DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the alternating concave portions and convex portions extend to the bottom u-shaped portion” recited by amended claims 1 and 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claims 1 and 7 each recites a limitation “the alternating concave portions and convex portions extend to the bottom u-shaped portion”. There is no support in the Specification nor Drawings that the ‘concave and convex portions’ extend to the “bottom u-shaped portion” of the shield [138]. Claims 2-6 and 8-14 are also rejected as depending on claims 1 or 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riker et al (US 2009/0308739) in view of Yamada et al (US 5,744,016) and Bottomfield (US 6,506,312).
With respect to claims 1 and 3, Riker discloses a sputter apparatus (i.e. physical vapor deposition) configured for sputter depositing nitrides of Ti, Ta, and W (Abstract; para 0003-0005 and 0031), wherein fig. 1 depicts the sputter apparatus comprises: a chamber [100] with a target [142], and grounded shields (i.e. process kit shield) [180],[186] of stainless steel supporting a collimator [110] that all may be coupled to an “electrical power source” (para 0031-0037), and fig. 8 showing the process kit shield [180],[186] of fig. 1 as a “monolithic” or single-piece construction (para 0058); since the process kit shield [180],[186] is grounded, made of stainless steel, and may be coupled to an electrical power source, the process kit shield [180],[186] is electrically conductive. Fig. 1 further depicts the process kit shield [180],[186] comprises an electrically conductive body having an inner sidewall defining a central opening, wherein the electrically conductive body extends downward to a bottom u-shaped portion configured to support a cover ring [102] extending about the central opening (para 0039).
However Riker is limited in that the inner sidewall comprising alternating concave and convex portions is not suggested.
Yamada teaches in fig. 2 a sputter apparatus (i.e. physical vapor deposition chamber) comprising a target [4], and a process kit shield [5],[7] having a collimation plate (i.e. collimator) [6], wherein the process kit shield [5],[7] having a body with an inner sidewall defining a central opening (col. 4, lines 28-54), similar to fig. 1 of Riker. Yamada further depicts the inner sidewall comprises waves (i.e. alternating concave portions and convex portions) having a period of the concave portions of 5 mm (col. 4, lines 47-54), with it being held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05, I); Yamada teaching the 5 mm is prima facie obviousness to the claimed “6 mm” [especially the “about 6 mm” (emphasis added) from Applicant’s Specification para 0028]. Yamada cites the advantage of the alternating concave portions and convex portions as increasing surface area “for suppress nitriding of said target” (e.g. suppressing reactive gas undesirably reacting with the target) (col. 3, lines 12-13; col. 4, lines 47-51; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the alternating concave portions and convex portions of Yamada into the inner sidewall of Riker to gain the advantage of increasing surface area to suppress gas reactivity, such as nitriding of the target of Riker.
However the combination of references Riker and Yamada is further limited in that the alternating concave portions and convex portions extending to the bottom u-shaped portion is not specifically suggested.
Bottomfield teaches in fig. 1 a physical vapor deposition apparatus comprising: a chamber [100] with a target [2], and a shield system (i.e. process kit shield) [10] of metal having a bottom u-shaped portion (col. 4, lines 13-14; col. 5, lines 43-67; col. 6, lines 1-3), similar to the physical vapor deposition apparatus and process kit shield of the combination of references. Bottomfield further depicts in figs. 3-4 texturing an “inner side” (i.e. inner sidewall) [11] wall of the process kit shield [10] to extend to the bottom u-shaped portion (also similar to the combination of references), wherein the texturing is “projections, cavities, channels or grooves, partitions, or combinations thereof or equivalents can be made to be of any height or depth” formed in a surface of the inner sidewall that “may be of any shape” (col. 7, lines 49-67; col. 8, lines 1-27), which includes the shape of the combination of references. Bottomfield cites the advantage of extending the texturing to the bottom u-shaped portion of the process kit shield [10] to reduce an amount of microcontaminates inside the chamber of the clean environment of the vapor deposition chamber (col. 3, lines 18-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the alternating concave portions and convex portions of the combination of references to the bottom u-shaped portion as taught by Bottomfield to gain the advantage of reducing an amount of microcontaminants in the chamber, in addition to increasing surface area to suppress gas reactivity as desired by the combination of references.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of references Riker, Yamada, and Bottomfield each depicts the process kit shield [180],[186] (of Riker) or [5],[7] (of Yamada) or [10] (of Bottomfield) is cylindrical or annular (Riker, fig. 10C, para 0039 and 0060; Yamada, col. 5, lines 2-16; Bottomfield, fig. 4).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of references Riker, Yamada, and Bottomfield has: Yamada teaching the process kit shield [5],[7] having the concave portions (fig. 2), and Riker teaching to have a RF (radio frequency) power source (para 0011 and 0035), with radio frequency having a known range between 30 kHz to 300 GHz, which encompasses about 27-162 MHz. In addition the claim requirement of “each of the concave portions is configured to allow a plasma sheath to form within the concave portions at an RF frequency of about 27 to about 162 MHz and at a chamber pressure of about 60 to about 140 millitorr” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed concave portions, with the concave portions of the combination of references fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner.
With respect to claim 5, Yamada further depicts in fig. 2 the inner sidewall of the body of the process kit shield [5],[7] includes the waves comprising the alternating concave portions and convex portions, wherein the waves are disposed between a target [4] and a substrate holder (i.e. substrate support) [8] in which the process kit shield [5],[7] is inserted into a vacuum chamber (i.e. process chamber) [1] (col. 4, lines 28-54).
With respect to claim 6, Yamada further depicts in fig. 2 the waves are arranged in a repeating pattern wherein each wave has a period of 5 mm (col. 4, lines 47-54).
Claims 7-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riker et al (US 2009/0308739) in view of Yamada et al (US 5,744,016), Mosley (US 5,431,799), and Bottomfield (US 6,506,312).
With respect to claims 7 and 12, Riker discloses a substrate processing apparatus configured for sputter depositing (i.e. physical vapor deposition) nitrides of Ti, Ta, and W (Abstract; para 0003-0005 and 0031), wherein fig. 1 depicts the substrate processing apparatus comprises: a chamber body [100] with a substrate support [152] facing a target [142], and grounded shields (i.e. process kit shield) [180],[186] of stainless steel supporting a collimator [110] that may be coupled to an “electrical power source” (para 0031-0037), and fig. 8 showing the process kit shield [180],[186] of fig. 1 as a “monolithic” or single-piece construction (para 0058); since the process kit shield [180],[186] is grounded, made of stainless steel, and may be coupled to an electrical power source, the process kit shield [180],[186] is electrically conductive. Fig. 1 further depicts the process kit shield [180],[186] comprises an electrically conductive body having an inner sidewall defining a central opening, wherein the electrically conductive body extends downward to a bottom u-shaped portion configured to support a cover ring [102] extending about the central opening (para 0039).
However Riker is limited in that the inner sidewall comprising alternating concave and convex portions is not suggested.
Yamada teaches in fig. 2 a sputter apparatus (i.e. physical vapor deposition chamber) comprising a target [4], and a process kit shield [5],[7] having a collimation plate (i.e. collimator) [6], wherein the process kit shield [5],[7] having a body with an inner sidewall defining a central opening (col. 4, lines 28-54), similar to fig. 1 of Riker. Yamada further depicts the inner sidewall comprises waves (i.e. alternating concave portions and convex portions) having a period of the concave portions of 5 mm (col. 4, lines 47-54), with it being held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05, I); Yamada teaching the 5 mm is prima facie obviousness to the claimed “6 mm” [especially the “about 6 mm” (emphasis added) from Applicant’s Specification para 0028]. Yamada cites the advantage of the alternating concave portions and convex portions as increasing surface area “for suppress nitriding of said target” (e.g. suppressing reactive gas reacting with the target) (col. 3, lines 12-13; col. 4, lines 47-51; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the alternating concave portions and convex portions of Yamada into the inner sidewall of Riker to gain the advantage of increasing surface area to suppress gas reactivity, such as nitriding of the target of Riker.
However the combination of references Riker and Yamada is further limited in that an RF power source to form a plasma is not specifically suggested.
Mosely teaches in fig. 1 a sputter apparatus (i.e. substrate processing apparatus) comprising a chamber body [10] with a lower platform holder (i.e. substrate support) [16], a target [14] with a DC, RF, or DC/RF power coupled to the chamber body [1] opposite the substrate support [16], a process kit shield [46],[48] having a body with one or more sidewalls defining a central opening, and a collimation filter (i.e. collimator) [40] (col. 3, lines 48-51 and 59-68; col. 4, lines 1-45; col. 6, lines 37-40), similar to the substrate processing apparatus of Riker and Yamada. Mosely further teaches the process kit shield [46],[48] is connected to ground potential (col. 4, lines 29-35), also similar to Riker. Mosely also teaches that an RF power source is present to inductively coupled plasma into the chamber body [10] (col. 3, lines 48-51), with the advantage of providing a means to pump energy into the plasma to increase a number of inert gas ions available to sputter the target to increase throughput in addition to reducing an amount of material that is deposited on the filter (i.e. collimator) (col. 5, lines 20-22 and 31-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RF power source to the process kit shield as taught by Mosely into the substrate processing apparatus of the combination of references to gain the advantages of providing a means to pump energy into the plasma to increase a number of gas ions available to sputter the target to increase throughput in addition to reducing an amount of material that is deposited on the collimator.
However the combination of references Riker, Yamada, and Mosely is further limited in that the alternating concave portions and convex portions extending to the bottom u-shaped portion is not specifically suggested.
Bottomfield teaches in fig. 1 a physical vapor deposition apparatus comprising: a chamber [100] with a target [2], and a shield system (i.e. process kit shield) [10] of metal having a bottom u-shaped portion (col. 4, lines 13-14; col. 5, lines 43-67; col. 6, lines 1-3), similar to the physical vapor deposition apparatus and process kit shield of the combination of references. Bottomfield further depicts in figs. 3-4 texturing an “inner side” (i.e. inner sidewall) [11] wall of the process kit shield [10] to extend to the bottom u-shaped portion (also similar to the combination of references), wherein the texturing is “projections, cavities, channels or grooves, partitions, or combinations thereof or equivalents can be made to be of any height or depth” formed in a surface of the inner sidewall that “may be of any shape” (col. 7, lines 49-67; col. 8, lines 1-27), which includes the shape of the combination of references. Bottomfield cites the advantage of extending the texturing to the bottom u-shaped portion of the process kit shield [10] to reduce an amount of microcontaminates inside the chamber of the clean environment of the vapor deposition chamber (col. 3, lines 18-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the alternating concave portions and convex portions of the combination of references to the bottom u-shaped portion as taught by Bottomfield to gain the advantage of reducing an amount of microcontaminants in the chamber, in addition to increasing surface area to suppress gas reactivity as desired by the combination of references.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of references Riker, Yamada, Mosley, and Bottomfield has: Yamada teaching in fig. 2 the target [4] having a diameter of 300 mm and a substrate [9] on the substrate support [8] having a diameter less than the diameter of the target [4] (col. 4, lines 36-41; col. 5, lines 2-4), similar to Riker’s fig. 1 and Mosley’s fig. 1, resulting in a ratio of the diameter of the target [4] to the diameter of the substrate [9] to be greater than 1, which is considered to read on about 1.4 (MPEP 2144.05, I). In addition, it has been held that inclusion of material or article (i.e. substrate) worked upon by a structure (i.e. substrate processing apparatus) claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (MPEP 2115); thus the substrate processing apparatus of the combination of references is fully capable of having a variety of diameters of the substrate [9], including a diameter resulting in the ratio to be about 1.4.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of references Riker, Yamada, Mosley, and Bottomfield has: Yamada teaching the process kit shield [5],[7] having the concave portions (fig. 2); Riker teaching to have a RF (radio frequency) power source (para 0011 and 0035), with radio frequency having a known range between 30 kHz to 300 GHz, which encompasses about 27-162 MHz; and Mosely teaching to have the RF power source operate with a frequency of 40 MHz (col. 5, lines 20-30). In addition the claim requirement of “each of the concave portions is configured to allow a plasma sheath to form within the concave portions at an RF frequency of about 27 to about 162 MHz and at a chamber pressure of about 60 to about 140 millitorr” relates to the intended functioning of the claimed concave portions, with the concave portions of the combination of references fully capable of functioning in the claimed manner.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of references Riker, Yamada, Mosely, and Bottomfield teaches: the target to have a diameter of about 300-330 mm (Yamada, col. 5, lines 2-4; Mosely, col. 5, lines 4-5), and a distance between the target and substrate to be about 110 mm and about 94 mm (Yamada, col. 4, lines 52-54; Mosely, col. 5, lines 9-11), with the height of the process kit shield [5],[7] greater than the distance as shown in Yamada’s fig. 2 (and also Riker’s fig. 1 and Mosley’s fig. 1). Using the about 110 mm and about 94 mm as estimated minimum heights of the shield and a diameter of the target being about 300-330 mm results in a ratio range of at least 300:110=2.73 to 330:94=3.51, with it being held that: A) in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists; or B) a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05, I). Yamada discloses a height of the inner sidewall of the process kit shield [5],[7] is expressed in units of length of about 110 mm or ~3.93 inches in order to increase the surface area (col. 4, lines 44-59), and depicts that the process kit shield [5],[7] has a diameter slightly larger than the diameter of the target [4] that is 300 mm (col. 5, lines 2-4), resulting in the process kit shield [5],[7] having an inner surface area expressed in the units of length squared of about 103620 mm2 or ~161 in2 (which does not include added surface area of waves in shield portion [5] at col. 4, lines 47-51); Yamada also discloses the process kit shield [5],[7] has the inner surface area of 103620 mm2, with the target [4] having the diameter of 300 mm (col. 5, lines 3-4); thus a surface area of a principal surface of the target [4] is 77437 mm2, resulting in a ratio of the inner surface area to the surface area of the principal surface being 1.34.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of references Riker, Yamada, Mosley, and Bottomfield has: Riker, Yamada, and Bottomfield each depicting the process kit shield [180],[186] (of Riker) or [5],[7] (of Yamada) or [10] (Bottomfield) is cylindrical or annular (Riker, fig. 10C, para 0039 and 0060; Yamada, col. 5, lines 2-16; Bottomfield, fig. 4).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, the combination of references Riker, Yamada, Mosley, and Bottomfield has: Yamada depicting in fig. 2 the target [4] having a diameter of 300 mm and the process kit shield [5],[7] (including collimator [6]) has a height of approximately 110 mm (col. 4, lines 52-54; col. 5, lines 2-4), with the height of 110 mm for the process kit shield [5],[7] approximate to a distance between the target [4] and substrate [9]. Regarding a particular diameter of the substrate [9], it has been held that inclusion of material or article (i.e. substrate) worked upon by a structure (i.e. substrate processing apparatus) claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (MPEP 2115); thus the substrate processing apparatus of the combination of references is fully capable of having a variety of diameters of the substrate [9], including 300 and 450 mm as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 5-7 filed 10/14/2025 are addressed below.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 5-7 with respect to amended independent claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Riker, Yamada, and Bottomfield (for claim 1) and Riker, Yamada, Mosely, and Bottomfield (claim 7) being applied in the current rejections.
Double Patenting Rejections
Terminal Disclaimers were filed and approved on 10/14/2025 for US Patent Nos. 10, 692,706 and 11,915,917; the previous rejections have been withdrawn.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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 at (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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794