DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “In response, Applicant elects Group I corresponding to claims 1-8, with traverse. The Group I claims are to a method of tilting a ring with three independently controlled actuators. To perform the method of Group I relies on the process kit of Group II. Furthermore, the apparatus of Group III has the process kit of Group II. Thus, a search of the method of Group I will necessarily result in a search of process kit of Group II and the apparatus in Group III. Thus, Applicant submits that there would be no undue burden on the Examiner to additionally examine claims 9-20 of Groups II and III. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the restriction between Groups I, 11 and III be withdrawn and claims 9-20 rejoined with claims 1-8 and examined on the merits.. This is not found persuasive because searching and examining both“.
The examiner disagrees. Search and examining process claims (Group I), product claims (Group II) and apparatus claims (Group III) certainly create serious burden on the examiner. Further, the process as claimed (Group I) can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus (Group III) such as using an apparatus without having a controller. In addition, process (Group I) for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another and materially different product such as using a product without having a controller. Further, the combination as claimed (Group III) does not require the particulars of the subcombination (Group II) as claimed because the combination does not require a semiconductor processing chamber. The subcombination has separate utility such as using a process kit to tilt the substrate for the wet cleaning process without requiring a cathode disposed below the substrate support.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 2, 7 are 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 claim 2, the phrase “the substrate processing chamber may be an etch chamber” (emphasis added) is indefinite. The term “may be” in claim 2 creates uncertainty in the scope of the claim. It is unclear whether any limitation after the term “may be” is required or not.
In claim 7, the phrase “the controller may tilt the sliding ring” (emphasis added) is indefinite. The term “may” in claim 7 creates uncertainty in the scope of the claim. It is unclear whether any limitation after the term “may” is required or not.
In claim 7, the phrase “the controller may tilt the sliding ring an angle between about 0.4 ° and about 2.8 ° to elevate a first area” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the angle between about 0.4 ° and about 2.8 ° is measured with respect to the horizontal surface or vertical surface or an inclined surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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.
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.
8. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarode Vishwanath (US 2019/0363003 A1) in view of Hiester et al. (US 2020/0173018 A1).
As to claim 1, Sarode Vishwanath discloses a method of processing a substrate, comprising:
positioning the substrate (150) on a substrate supporting surface of a substrate support (180) disposed in a substrate processing chamber (100) (Fig 1A paragraph 0023-0027);
forming a plasma above the substrate; (paragraph 0023-0025, 0028and
adjusting a
As to claim 1, Sarode Vishwanath fails to disclose to use three linear actuators for tilting the a sling ring. However, Sarode Vishwanath clearly discloses to use one or more actuators to lift the edge ring (See paragraph 0041). Hiester discloses to use three linear actuators to lift and tilt the sliding ring relative to the pedestal (See abstract, Fig 5A-5B, 0071-0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sarode Vishwanath in view of Hiester by using three linear actuators to tilt the sliding ring because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)). Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 2, Sarode Vishwanath discloses the substrate processing chamber may be an etch chamber (paragraph 0022, 0028, 0048).
As to claim 3, Sarode Vishwanath fails to disclose the three linear actuators are independent controllable with the controller. However, Sarode Vishwanath clearly disclose to control one or more actuator with a controller. Hiester discloses the three linear actuators are independent controllable with the controller pedestal (See abstract, Fig 5A-5B,paragraph 0023-0024; 0060, 0068, 0071-0073, 0112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify pedestal Sarode Vishwanath in view of Hiester by having the three linear actuators are independent controllable with the controller it allows correction of any azimuthal asymmetries which show up near the edge (See paragraph 0068).
As to claim 4, Sarode Vishwanath discloses the actuators have pins (260), the pins radically spaced equally about the sliding ring and are configured to vertical moving the sliding ring (paragraph 0042, 0076, 0082, 0086 Fig 7A-7B, Fig 9A-9B).
9. Claims 5-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarode Vishwanath (US 2019/0363003 A1) in view of Hiester et al. (US 2020/0173018 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Ueda (US 2018/0315640 A1)
As top claim 5, Sarode Vishwanath and Hiester fail to disclose creating by the controller an adjustment map corresponding to areas along the substrate having process skew; and determining an adjustment of the three linear actuators to move the sliding ring in the areas having process skew. However, Sarode Vishwanath discloses the substrate has process skew (non-uniformity or uneven in plasma sheath; See paragraph 0004, 0046-0048). Sarode Vishwanath further discloses to adjust the process skew (non-uniformity in plasma sheath) by adjust the linear actuators (See paragraph 0046-0049). Ueda discloses creating by the controller an adjustment map corresponding to areas along the substrate having process skew (uneven etching amount); and determining an adjustment of the linear actuators to move the sliding ring in the areas having process skew (Fig 6A-bC, Fig 8, paragraph 0038-0040; 0061-0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sarode Vishwanath and Hiester in view of Ueda by having creating by the controller an adjustment map corresponding to areas along the substrate having process skew; and determining an adjustment of the linear actuators to move the sliding ring in the areas having process skew because it helps to maintain etching uniformity of the wafer (See paragraph 0064).
As to claim 6, Sarode Vishwanath and Hiester fail to disclose wherein creating by the controller an adjustment map further comprises:
obtaining at a desired etch profile from a processing recipe target; determining a first area experiencing less etching than the processing recipe target calls for and a second area experiencing even less etching while other areas are etched at target; and incrementing one or more of the three linear actuators to tilt the sliding ring as mapped. Ueda discloses wherein creating by the controller an adjustment map further comprises:
obtaining at a desired etch profile from a processing recipe target;
determining a first area experiencing less etching than the processing recipe target calls for and a second area experiencing even less etching while other areas are etched at target (Fig 8, paragraph 0064;
and incrementing one or more of the linear actuators to tilt the sliding ring as mapped (Fig 6A-bC, Fig 8, paragraph 0038-0040; 0061-0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sarode Vishwanath and Hiester in view of Ueda by obtaining at a desired etch profile from a processing recipe target; determining a first area experiencing less etching than the processing recipe target calls for and a second area experiencing even less etching while other areas are etched at target (Fig 8, paragraph 0064; and incrementing one or more of the linear actuators to tilt the sliding ring as mapped because it helps to maintain etching uniformity of the wafer (See paragraph 0064).
As to claim 8, Sarode Vishwanath and Hiester fail to disclose processing a second substrate with the sliding ring tilted in according to the adjustment map. Ueda teaches processing a second substrate with the sliding ring tilted in according to the adjustment map (Fig 6A-bC, Fig 8, paragraph 0061-0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sarode Vishwanath and Hiester in view of Ueda by processing a second substrate with the sliding ring tilted in according to the adjustment map because it helps to maintain etching uniformity of the wafer (See paragraph 0064).
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarode Vishwanath (US 2019/0363003 A1) in view of Hiester et al. (US 2020/0173018 A1) and Ueda (US 2018/0315640 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ishida (JP 2022014879 A).
As to claim 7, Sarode Vishwanath, Hiester and Ueda fail to disclose the controller may tilt the sliding ring an angle between about 0.4 ° and about 2.8 ° to elevate a first area to increase etching in that area while leaving other areas unchanged. However, Hiester clearly discloses controller may tilt the sliding ring an angle to elevate a first area. (abstract, paragraph 0045-0046, 0054-0061). Ishida discloses controller may tilt the sliding ring an angle between about 2.5 ° and about 10 ° including example of 3 ° to elevate a first area to increase etching in that area while leaving other areas unchanged (paragraph 0029,, 0035-0036 0045, Ishida’s claim 6; Note: 2.5 ° is within applicant’s claimed range of “between 0.4 ° and about 2.8 °). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sarode Vishwanath, Hiester and Ueda in view of Ishida by disclose the controller may tilt the sliding ring an angle between about 0.40 and about 2.80 to elevate a first area to increase etching in that area while leaving other areas unchanged because it help to reduce the amount of wear of the edge ring.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights