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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 23, 2026 has been entered.
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 and 5-9 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 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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, Lavitsky and Young applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 5,470,451).
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).
Rasheed teaches shield port 116 that directs gas either at the target in figure 2 or toward the substrate in figure 5. Rasheed teaches port 116 is shadowed by the shield 138 in figure 5. Rasheed does not teach a shield port that is shadowed and directs gas at a target.
Kobayashi directed to a sputtering apparatus teaches a shield port (12a, fig. 4-6) in shield 6 directs a first gas (11) at a target (4) and is shadowed by a diffusion plate (15, fig. 5; col. 5) because it would uniformly discharge the gas into the processing space (col. 5, ln. 20-25). Therefore Kobayashi teaches directing a gas at a target by a shadowed gas port is operable in the sputtering arts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a shield port to direct a first gas at a target as the shield port in 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 as claimed 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 shield port of Rasheed by providing a shield port directs a first gas at a target, as taught by Kobayashi, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed 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.
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).
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), Young (US 8,668,815) and Kobayashi (US 5,470,451)
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, 116) 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) wherein a shield port (510, 116) directs a first gas when the shield (138) and cover ring (148, fig. 1) are disposed within the processing station (Fig. 1).
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).
Rasheed teaches shield port 116 that directs gas either at the target in figure 2 or toward the substrate in figure 5. Rasheed teaches this port 116 is shadowed by the shield 138 in figure 5. Rasheed does not teach a shield port that is shadowed and directs gas at a target.
Kobayashi directed to a sputtering apparatus teaches a shield port (12a, fig. 4-6) in shield 6 directs a first gas (11) at a target (4) and is shadowed by a diffusion plate (15, fig. 5; col. 5) because it would uniformly discharge the gas into the processing space (col. 5, ln. 20-25). Therefore Kobayashi teaches directing a gas at a target by a shadowed gas port is operable in the sputtering arts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a shield port to direct a first gas at a target as the shield port in 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 as claimed 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 shield port of Rasheed by providing a shield port directs a first gas at a target, as taught by Kobayashi, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed 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.
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 June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant is directed to the advisory action filed June 18, 2026 for a reply as these arguments are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant’s arguments filed June 1, 2026 are moot. Applicant is directed to the new grounds of rejection set out above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights