DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riker (2016/0145735) in view of Wang (2021/0071294) and Johhanson (2018/0142340).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Riker teaches a process chamber comprising:
- a chamber body with side walls and a top plate, see Fig. 1, and target 142, and processing space 106, but does not teach a top plate supporting the target,
- a substate support – see 152,
- a lower shield disposed in the interview volume about the substrate support, see shield 180, Riker exemplifies the lower shield electrically coupled to the chamber wall [0025] and does not teach the claimed ceramic spacer.
In regard to the top plate and target, Wang teaches that a processing chamber including a target, side shields (120) and a collimator 135 include a top plate that supports a target, see Fig. 1 and particularly [0023]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the top plate of Wang to support the target as an optional configuration to the target of Riker.
In regard to the ceramic spacer, Riker teaches the shield is part of the process kit [0020], Johanson teaches a process kit that includes a shield portion, such as 157 and also shadow ring 155, the shadow ring includes a ceramic insulator 255 such that the ring does not contact the chamber side walls directly, see [0023-26]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include the ceramic insulator of Johanson in the system of Riker as it would allow for a floating shield as taught by Johanson. The portions of the shadow ring act as an equivalent shield and also surround the substate holder as the shield of Riker.
Regarding claim 2, the lower shield has lower and upper portions as depicted, as well as flange 182.
Regarding claim 4, Riker teaches a plurality magnets outside of and about the chamber, see 172, while not teaching electromagnetics, specifically, Wang teaches the same [0025], 172 but also further 194 and 196 [0029-32].
Regarding claim 5, the teachings further include collimator 110, the lower shield is connected to the chamber below the upper portion of the collimator.
Regarding claim 9, as per the components noted in Johanson, the spacer is understood as a ring to effect the separation of the noted shadow ring.
- the teachings per claim 1 include the lower shield as claimed and ceramic spacer as well as the flange 182 per claim 2, in regard to the lip, the arguments over claim 13 are applied in the same manner.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riker, Wang and Johhanson and in further view of Alberti (2023/0245854); the rejection also made in further view of Wang (5,879,523).
The teachings of Riker et al are described above, while the upper flange as depicted rests on a ledge extending from the chamber body, there are no teachings of ceramic screws. Alberti teaches that ceramic screws are useful to connect two components wherein they are to be electrically isolated, see connection of the Faraday shield to a dielectric window [0039]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the ceramic screws of Alberti to the apparatus of Riker as initially it is known to use connectors to attach components and Alberti teaches that ceramic screws are known and useful.
In addition to the above teachings, Wang teaches that it is useful to attached components within a chamber by connectors such as screws, see Fig. 3 and col 3, lines 12-35. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply screws as taught by Wang to connect two chamber parts together. Further per Wang, ceramic screws are available, Alberti supports that they are useful in spite of the concerns of Wang with specifically using ceramic screws.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riker, Wang and Johanson in view of Riker (2018/0025895).
Riker does not teach that the collimator is electrically isolated, but Wang teaches a collimator 118 per Fig. 1 as well and teaches that it is effective to isolate the collimator from the chamber but coupled to the upper shield [0027-29]. The teachings do not include a lower shield power supply, however, Riker ‘895 teaches that in a PVD system it is useful to have multiple power supplies such as including a bias voltage supply for the lower shield [0054]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the lower shield power supply of Riker ‘895 as a useful addition to the apparatus of Riker et al as it would allow more flexibility in the process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are 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. The office agrees with applicants comments and such modification is not obvious.
Claims 10-20 are allowed. The claimed location of the ceramic spacer is not obvious based on the applied or any known prior art and any modification would be based on impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, applicants have overcome the objection and 112 rejections by amendment. In regard to the prior art – the Office does not agree that Johanson’s insulator is not applicable to the device of Riker. In each case there is a usefulness of the insulator, and Riker specifically teaches as an embodiment an electrically floating shield as per [0025], contradictory to applicants statement in the third paragraph of section C of the arguments. Therefore, one would reasonably apply the insulator for the reason of electrically floating the lower shield as desirable by Riker.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights