DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 2/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims remain 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/16/2025. Claims 1-11 and 18-20 remain under examination on the merits.
In the amendment filed 2/10/2026, claims 1 and 18 were amended. No claims were canceled or newly added.
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.
Claim 11 is unclear because claim 11 and claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, claim a semiconductor processing tool. Claim 11 then recites “further comprising: a substrate on the pedestal” and defines structure of the substrate. This is unclear because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim an apparatus in which a substrate would represent the article worked upon or if applicant is intending to claim a semiconductor processing system in which case inclusion of a substrate as part of the system provides additional limitations. For the first interpretation it is noted that [e]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim is being examined inclusive of applicant intends to claim an apparatus in which a substrate represents the article worked upon. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity such as deleting the claim or amending to recite a system such that the details of the substrate will carry patentable weight.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (prev. presented US 2008/0173401) in view of Rui (prev. presented US 2009/0277874).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches a semiconductor processing tool (abstract, Fig 2, 5), comprising: a pedestal (20 Fig 2, 120 Fig 5); an annular separator (200 Fig 5, note 42 is taught as annular [0036] and 142 is the corresponding structure to 42) over the pedestal to define a first domain within the annular separator and a second domain outside of the annular separator (Fig 2 and 5); a first gas inlet within the annular separator(190 Fig 5) [0051], [0054]); and a second gas inlet (141b Fig 6) outside of the annular separator [0052]. Jeon implies coupling to gas supplies ([0042], [0054]) but fails to explicitly teach or demonstrate the gas supply. Addressing the same problem of etching the substrate edge only (abstract), Rui teaches the gas inlet lines are coupled to gas supplies (104 for the inner curtain gas Fig 1 [0027], and 162 for the outer reaction gas Fig 1 [0029]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon to include coupling to a gas supply because Jeon teaches the gases are supplied to the chamber but does not explicitly teach a gas source and Riu demonstrates this connection for supplying gas.
Regarding claim 2, Jeon teaches the pedestal is configured to be displaced relative to the annular separator (see arrows at 121 Fig 5 and note disclosure of corresponding substrate support driving structure 21 [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Jeon teaches a bottom of the annular separator is up to 10mm above the pedestal [0055].
Regarding claim 4, Jeon teaches a bottom surface of the annular separator is curved (200 has a ring shape and the bottom surface is therefore curved see [0036] which teaches 42 is annular).
Regarding claim 5, Jeon teaches the second gas inlet is configured to spread gasses around a perimeter of the annular separator [0052] (see also Fig 5).
Regarding claim 6, Jeon teaches the second gas inlet is configured to dispense gas in a portion of the second domain [0052] (and Fig 5) (note that supplying to the entire perimeter is inclusive of supplying to a portion because the perimeter may be considered several portions, the current claim language does not require to only a portion or not being supplied to other portions).
Regarding claim 7, Jeon fails to teach the pedestal rotates. Addressing the same problem of etching the substrate edge only (abstract), Rui teaches the pedestal movement mechanism (114 Fig 1) includes rotation and elevation of the substrate support [0026]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon to include the rotational movement mechanism of the pedestal because Rui teaches this is a functional alternative movement structure for the pedestal that provides additional degrees of movement. This represents a simple substitution of one known element (movement structure for pedestal of Rui) for another (movement structure of pedestal of Jeon) to achieve predictable results (movement of the pedestal during processing).
Regarding claim 8, Jeon teaches the first gas inlet supplies an inert gas into the first domain ([0054] curtain gas is an inert gas), and wherein the second gas inlet supplies an etchant gas into the second domain (see discussion of corresponding 41b [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Jeon teaches the inert gas is configured to flow from the first domain to the second domain through a gap between the annular separator and the pedestal [0054-0055] (and Fig 6).
Regarding claim 10, Jeon teaches the second domain is configured to support formation of a plasma [0053].
Regarding claim 11, Jeon teaches a substrate on the pedestal (130 Fig 6). The annular separator is above a boundary between the inner region of the substrate and the outer region of the substrate (Fig 6). Regarding the inner region is covered by a layer and the outer region is bare, this is directed to the article worked upon. (see also [0006] which suggests a thin film will remain on the central portion of the substrate and be removed from the edge of the substrate) Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 18, Jeon teaches a semiconductor processing tool (abstract, Fig 2, 5), comprising: a chamber (110 Fig 5); a pedestal in the chamber (120 Fig 5), wherein the pedestal is vertically displaceable (see arrows at 121 Fig 5 and note disclosure of corresponding substrate support driving structure 21 [0032]); an annular separator in the chamber above the pedestal (200 Fig 5, note 42 is taught as annular [0036] and 142 is the corresponding structure to 42), wherein the annular separator defines a first domain above a center of the pedestal and a second domain around a perimeter of the pedestal (Fig 5); a showerhead (190 Fig 5) c, the showerhead configured to flow a first gas into the first domain [0054]; and a gas inlet, the gas inlet configured to flow a second gas into the second domain (141b Fig 6), wherein the first gas and the second gas do not mix until after the first gas flows through a gap between the first domain and the second domain [0054]. Jeon implies coupling to gas supplies ([0042], [0054]) but fails to explicitly teach or demonstrate the gas supply. Addressing the same problem of etching the substrate edge only (abstract), Rui teaches the gas inlet lines are coupled to gas supplies (104 for the inner curtain gas Fig 1 [0027], and 162 for the outer reaction gas Fig 1 [0029]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon to include coupling to a gas supply because Jeon teaches the gases are supplied to the chamber but does not explicitly teach a gas source and Riu demonstrates this connection for supplying gas.
Regarding claim 19, Jeon fails to teach a remote plasma source. Rui teaches the substrate edge etching with plasma may be done with a remote plasma source (154 Fig 1) [0029]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon to include a remote plasma source because Rui demonstrates remote plasma is a functional alternative for etching the substrate edge.
Regarding claim 20, Jeon fails to teach the pedestal rotates. Addressing the same problem of etching the substrate edge only (abstract), Rui teaches the pedestal movement mechanism (114 Fig 1) includes rotation and elevation of the substrate support [0026]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon to include the rotational movement mechanism of the pedestal because Rui teaches this is a functional alternative movement structure for the pedestal that provides additional degrees of movement. This represents a simple substitution of one known element (movement structure for pedestal of Rui) for another (movement structure of pedestal of Jeon) to achieve predictable results (movement of the pedestal during processing).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Chang (reply p7-9) are moot because the art is no longer being applied in the rejection. Applicant provided no arguments regarding Jeon. The rejection over Jeon has been updated to reflect the amended language regarding connection to gas supplies.
Applicant did not argue the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and therefore the rejection remains.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2008/0182412 teaches a peripheral edge etching apparatus (Fig 1).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, 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.
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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights