DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 5/4/2026.
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 1-12 and 14 are pending.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn.
Claim 13 is canceled.
Claims 10-11 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity of the record and brevity of this action, the Examiner notes the following interpretations have been applied herein:
Claims 10-12 recite a semiconductor device with structures formed thereupon and intended to be processed in the claimed film deposition tool. These limitations do not impart patentability to the claims as they recite a material/article worked upon by the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
Claim 10 has been amended to recite a variety of functions of the claimed film deposition tool. The instant disclosure does not provide any special structure required to perform the claimed functions beyond the claimed structural elements, thus the functional language is only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the functional language. Additionally, the Examiner notes that prior art meeting all of the structural limitations of the claim and merely capable of performing all the functional limitations of the claim can still form the basis for an anticipation rejection. See MPEP 2114.
Claim 10 recites: “wherein the holding component is not in contact with the central portion of the semiconductor device” – this limitation is construed in light of the instant disclosure as “not in direct physical contact”.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to due to the following minor informalities: in pg. 1 line 23, “to hold and in contact with the edge” should be amended to “to hold and be in contact with the edge”; in pg. 2 line 15, “so as to ensure no dielectric material being deposited” should be amended to “so as to ensure no dielectric material is deposited”.
Claim 11 is objected to due to the following minor informalities: line 2 should be amended to read: “covered by the holding surface of the holding component”.
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.
Claims 10-12 and 14 (all claims) 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.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation: “
PNG
media_image1.png
88
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” is regarded as indefinite due to referencing an object that is variable. Particularly, the claim recites a physical dimension of the holding surface (inner diameter) relative to (smaller than) a physical dimension (diameter) of the semiconductor device. A PHOSITA would recognize that substrates worked upon in the CVD arts comprise a variety of shapes and sizes such that the true scope of the claim is unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the above limitation as not adding additional structure.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, the claims are rejected at least based upon their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US Patent 8,888,950) with Purdes (US Patent 4,513,021) as an evidentiary reference for claims 10 and 14.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a tool of film deposition (Fig. 2, apparatus #201) for a semiconductor device (C1, L16 and Fig. 2, substrate #50), comprising: a pedestal (Fig. 2, first electrode #230); a showerhead disposed below the pedestal (Fig. 2, second electrode #240) to form a vacuum chamber (Fig. 2, vacuum system #60) between a bottom surface of the pedestal and a top surface of the showerhead (see Fig. 2, represented by at least “d” and “D”), wherein the vacuum chamber has a top side defined on the bottom surface of the pedestal and a bottom side defined on the top surface of the showerhead (see Fig. 2, between #230 and #240); and
a holding component disposed between the pedestal and the showerhead (Fig. 2, substrate supporter #280) in a movable manner (C11, L24-31), wherein a distance between the bottom surface of the pedestal and the top surface of the showerhead is fixed to form the chamber with a fixed height (see Fig. 2), wherein the holding component is disposed within the chamber at a position that a distance between a top surface of the holding component and the bottom surface of the pedestal is less than a distance between a bottom surface of the holding component and the top surface of the showerhead (see Fig. 2, “d” < “D”), wherein the holding component is upwardly moved closer to the pedestal than the showerhead (see Fig. 2),
wherein the holding component has a holding surface facing the pedestal (Fig. 2, supporting ring; seen better in Fig. 4 as supporting ring #22) and configured to hold and in contact with the edge portion of the semiconductor device at a position that the backside surface faces the showerhead and the active surface faces the pedestal, wherein the holding component is not in contact with the central portion of the semiconductor device (see Fig. 2, holding substrate #250 with surfaces facing upward/downward);
wherein the holding surface of the holding component is formed between the top surface and the bottom surface of the holding component (see Fig. 2);
wherein the holding surface of the holding component is annular in shape and has an inner diameter smaller than a diameter of the semiconductor device and larger than a diameter of the central portion of the semiconductor device (see Figs. 2 and 4, diameter between pins 23’ of ring #22 are smaller than substrate diameter but larger than an arbitrary circular center “portion”);
wherein the holding component further comprises a plurality of protruding portions upwardly protruded from the holding surface and in contact with an edge portion of the backside surface of the semiconductor device (Fig. 7, protrusion #24 on each arm of holding structure) to reduce a contact area between the holding component and the backside surface of the semiconductor device (C13, L43-52; C15, L15-17: configurations of #20 and #280 are interchangeable),
wherein the showerhead comprises a plurality of reacting gas outlets (C16, L17 and Fig. 2, discharging nozzles #242) for distributing reacting gases into the vacuum chamber between the top surface of the showerhead and the backside surface of the semiconductor device (C3, L41-44: second gas may be reactive);
wherein the pedestal comprises a plurality of neutral gas outlets (C9, L15 and Fig. 2: plurality of discharge nozzles #33) for distributing neutral gases into the vacuum chamber between the bottom surface of the pedestal and the active surface of the semiconductor device to enable the neutral gases flowing to the active surface of the semiconductor device so as to purge a plasma or the reacting gas from the active surface of the semiconductor device (C3, L41-44: first gas may be inert) and so as to ensure no dielectric material being deposited on the active surface of the semiconductor device (if inert gas were supplied from above and process gas introduced from below, the gas dispensed from #33 would prevent process gas from reaching the upper surface of the substrate);
wherein the pedestal is also a heating device for heating the semiconductor device within the vacuum chamber between the bottom surface of the pedestal and the active surface of the semiconductor device (C9, L31-33 and Fig. 2, coolant passages #38/238 are provided for #230, which necessarily means #230 has excess heat that can be removed- the claim does not require any additional structure).
The Examiner notes Lee does not explicitly disclose a capability of “film deposition” as in the preamble, but a PHOSITA would recognize that the Lee apparatus would be capable of performing both etching and deposition processes without any further modification. In support of this assertion, the Examiner submits Purdes (C2, L58-65) as evidence that the Lee apparatus would be capable of film deposition as well.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches wherein the backside surface of the semiconductor device has the edge portion covered by holding surface of the holding component (Fig. 4, edge of substrate is completely surrounded; C15, L15-17: configurations of #20 and #280 are interchangeable).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches wherein the protruding portions are spaced apart from each other and aligned in a radial direction in contact with the edge portion of the backside surface of the semiconductor device (protrusions in Fig. 7, appear to be four arms #21 such that two pins would be aligned along a radial direction).
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner notes Lee does not explicitly disclose a capability of a CVD process, but a PHOSITA would recognize that the Lee apparatus would be capable of performing both etching and deposition (CVD) processes without any further modification. In support of this assertion, the Examiner submits Purdes (C2, L58-65) as evidence that the Lee apparatus would be capable of film deposition as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pgs. 6-8) have been carefully considered but are not persuasive. All §102(a)(1) rejections are maintained.
Regarding (a), Lee teaches the same “pedestal” and “showerhead” structures, along with the “holding component” as substantially the same as the instant invention. The mere fact that Lee discloses these components as inside a containment structure #10 does not mean Lee does not meet the limitations of the claim. The claim does not expressly preclude the claimed elements from being inside another containment structure. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claimed invention describes the area between the “pedestal” and “showerhead” as being a “vacuum chamber”, but all that is required by the claim (and the instant disclosure as a whole) is that this processing space is operably connected to vacuum (see par. [0030] of the instant PG-Pub). Thus, to a PHOSITA, this limitation is more closely describing a “processing space” (or a “vacuum space”). While Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer, this particular recitation of a “vacuum chamber” is not commensurate with the structure as would be understood to a PHOSITA. As this argument ignores the structural features of Lee and how they pertain to the claimed structural limitations, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding (b), it is unclear from Lee how Applicant arrives at the conclusions stated therein. Lee teaches the claimed pedestal and showerhead, with a gap formed therebetween (see Fig. 2). If no structures of Lee are moving, each and every element is stationary and creates a processing space with “fixed height”. Applicant has not explained their position in any detail beyond these assertions, thus this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding (c), it is unclear from Lee how Applicant arrives at the conclusions stated therein. Lee shows in Fig. 4 the holding structure #20 (analogous to #280 in Fig. 2) contacting an edge portion of #50 and not a central portion. Applicant has not explained their position in any detail beyond these assertions, thus this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding (d), it is unclear from Lee how Applicant arrives at the conclusions stated therein. Lee shows in Fig. 4 the holding structure #20 (analogous to #280 in Fig. 2) with annular part #22’, slope #22a’, and supporting pin 23’ as one contiguous surface- thus the “surface” is annular. Applicant has not explained their position in any detail beyond these assertions, thus this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding (e), Applicant appears to agree that Lee teaches providing a gas between 240 and 250, but then states it does not disclose it being discharged “into a vacuum chamber”. For the reasons detailed regarding (a), this argument is also not persuasive.
Regarding (f), Applicant again appears to argue that the Lee reference does not teach the gas discharged “into a vacuum chamber”. For the reasons detailed regarding (a), this argument is also not persuasive.
Regarding (g), the Applicant is too narrowly construing the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim in light of the disclosure. The claim states: “the pedestal is also a heating device”. The claim does not require an additional structure within said pedestal that acts as a heating device. The claim only requires that the prior art structure mapped to the “pedestal” merely “is” a heating device. The Examiner continues to note that the upper electrode #230 of Lee is provided with cooling channels #238. Since cooling channels are provided, it must follow that the upper electrode #230 operates with elevated temperatures so as to require active cooling. Since upper electrode #230 operates with elevated temperatures, it can reasonably be considered “a heating device” in addition to its other functions in the same way as the claimed pedestal. This argument is, thus, not persuasive.
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
Prosecution Insights