DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered.
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 03/24/2026 has been entered with the filing of the request for continued examination on 06/11/2026. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending. Claims 12-17 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1-10 and 18-20 remain under examination on the merits.
In the amendment filed 03/24/2026, claims 1 and 18 were amended, claim 11 was canceled, and no claims were newly added.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0051922 of Lee et al., hereinafter Lee, in view of 2008/0182412 of Bailey III et al., hereinafter Bailey.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a semiconductor processing tool (abstract, Fig 1-3), comprising: a pedestal (300 Fig 2-3 note [0060] teaches this includes 330 and 350); a first domain in an inner region (space supplied with G1 Fig 3) [0071] and a second domain outside of the inner region (Fig 3 space provided with G2) [0076]; a first gas inlet within the inner region (opening connected to 814 Fig 2) [0081], the first gas inlet coupled to a first gas supply (812 Fig 2) [0081]; and a second gas inlet (opening connected to 834 Fig 2) [0082] outside of the inner region (Fig 2-3 and [0082]), the second gas inlet coupled to a second gas supply different from the first gas supply (second gas supply 832 Fig 2 is different from first gas supply 812 Fig 2 [0081-0082]). Lee fails to teach an annular separator over the pedestal to define a first domain within the annular separator (inner region) and a second domain outside of the annular separator (outer region) and fails to teach the annular separator is vertically overlapping with the pedestal along a vertical direction. Because Lee fails to teach the annular separator, Lee fails to explicitly teach a first gas inlet within the annular separator and a second gas inlet outside of the annular separator. Note that as explained above Lee does teach gas to the inner region and the outer region as cited above. In the same field of endeavor of substrate edge etching, Bailey teaches an annular separator (302 Fig 2-3) [0026] over the pedestal to define a first domain within the annular separator (inner region) (see region under 216 Fig 2 supplied with gas from 212 Fig 2) [0026-0027] and a second domain outside of the annular separator (outer region) (region under 308 Fig 2-3 supplied with gas from 224a-b Fig 2-3) [0026-0027], the annular separator is vertically overlapping with the pedestal along a vertical direction (Fig 2-3 note it overlaps with 226a and 238a, 260 Fig 2-3). In Bailey, gas is supplied to a region within the annular separator (via 212 Fig 2) and outside of the annular separator (via 224b Fig 3). 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 Lee to include the annular separator of Bailey because Lee teaches the inner gas (G1) is inert [0081] and prevents the second gas (G2), which is a processing gas excited into plasma [0082-0084] from being introduced to a central region of the substrate [0084] and Bailey teaches the annular separator (302) provides an edge exclusion zone that prevents plasma from passing to the inner region and protects an upper dielectric plate over the central region (note this is 520 in Lee) from being etched by plasma [0027]. Bailey teaches this separator provides an easily replaceable barrier that is etched by plasma instead of the dielectric plate [0027]. As indicated above Bailey teaches gas to the inner and outer regions of the barrier and therefore the combination results in the gas supply of Lee being to the inner first domain and an outer second domain.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the pedestal is configured to be displaced (see actuator 372 Fig 2 and [0068]) relative to the upper gas inlet (Fig 2 structure 500 and 600). In the combination as applied, the annular separator of Bailey is applied to the upper gas inlet structure and therefore results in the pedestal being configured to be displaced relative to the annular separator.
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Bailey teaches a bottom surface of the annular separator is curved (302 has a ring shape and the bottom surface is therefore curved see [0026] which teaches 302 is a ring, also note Fig 3 demonstrates the bottom surface includes curved edges).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Lee teaches the second gas inlet is configured to spread gasses around a perimeter of the substrate [0082]. In the combination as applied in view of Bailey, this includes around the perimeter of the annular separator.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Lee teaches the second gas inlet is configured to dispense gas in a portion of the second domain [0082] (and Fig 2) (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 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Lee teaches the first gas inlet supplies an inert gas into the first domain [0081], and wherein the second gas inlet supplies an etchant gas into the second domain [0082], [0084].
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Lee demonstrates that the inert first gas (G1) is configured to flow to the second domain (region of gas G2) between the gas supply and the pedestal (Fig 3). In combination with Bailey including the annular separator, this includes flow through a gap between the annular separator and the pedestal. Further note Bailey teaches the inner inert gas flowed through 212 flows outward to the exhaust via a gap between the annular separator 302 and the pedestal (Fig 2-3) [0017].
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the second domain is configured to support formation of a plasma [0082].
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches a semiconductor processing tool (abstract, Fig 1-3), comprising: chamber (100 Fig 2) [0055]; a pedestal (300 Fig 2-3 note [0060] teaches this includes 330 and 350) in the chamber (Fig 2), wherein the pedestal is vertically displaceable along the vertical direction (see arrow and actuator 372 Fig 2) [0068]; a first domain in an inner region (space supplied with G1 Fig 3) [0071] and a second domain outside of the inner region (Fig 3 space provided with G2) [0076]; a first gas inlet within the inner region (opening connected to 814 Fig 2) [0081], the first gas inlet coupled to a first gas supply (812 Fig 2) [0081]; and a second gas inlet (opening connected to 834 Fig 2) [0082] outside of the inner region (Fig 2-3 and [0082]), the second gas inlet coupled to a second gas supply different from the first gas supply (second gas supply 832 Fig 2 is different from first gas supply 812 Fig 2 [0081-0082]), the first and second gas do not mix until the first gas flows to the second domain (Fig 3). Lee fails to teach an annular separator over the pedestal to define a first domain within the annular separator (inner region) and a second domain outside of the annular separator (outer region) and fails to teach the annular separator is vertically overlapping with the pedestal along a vertical direction. Lee fails to teach the first gas inlet is a showerhead. Because Lee fails to teach the annular separator, Lee fails to explicitly teach a first gas inlet within the annular separator and a second gas inlet outside of the annular separator and fails to teach the first gas does not mix with the second gas until it flows through a gap between the first domain and the second domain. Note that as explained above Lee does teach gas to the inner region and the outer region as cited above. In the same field of endeavor of substrate edge etching, Bailey teaches an annular separator (302 Fig 2-3) [0026] over the pedestal to define a first domain within the annular separator (inner region) (see region under 216 Fig 2 supplied with gas from 212 Fig 2) [0026-0027] and a second domain outside of the annular separator (outer region) (region under 308 Fig 2-3 supplied with gas from 224a-b Fig 2-3) [0026-0027], the annular separator is vertically overlapping with the pedestal along a vertical direction (Fig 2-3 note it overlaps with 226a and 238a, 260 Fig 2-3). In Bailey, gas is supplied to a region within the annular separator (via 212 Fig 2) and outside of the annular separator (via 224b Fig 3). 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 Lee to include the annular separator of Bailey because Lee teaches the inner gas (G1) is inert [0081] and prevents the second gas (G2), which is a processing gas excited into plasma [0082-0084] from being introduced to a central region of the substrate [0084] and Bailey teaches the annular separator (302) provides an edge exclusion zone that prevents plasma from passing to the inner region and protects an upper dielectric plate over the central region (note this is 520 in Lee) from being etched by plasma [0027]. Bailey teaches this separator provides an easily replaceable barrier that is etched by plasma instead of the dielectric plate [0027]. As indicated above Bailey teaches gas to the inner and outer regions of the barrier and therefore the combination results in the gas supply of Lee being to the inner first domain and an outer second domain. Regarding the showerhead, Bailey teaches the inner gas may be a single inlet (arrangement of Lee) or a showerhead [0018]. 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 Lee to include a shower head gas arrangement for the inner gas supply inlet because Bailey teaches this is a functional alternative arrangement for the same purpose of gas inlet to the central region of the substrate [0017]. Lee demonstrates that the inert first gas (G1) is configured to flow to the second domain (region of gas G2) between the gas supply and the pedestal (Fig 3). In combination with Bailey including the annular separator, this includes flow through a gap between the annular separator and the pedestal. Further note Bailey teaches the inner inert gas flowed through 212 flows outward to the exhaust via a gap between the annular separator 302 and the pedestal (Fig 2-3) [0017]. Note that the annular separator forms the gap between the first and second domains.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Bailey as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0029044 of Jeon, hereinafter Jeon ‘044 (note “Jeon” was previously used to indicate a different reference not currently applied to the claims), as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication 2014/0057413 of Yang, hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. Lee in view of Bailey fails to teach a bottom of the annular separator is up to 10 mm above the pedestal because Lee in view of Baily fails to teach the gap size. It is initially noted that Lee teaches the pedestal is movable which indicates the gap size is adjustable. Further, in the same field of endeavor of bevel etching (abstract), Jeon ‘044 teaches the substrate and shield 40 (Fig 1) should have a gap of 0.1 to 3 mm because a larger gap will allow plasma to penetrate into the space between the shield and substrate [0034]. 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 the combination to include a gap of 0.1 to 3 mm to prevent plasma from intruding into the central region. Note that while this is the gap between the shield and the substrate, the gap to the pedestal is this distance plus the thickness of the substrate. The apparatus of the combination is capable of being operated with substrates having a thickness of less than 7 mm and it is noted that standard semiconductor wafer thickness are less than 1 mm as evidenced by Yang [0011].
Claim(s) 7 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Bailey as applied to claim 6 or 18 above, and further in view of Rui (prev. presented US 2009/0277874).
Regarding claim 7, Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee) to achieve predictable results (movement of the pedestal during processing).
Regarding claim 19, Lee 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 Lee to include a remote plasma source because Rui demonstrates remote plasma is a functional alternative for plasma formation for etching the substrate edge.
Regarding claim 20, Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee) to achieve predictable results (movement of the pedestal during processing).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Jeon (US 2008/0173401) in view of Rui (reply p7-9) are moot because Jeon (US 2008/0173401) is no longer being applied in the rejection. Applicant provided no arguments regarding Rui specifically. The amendments necessitated a new search and review of the art that identified the above combination which teaches the previous claim limitations and the new limitation regarding the annular separator overlapping with the pedestal along a vertical direction. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2006/0086461 teaches process gas flow to separate sections of the perimeter (Fig 10 see 120a-120d). US 2010/0096084 demonstrates a gas separator between inner and outer regions (Fig 13-18) that overlaps the pedestal (Fig 13).
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