DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to method, classified in C23C16/52.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to apparatus, classified in C23C16/45544.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus is useable for a materially different process such as a surface treatment or etch process.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification,
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and
- the inventions require a different field of search (e.g. different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Leon Radomsky on January 7, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 Shimabukuro (2021/0388500) in view of Rathnasinghe (2020/0312633).
Shimabukuro teaches a method comprising:
- placing a wafer on a step of a carrier ring in a vacuum enclosure, see Fig. 2 and related text, where a backside surface of the wafer contacts the step – see related text wherein the backside is contacting the step of the ring (124) and is exposed to the deposition region that is below the substrate [0035],
- and depositing a film on the exposed portion – as per above [0035],
- depositing a semiconductor device on the front side of the wafer – see [0060] wherein the entirety of the method includes depositing a semiconductor device over the front surface of the substrate [0060].
The teachings include the ring comprising a bottom surround an opening, a lower top surface of the step (see portion holding substrate), an inner surface (see surfacing that surrounds the substrate as depicted in Fig. 2) but does not teach that the inner surface is inclined as claimed. Rathnasinghe teaches, however, that it is known to have a chamfered edge of a carrier (edge) ring in order to facilitate better alignment of a substrate in a process system [0066]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to chamfer (i.e. form an inclination / taper as claimed) the carrier ring of Shimabukuro as Rathnasinghe teaches that such an inclination would improve the centering/alignment of the substrate (while not limiting, the instant specification teaches the same benefit of the inclination / slope /chamfer).
Regarding claim 2, the claim and prior art are not limiting from depositing the device before or after the backside film as described. In regard to the use of a different vacuum chamber – Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to use different vacuum chambers for different processes. It is particularly noted that the prior art teaches the use of the chamber for a backside deposition and there is no specific support for the same chamber being capable of forming the device.
Regarding claim 3, the teachings include silicon nitride and a memory device [0053].
Regarding claim 4, the process gas is supplied through the opening in the carrier ring, see wherein plasma zones 150 are formed (Fig. 2) and [0038].
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings do not include a particular taper angle, but per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B. selecting the size and/or shape of an object is obvious without a showing of criticality. To set the taper angle at 10-60 degrees would have been obvious without a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 6, the inner surface is flat as depicted.
Regarding claims 7-9, regarding claim 7, the shape of the carrier ring is, per the combined art, the same as that claimed, but, further to the contour and the requirements of claims 8 and 9, the MPEP as applied per claim 5 addresses modification of size and shape – changing the shape of the contour is not criticality, as particularly set forth by the disparate claimed shapes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. While generally size and shape of elements of are in some cases obvious based on routine selection, the specificity of the ring as per claim 10 is non-obvious over any prior art and not merely a routine adaption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712