s) a lower surface of a body of the cover ring (25a) [fig 4A-4B & 0073-0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the metallic shield of modified Okita to include a plurality of segments that are spaced apart and that are disposed at regular intervals along the lower surface of the cover ring, as in Kon, to suppress the possibility of breakage due to thermal expansion [Kon – 0074].
10. Additionally/alternatively, Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita et al (US 2018/0158713) in view of Adachi et al (US 2019/0221432) and Kon (US 2021/0057194).
Regarding claim 15:
Okita teaches a process chamber (50) [fig 2A & 0037], comprising: a chamber body (chamber, 52) having an interior volume (reaction room, R) [fig 2A & 0038] therein; a pedestal (74) disposed in the interior volume (R) and having a support surface (top surface of 74) for a tape frame substrate (26) and one or more electrodes (86) disposed therein [fig 2A-2B & 0041]; a cover ring (cover, 100) configured to extend over a radially outer portion of a dicing tape (one portion of dicing tape 26a) of the tape frame substrate (26) during use and having a central opening (window portion) configured to expose a semiconductor wafer (semiconductor wafer, 10) supported on the dicing tape (26a) during use [fig 2A-2B & 0041, 0054]; and a conductive shield (conductive layer) disposed adjacent to at least a portion of a lower surface of the cover ring such that the conductive shield at least partially lines the lower surface (formed on a lower surface of cover 100, i.e. a portion that comes into contact with 72) [0050], and wherein a radially outermost surface of the cover ring is substantially coplanar with a radially outermost surface of the conductive shield (conductive layer formed on portion of 100 that comes into contact with 72) [0050].
Okita does not specifically disclose the conductive shield being a metallic shield electrically connected to the pedestal.
Adachi teaches a metallic shield (metal film, 92) electrically connected to the pedestal (electrically connected to the susceptor, 16) [fig 15 & 0053, 0056].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conductive shield of Okita to be a metallic shield electrically connected to the pedestal, as in Adachi, to adjust a shape of a plasma end portion thereby improving uniformity of processing [Adachi – 0039-0040].
Although believed to be implicitly disclosed in Okita modified by Adachi, modified Okita does not explicitly disclose a radially outermost surface of the cover ring is substantially coplanar with a radially outermost surface of the metallic shield.
Kon teaches a radially outermost surface of the cover ring (radially outer surface of 25a) is substantially coplanar (see fig 2B) with a radially outermost surface of the shield (radially outer surface of 25b) [fig 2A-2B & 0040-0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the radially outermost surface of the metallic shield of modified Okita to be substantially coplanar with a radially outermost surface of the cover ring, as in Kon, because such a configuration ensures the cover ring is adsorbed to the electrostatic chuck [Kon – 0047].
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) comprises a metallic coating (metal film) on the lower surface of the cover ring (84) [Adachi - fig 15 & 0034, 0056].
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) is separate from the cover ring (84) [Adachi – fig 15 & 0056].
Regarding claim 18:
Okita teaches an RF power source (90) coupled to the one or more electrodes (86) in the pedestal (74) [fig 2A-2B & 0041].
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) is made of aluminum or copper (aluminum) [Adachi - fig 15 & 0034, 0056].
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Okita teaches the metallic shield (92) includes an outer portion, a ledge extending radially inward from the outer portion, and a lip extending downward from a radially inner edge of the ledge (see fig 15) [Adachi - fig 15 & 0056].
Modified Okita does not specifically disclose “wherein a gap between the lip and the pedestal is between about 0.2 to about 2 mm” but teaches the position where the metallic shield (metal film) is formed is a result-effective variable [Adachi – 0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to discover the optimum configuration for the metallic shield through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired plasma shape [Adachi - 0041].
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 7-8, 13, and 16 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 7-8, 13, and 16 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 7, 13, and 16.
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights