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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/14/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2009/0283036 to Duong et al in view of United States Patent No. 6033480 to Chen et al in view of US 2010/0122655 to Tiner et al in view of US 2005/0196971 to Sen.
In regards to Claim 10, 12-14, 16, Duong teaches an exclusion ring/shadow frame 200 Fig. 2A (generically 148 Fig. 1) for a chemical vapor deposition tool 100 Fig. 1 [0014]; the exclusion ring 200 comprising: an body (body of 200), the body including an outer peripheral edge, an inner peripheral edge, an upper surface and a lower surface; an open central region 202 that is inward from the inner peripheral edge; a flange extending from the lower surface adjacent to the outer peripheral edge, as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
374
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Duong also teaches a first alignment structure/alignment insert on the flange (202 Fig. 2A-2D, 202 being placed in the flange as per Fig. 2D, the specific embodiment of the alignment structure as shown in Fig. 4A-4C), the first alignment structure including a guiding surface (as shown in the tapered walls of 403 [0053]), the guiding surface sloping at an angle greater than 90 degrees relative to the upper surface of the annular body (as the tapering is arranged vertically), wherein the first alignment structure has a cross section in a plane parallel to a plane of the upper surface (as shown in Fig. 4A, the cross section of the first alignment structure being rectangular, as shown by the general structure of 401 and 412 in Fig. 4A [0033-0060].
PNG
media_image2.png
357
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Duong does not expressly teach the exclusion body is an annular body.
Chen teaches a shadow ring 24 Fig. 2, 3, the shadow ring being analogous to that of Duong, the shadow ring having an alignment recess/indentation 36 which is shaped to fit around an alignment pin 32 having a sharply angled shape with an angle of approximately 20° from the major axis from the pin (Col. 6 lines 15-25), the pin and shadow ring being aligned in this manner (Col. 5 line 10-Col. 7 line 33).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Duong by making the shadow ring annular, i.e., circular, as per the teachings of Chen, as they are analogous structures.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of shadow ring/exclusion ring that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a circular or annularly shaped body instead of a rectangular body. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. The resulting structure would have an annular body with an open central region that is radially inward from the inner peripheral edge, thus fulfilling the limitations in the claim.
Duong does not expressly teach a step of moving the alignment structures, while in contact, during alignment.
However, Tiner teaches a modification where one alignment structure is a ball 614 and the other alignment structure is a cavity with sloped sides 610, where the ball engages the sloped surface of the cavity, and the sloped surface slides down the surface of the ball for alignment and engagement [0064]. The description of the process does include contact, maintaining contact, movement, and alignment of the alignment structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the alignment protrusion of Duong with the ball of Tiner where the ball slides into engagement with the associated cavity alignment structure. Tiner establishes that such an alignment structure is suitable for the express purpose of aligning shadow frames.
The above prior art does teach a portion of the flange that extends over a part of the wafer and a portion of the flange that contacts an upper portion of the platen. See Tiner Fig. 1 for example. The above prior art does not teach a portion of the flange that contacts a lower portion of the platen. However, Sen teaches a method for using a shadow ring wherein the shadow ring includes a flange having a first surface contacting a lower portion of the platen (880c), a second surface contacting an upper portion of the platen (section to the right of 880c), and a fifth surface extending over a part of the wafer (portion x) having a sixth surface at the upper side facing away from the fifth surface (Fig. 8A). It is noted that the wafer is located in a recessed region. However, this is considered a design alternative and Tiner teaches the instance where the wafer is located on the upper portion of the platen, the same upper portion the flange rest upon (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a shadow ring and platen having corresponding stepped structures because Sen teaches this is a suitable manner for supporting a shadow ring.
In regards to claim 11 Duong states the alignment structures can be swapped [0059]. Either way, the protruding structure is seated within the cavity structure.
In regards to Claim 15, Duong in view of Chen do not expressly teach the cross section of the first alignment structure is square.
However, this is considered a change of shape from a rectangle.
It has been held that change of shape is generally recognized as being within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that Applicant has not made any showing of criticality in the shape of the alignment structure that would tend to point toward the non-obviousness of freely selecting a square instead of a rectangle. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/25 with respect to claims 10-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. These claims do not contain the limitation specifying the plurality of orifices extending from the fifth surface to the sixth surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The previously cited prior art is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the claimed limitation regarding a plurality of orifices extending into the fifth surface to the sixth surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759