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 .
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed (US 9,177,763) in view of Lavitsky (US 10,998,172) and Young (US 8,668,815).
Regarding claim 1, Rasheed teaches a process station, comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1) including walls and an adapter (142) that includes at least one first gas inlet port (139);
a pedestal (106) disposed in the housing, the pedestal comprising a support surface;
a cover ring (148) including an annular body and a cover ring lip assembly with a top surface (Fig. 1) the cover ring lip assembly (148) comprises an inner ring and an outer ring separated from one another by an upper portion (Fig. 1), the inner ring and outer ring extend downwardly from the upper portion with a gap is disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring (Fig. 1, col. 5, ln. 22-30);
a shield (143) including one or more shield ports (116, Fig. 5) and a shield lip assembly interleaved with the cover ring lip assembly (148, Fig. 1), wherein one or more shield ports (116) are located at a position below the lower surface of the target (114) and above the top surface of the cover ring (148) to direct a first gas at the target (Fig. 3) and wherein the gap is sized to interleave with the shield lip assembly (138, fig. 1, col. 5, ln. 1-32);
and a chamber (pocket 365) disposed between the adapter (142) and the shield (138), wherein the chamber is in communication with the one or more shield ports (116) and the at least one first gas inlet port (139).
Rasheed does not teach the cover ring lip assembly extending upward from the annular body nor does it teach a cover ring lip assembly extending toward the target, the top surface disposed above the support surface, and the cover ring lip assembly disposed between the support surface and the one or more shield port.
Lavitsky directed to a sputtering apparatus teaches cover ring lip assembly extending upward (Fig. 2a, 2b) from the annular body (155) and a cover ring lip assembly (155) extending toward the target (139, fig. 1), the top surface disposed above the support surface (104), and the cover ring lip assembly (155) disposed between the support surface and the one or more shield port (181, fig. 1).
Like Rasheed Lavitsky teaches a cover ring to protect the substrate support from sputter deposits. Lavitsky teaches that a cover ring meeting the requirements of claims 1 is well known and operable in a sputtering apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the cover ring of Lavitsky as the cover ring in the sputtering apparatus of Rasheed with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed element were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cover ring lip assembly of Rasheed by providing the cover ring lip assembly extending toward the target, the top surface disposed above the support surface, and the cover ring lip assembly disposed between the support surface and the one or more shield port, as taught by Lavitsky, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have only expected predictable results and because it would reduce the formation of sputter deposits on the peripheral walls of the substrate support and overhanding edge of the substrate (col. 5, ln. 30-35).
Rasheed does not teach a flow path disposed between the cover lip ring assembly and the shield lip assembly.
Young teaches a flow path disposed between the cover lip ring assembly and the shield lip assembly (col. 10 ln. 45-55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cover ring lip assembly of Rasheed by providing a flow path disposed between the cover lip ring assembly and the shield lip assembly, as taught by Young, because it would inhibit the flow of process deposits onto the substrate support and platform housing and restricts buildup of deposits on the mating surface of the deposition ring and cover ring which would otherwise cause them to stick to one another or to the peripheral overhanging edge of the substrate (col. 10, ln. 50-55).
Regarding claim 2, Rasheed teaches the shield includes at least one shadow surface (525) configured to shadow the one or more shield ports (116) from material sputtered from the target (col. 10, ln. 50-60).
Regarding claim 3, Rasheed teaches the at least one shadow surface (525) is one shadow surface that extends around an inner side of the shield (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Rasheed teaches the at least one shadow surface (525, Fig. 5) is a plurality of discontinuous shadow surfaces corresponding to a respective shield port of the at least one or more shield ports (116).
Regarding claim 5, Rasheed teaches the adapter (142) includes an upper adapter portion and a lower adapter portion, the least one first gas inlet port (139) being formed through the lower adapter portion (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Rasheed teaches the shield includes an upper shield shoulder (near 535, fig. 5) and a lower shield shoulder (near 530);
and the adapter (142) includes an upper adapter shoulder engaged with the upper shield shoulder and a lower adapter shoulder (360) engaged with the lower shield shoulder (Near 530, FIG. 5),
wherein the chamber (365) is disposed between the lower shield shoulder and the upper shield shoulder (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Rasheed teaches wherein the one or more shield ports (116, Fig. 5) are disposed between an upper shield shoulder (near 535) and a lower shield shoulder (near 530).
Regarding claim 8, Rasheed teaches a second gas inlet port (630, Fig. 6) formed in the housing at a location behind the shield (138), wherein a second gas assembly (142) is configured to inject a second gas behind the shield through the second gas inlet port (630, fig. 6, col. 11, ln. 28-48).
Regarding claim 9. Rasheed teaches the second gas is Argon. Claim 9 is an apparatus claim. The requirement that the second gas is argon is intended use and/or a material worked upon which does not receive weight in an apparatus claim. MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, Lavitsky and Young as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2010/0252416).
Regarding claim 10, Rasheed does not teach the target is a concave target and the lower surface is a surface of a protruding edge region of the concave target.
Liu teach the target is a concave target and the lower surface is a surface of a protruding edge region of the concave target (Fig. 3a, 3b).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the target of Rasheed by providing the target is a concave target and the lower surface is a surface of a protruding edge region of the concave target, as taught by Liu, because it would improve film uniformity of films deposited [0001].
Claims 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed (US 9,177,763) in view of Lavitsky (US 10,998,172) and Young (US 8,668,815).
Regarding claim 11, Rasheed teaches a process kit assembly for a process station, comprising:
a cover ring (148) and a cover ring lip assembly (col. 5, ln. 1-32) comprising a top surface (Fig. 1), the cover ring lip assembly (148) comprises an inner ring and an outer ring separated from one another by an upper portion (Fig. 1), and the inner ring and outer ring extend downwardly from the upper portion with a gap is disposed between the inner ring and the outer ring, and sized to interleave with the shield lip assembly (138, fig. 1, col. 5, ln. 1-32);
a shield (138), including:
a lower shield portion configured to interleave with the cover ring (148, Fig. 1);
a shield port (510) extending from an inner side (143, 525) to an outer side (near 505) of an upper shield portion of the shield, the shield port disposed over the top surface of the cover ring (148, Fig. 5);
the upper shield portion, including:
a shadow surface (525) formed on and extending from the inner side (143, 525) of the upper shield portion, the shadow surface configured to shadow the shield port (510/116, fig. 5) from sputtering deposits;
an upper shield shoulder (near 535) formed on the outer side;
a lower shield shoulder (near 530) formed on a lower end of the upper shield portion and having a shield lip assembly;
and wherein the upper shield portion is engageable with an adapter (142) to form an annular chamber around the outer side between the upper shield shoulder (near 535) and the lower shield shoulder (near 530, Fig. 5) wherein the cover ring lip assembly is configured to interleave with the shield lip assembly of the lower shield portion. (col. 5, ln. 1-32).
Rasheed does not teach a cover ring comprising a top surface, an annular body and a cover ring lip assembly extending upward from the annular body. Rasheed does not teach a flow path disposed between the cover ring lip assembly and the shield lip assembly.
Lavitsky directed to a sputtering apparatus teaches a cover ring comprising a top surface an annular body and a cover ring lip assembly extending upward (Fig. 2a, 2b) from the annular body (155).
Like Rasheed Lavitsky teaches a cover ring to protect the substrate support from sputter deposits. Lavitsky teaches that a cover ring meeting the requirements of claims 11 is well known and operable in a sputtering apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the cover ring of Lavitsky as the cover ring in the sputtering apparatus of Rasheed with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cover ring lip assembly of Rasheed by providing a cover ring comprising a top surface, an annular body and a cover ring lip assembly extending upward from the annular body, as taught by Lavitsky, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have only expected predictable results and because it would reduce the formation of sputter deposits on the peripheral walls of the substrate support and overhanding edge of the substrate (col. 5, ln. 30-35).
Rasheed does not teach a flow path disposed between the cover lip ring assembly and the shield lip assembly.
Young teaches a flow path disposed between the cover lip ring assembly and the shield lip assembly (col. 10 ln. 45-55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cover ring lip assembly of Rasheed by providing a flow path disposed between the cover lip ring assembly and the shield lip assembly, as taught by Young, because it would inhibit the flow of process deposits onto the substrate support and platform housing and restricts buildup of deposits on the mating surface of the deposition ring and cover ring which would otherwise cause them to stick to one another or to the peripheral overhanging edge of the substrate (col. 10, ln. 50-55).
Regarding claim 12, Rasheed teaches the upper shield portion includes an upper end configured (625) to form a dark space gap (630) between the upper end and a target (114).
Regarding claim 13, Rasheed teaches the shield port (116) is positioned between a bottom-most surface of a target (114) and the top surface of the cover ring (148) when the shield and cover ring are disposed within the processing station (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 14, Rasheed teaches the shadow surface (525, Fig. 5) extends around the inner side above the port (116, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Rasheed teaches the shield port (116, Fig. 5) is disposed between the upper shield shoulder (near 535) and the lower shield shoulder (near 530).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant submits that Rasheed does not teach a cover ring with an inner ring and outer ring separated by an upper portion because Rasheed teaches the cover ring 148 includes protrusions on either side of the inner upwardly extending u shaped portion of the bottom of shield 138.
The Examiner takes the position that Rasheed refers to an innermost protrusion (Fig. 1, col. 5, ln. 22-30) as singular protrusion it would suggest that the innermost protrusion shown in figure 1 is a ring shaped. In light of this the Examiner maintains that Rasheed teaches the cover ring with inner protrusion and outer protrusion are rings.
Applicant submits that the flow path is not taught by the cited prior art.
The Examiner does not agree because Young teaches a flow path between cover ring 170 and shield 224 would provide the advantage of the cover ring sticking to the substrate platform by preventing deposition thereon. The skilled artisan looking to reduce deposits of a sputtering system would be led to Young and its flow path.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to replace the ring of Rasheed with the recessed ring 154 of Lavitsky, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here the Examiner notes all three prior art references teach cover rings with unique advantages for solving discrete problems. A skilled artisan would find it natural to explore different configurations of a cover ring to address specific process problems. As all the features of Applicant’s claim are taught by prior art cover rings, the Examiner finds that the combination of specific features along with cited adequate and advantageous motivation would be proper for the obviousness inquiry.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant submits that Liu cannot cure the deficiency of the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not agree because no deficiency has been found.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant submits that neither of Young, Rasheed or Lavitsky teach the cover ring as required by claim 11.
The Examiner disagrees. The rejection set out above addresses each requirement of Applicant’s cover ring assembly.
Applicant submits there is no suggestion to replace the planar protective ring of Rasheed with the rings of Lavitsky and/or the flow path of Young.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the combination of the cited prior art references is supported by the advantages detailed above which are cited from the prior art references. A skilled artisan would recognize that the advantages brought from the prior art and their respective cover rings would allow appropriate combination of elements from cited prior art cover rings for the obviousness inquiry.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached on 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794