DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s Restriction/Election filed on 07/22/2026.
Currently claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 04/29/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that there would be no serious search and/or examination burden. This argument is not found persuasive because the inventions of the different groups are directed to distinct subject matter that would require a different field of search and/or different search queries, such that a serious burden on the Examiner would result if restriction were not required (see the requirement of record). Accordingly, the requirement is deemed proper and is hereby made FINAL. Claims 14-19 of the non-elected invention of Group II are withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1–13 are examined on the merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024 and 11/12/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the lower inner shield is disposed over plate support feature.” It is suggested that this read “… disposed over the plate support feature” to supply the missing article (antecedent basis for “the plate support feature” is otherwise provided later in the claim).
Claim 2 recites “each row of the one or more concentric rows include at least one perforation”; for grammatical agreement, “include” should read “includes.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regard as their invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, claim 5 recites that the first gap “is sized to form a dark space,” and claim 10 recites that “the first gap and second gap are less than a plasma dark space.” The dimension of a plasma “dark space” is not a fixed quantity; it varies with the process conditions (e.g., chamber pressure, applied power, gas species, and plasma density), and neither the claims nor the specification sets forth a fixed standard by which the dark-space dimension - and therefore the required gap size - is to be measured. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claimed gap size cannot be ascertained, and the claims are indefinite as reciting a term of degree without a standard (MPEP 2173.05(b)). For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as requiring a gap sufficiently small to suppress plasma formation within the gap. Clarification or amendment reciting a determinate dimensional standard is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US 2023/0107392 A1 (Bera) and further in view of US 2018/0151325 A1 (Allen).
Regarding claim 1, Bera discloses, a substrate processing system (Fig. 1; [0027] – [0037]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
474
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“a biasable gas distribution plate (116) disposed between a first volume (119) and a second volume (125) of a process chamber,” which is Bera’s electrically biased ion blocker plate disposed between the plasma cavity (first volume) and the process gap (second volume) (116; ion blocker plate; Fig. 1; [0027]); (119; plasma cavity/first volume; Fig. 1; [0028]); (125; process gap/second volume; Fig. 1; [0031]).
“a first surface (114) facing the first volume,” which is Bera’s back surface of the ion blocker plate facing the plasma cavity (114; back surface; Fig. 1; [0028]).
“a second surface (118) facing the second volume, disposed opposite of the first surface,” which is Bera’s front surface of the ion blocker plate facing the process gap (118; front surface; Fig. 1; [0031]).
“a plurality of perforations (117) extending between the first surface and the second surface,” which are Bera’s plurality of openings through the ion blocker plate providing fluid communication between the plasma cavity and the process gap (117; plurality of openings; Fig. 1; [0031]).
“a substrate support comprising a substrate supporting surface that is disposed in the second volume,” which is Bera’s substrate support and substrate support surface disposed in the process gap (104; substrate support; Fig. 1; [0027]); (106; substrate support surface; Fig. 1; [0033]).
“a first power source (122) coupled to the biasable gas distribution plate and configured to electrically bias the biasable gas distribution plate relative to a ground,” which is Bera’s DC power source coupled to and applying a bias to the ion blocker plate relative to the grounded housing (122; DC power source; Fig. 1; [0036]); (128; housing/ground; Fig. 1; [0036]).
“a radio frequency (RF) power source (120) coupled to an electrode (110), wherein the electrode is configured to generate a plasma in the first volume during processing in the process chamber when an RF signal is provided from the RF power source to the electrode,” which is Bera’s RF power supply coupled to the showerhead electrode to generate a capacitively coupled plasma in the plasma cavity (120; RF power supply; Fig. 1; [0027]); (110; showerhead electrode; Fig. 1; [0027]).
“an isolation structure (124) disposed between the plate support feature and the second surface of the biasable gas distribution plate,” which is Bera’s ceramic ring electrically isolating the ion blocker plate from the housing (124; ceramic ring; Fig. 1; [0027]).
But Bera fails to teach explicitly, an upper inner shield comprising an upper shield surface that is positioned over the first surface; a lower inner shield comprising a lower shield surface, wherein the second surface of the biasable gas distribution plate is positioned over the lower shield surface; a distribution plate support comprising a plate support feature, wherein the lower inner shield is disposed over plate support feature;
However, in analogous art, Allen discloses, “an upper inner shield comprising an upper shield surface that is positioned over the first surface,” which is Allen’s grounded shield positioned over the plasma-facing surface (146; grounded shield; Fig. 1; [0026]).
PNG
media_image2.png
694
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“a lower inner shield (202) comprising a lower shield surface, wherein the second surface of the biasable gas distribution plate is positioned over the lower shield surface,” which is Allen’s cover-ring shield positioned on the substrate-facing side beneath the plate (202/154; cover ring; Figs. 1-2; [0028], [0041]).
PNG
media_image3.png
500
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“a distribution plate support comprising a plate support feature, wherein the lower inner shield is disposed over [the] plate support feature,” which is the supporting portion of Allen’s grounded shield / deposition ring on which the cover ring is supported (146/172; grounded shield / deposition ring support; Fig. 1 and 3; [0026], [0036]).
PNG
media_image4.png
738
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allen also teaches, “an isolation structure disposed between the plate support feature and the second surface of the biasable gas distribution plate,” which is Allen’s dielectric covering (306; dielectric covering; Fig. 3; [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bera and Allen before him/her, and to add shielding and distribution plate support, (1) because incorporating Allen’s grounded inner shield and isolated cover-ring shielding, together with the supporting and dielectric-isolation structure, around Bera’s biasable ion blocker plate confines the plasma to the first volume, suppresses parasitic/undesired plasma formation behind and around the biased plate, and protects chamber surfaces from deposition and arcing; (2) since the modification amounts to a simple combination/rearrangement of known plasma-processing shielding, support, and isolation components (MPEP 2144.04) placed into Bera’s chamber to perform their established functions; and (3) with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of a shielded, mechanically supported, and electrically isolated biasable gas distribution plate, since both Bera and Allen are directed to plasma substrate-processing systems employing biased components and dielectric isolation. Absent this teaching in Bera, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Allen while forming the plasma processing apparatus of Bera.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bera and Allen teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the upper inner shield is electrically coupled to ground,” which is Allen’s grounded shield electrically coupled to ground (146; grounded shield; Allen Fig. 1; [0026]).
Regarding claim 5 (examined as best understood in view of the § 112(b) rejection above), the combination of Bera and Allen teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 4, wherein a first gap is formed between the upper shield surface and the first surface, and the first gap is sized to form a dark space,” which is Allen’s gap between the shield and the adjacent surface sized to prevent arcing / parasitic plasma (238; gap (~5 mm); Allen Fig. 2; [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bera and Allen teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the upper inner shield is electrically isolated from the ground,” which is taught by Allen’s dielectric isolation of the shield/biased components (306; dielectric covering; Allen Fig. 3; [0056]); see also Bera’s ceramic ring (124; ceramic ring; Bera Fig. 1; [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bera and Allen teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the lower inner shield is electrically isolated from the ground,” which is Allen’s biased/electrically isolated cover ring (202; cover ring; Allen Fig. 2; [0042]) isolated by the dielectric covering (306; dielectric covering; Allen Fig. 3; [0056]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bera and Allen teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the lower inner shield is disposed on the plate support feature,” which is Allen’s cover ring supported on the grounded shield / deposition-ring support (146/172; grounded shield / deposition ring; Allen Fig. 3; [0026], [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bera and Allen teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein an electrode in the substrate support is coupled to a power source,” which is Allen’s substrate support having an electrode coupled to the first RF bias power source (110; substrate support; Allen Fig. 1; [0017]); (142; first RF bias power source; Allen Fig. 1; [0018]).
Regarding claim 10 (examined as best understood in view of the § 112(b) rejection above), the combination of Bera and Allen teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 1, further comprising: a first gap formed between the biasable gas distribution plate and the upper inner shield; and a second gap between the biasable gas distribution plate and the lower inner shield, wherein the first gap and second gap are less than a plasma dark space,” which are Allen’s dark-space-limited gaps between the plate/shield structures (238; gap (~5 mm); Allen Fig. 2; [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Bera teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the biasable gas distribution plate rests on to the isolation structure,” in that Bera’s ion blocker plate is carried on/against the ceramic ring isolation (116 on 124; ion blocker plate on ceramic ring; Bera Fig. 1; [0018], [0020]).
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bera and Allen as applied to claim 1 and and further in view of US 2023/0033655 A1 (Akashi).
Regarding claim 2, Bera discloses, “the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of perforations extends from the first volume to the second volume,” which is Bera’s openings extending through the plate between the plasma cavity and the process gap (117; plurality of openings; Bera Fig. 1; [0031]).
But the combination of Bera and Allen fails to teach explicitly, a first pattern of two or more perforations arranged along a circular path disposed over a peripheral region of the substrate support disposed in the second volume, the first pattern further comprising: one or more concentric rows of perforations, wherein each row of the one or more concentric rows is spaced radially from a center of the biasable gas distribution plate,each row of the one or more concentric rows include at least one perforation,
However, in analogous art, Akashi discloses, “a first pattern of two or more perforations arranged along a circular path disposed over a peripheral region of the substrate support disposed in the second volume,” which is Akashi’s through-holes arranged outside a central portion (i.e., over a peripheral region) of the shielding plate above the sample stage (170; through holes; Akashi Fig. 3; [0053]).
“one or more concentric rows of perforations, wherein each row of the one or more concentric rows is spaced radially from a center of the biasable gas distribution plate, each row … include[s] at least one perforation,” which is Akashi’s radially-arranged rows of through-holes spaced from the plate center (170/171; through holes; Akashi Figs. 3–4; [0053] – [0054]).
PNG
media_image5.png
450
450
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
458
452
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bera, Allen, and Akashi before him/her—where Bera and Allen teach the biasable gas distribution plate, the shields, and the electrical feedthrough, and Akashi teaches the peripheral, radially-spaced (concentric) arrangement of the plate’s through-holes and combine them together, (1) because arranging the perforations in concentric rows over a peripheral region, as taught by Akashi, tailors the spatial distribution of the plasma species delivered to the substrate and improves processing uniformity across the wafer; (2) since the modification amounts to a simple rearrangement/duplication of the known through-hole pattern of Akashi (MPEP 2144.04); and (3) with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of spatially-tuned delivery of plasma species through the biasable plate. Absent this teaching in Bera, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Akashi (for the perforation pattern) and to Allen (for the electrical power feedthrough) while forming the plasma processing apparatus of Bera.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bera and Allen fails to teach explicitly, the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of perforations are disposed within a peripheral region and further comprise: concentric rows of perforations, wherein each row of the concentric rows is spaced radially from a center of the biasable gas distribution plate.
However in analogous art, Akashi teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of perforations are disposed within a peripheral region and further comprise: concentric rows of perforations, wherein each row of the concentric rows is spaced radially from a center of the biasable gas distribution plate,” which is Akashi’s peripheral, radially-spaced rows of through-holes (170/171; through holes; Akashi Figs. 3–4; [0053] – [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bera, Allen, and Akashi before him/her—where Bera and Allen teach the biasable gas distribution plate, the shields, and the electrical feedthrough, and Akashi teaches the peripheral, radially-spaced (concentric) arrangement of the plate’s through-holes and combine them together, (1) because arranging the perforations in concentric rows over a peripheral region, as taught by Akashi, tailors the spatial distribution of the plasma species delivered to the substrate and improves processing uniformity across the wafer; (2) since the modification amounts to a simple rearrangement/duplication of the known through-hole pattern of Akashi (MPEP 2144.04); and (3) with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of spatially-tuned delivery of plasma species through the biasable plate. Absent this teaching in Bera, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Akashi (for the perforation pattern) and to Allen (for the electrical power feedthrough) while forming the plasma processing apparatus of Bera.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bera, Allen, and Akashi teaches, “the substrate processing system of claim 12, further comprising an electrical power feedthrough, wherein the electrical power feedthrough is electrically coupled to the biasable gas distribution plate, and electrically coupled to a power source,” which is Allen’s electrical feedthrough (conductive rod through the feedthrough hole, and conductive pin) coupling the bias power source to the biased plate/ring, applied to Bera’s biasable ion blocker plate and its DC/LF bias source (162; feedthrough hole; Allen Figs. 3–4; [0033]); (158; conductive rod; Allen Fig. 1; [0030]); (302; conductive pin; Allen Fig. 3; [0056]); (122; DC power source; Bera Fig. 1; [0036]).
Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bera and Allen as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2015/0017810 A1 (Guha).
Regarding claim 3, Bera teaches the substrate processing system of claim 1 but employs a capacitively coupled showerhead electrode;
But the combination of Bera and Allen fails to teach explicitly, the electrode comprises one or more inductive coils disposed around the first volume.
However in analogous art, Guha teaches, “the electrode comprises one or more inductive coils disposed around the first volume,” in that Guha teaches an inductively coupled plasma coil disposed about/above the upper sub-chamber (the plasma-generation volume) (533; ICP coil; Guha Fig. 5; [0091]); (109; coil; Guha Fig. 1; [0023]).
PNG
media_image7.png
438
650
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
452
544
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bera, Allen and Guha before him/her where Bera teaches generating the plasma in the first volume with a capacitively coupled showerhead electrode and Guha teaches an inductively coupled plasma coil disposed around the plasma-generation volume and form the electrode comprising one or more inductive coils disposed around the first volume, (1) because using Guha’s inductive coil as the plasma-generating electrode provides a well-known alternative plasma source for generating plasma in the first volume with independent control of plasma density; (2) since the modification amounts to a simple substitution of one known plasma-generating electrode (an inductive coil) for another (a capacitive showerhead electrode) to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 / 2144.06); and (3) with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of plasma generation in the first volume. Absent this teaching in Bera, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Guha while forming the plasma processing apparatus of Bera.
Allowable Subject Matter
No claim is presently indicated as containing allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record, US 2023/0107392 A1 (Bera), discloses an electrically biasable, perforated gas distribution plate (ion blocker plate) disposed between a plasma-generation volume and a substrate-processing volume, a first power source biasing that plate relative to ground, an RF-powered electrode generating a plasma in the first volume, a substrate support, and ceramic isolation of the plate from the chamber housing.
The Examiner notes, however, that the specific process-kit arrangement recited in independent claim 1—an upper inner shield positioned over the first surface, a distinct lower inner shield beneath the second surface, and a distribution plate support having a plate support feature over which the lower inner shield is disposed, with the isolation structure between that plate support feature and the second surface—is the feature most likely to distinguish over the art of record; the present rejection relies on Allen to supply that shielding/support/isolation framework by combination. Should Applicant traverse the combination, an amendment more precisely reciting the structural and dark-space (small-gap) relationships among the upper inner shield, the lower inner shield, the distribution plate support, and the isolation structure—in determinate terms that also resolve the 112(b) issue - may place the claims in condition for allowance if not shown by the art. An interview to advance prosecution is invited.
Examiner’s Note (Additional Prior Arts)
The Examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure:
US 2012/0205046 A1 (Janakiraman) - An apparatus and method are provided for controlling the intensity and distribution of a plasma discharge in a plasma chamber. In one embodiment, a shaped electrode is embedded in a substrate support to provide an electric field with radial and axial components inside the chamber. In another embodiment, the face plate electrode of the showerhead assembly is divided into zones by isolators, enabling different voltages to be applied to the different zones. Additionally, one or more electrodes may be embedded in the chamber side walls — relevant to the claimed isolation structures and biasable perforated plate.
US 2011/0294303 A1 (Sankarakrishnan) - An apparatus for plasma processing a substrate is provided. The apparatus comprises a processing chamber, a substrate support disposed in the processing chamber, a shield member disposed in the processing chamber below the substrate support, and a lid assembly coupled to the processing chamber. The lid assembly comprises a conductive gas distributor coupled to a power source, and an electrode separated from the conductive gas distributor and the chamber body by electrical insulators. The electrode is also coupled to a source of electric power. The substrate support is formed with a stiffness that permits very little departure from parallelism. The shield member thermally shields a substrate transfer opening in the lower portion of the chamber body. A pumping plenum is located below the substrate support processing position, and is spaced apart therefrom. — relevant to the shield/isolation/plate-support framework.
US 2011/0120649 A1 (Satou) - A plasma processing apparatus comprises a plate placed in the vacuum processing vessel above and opposed to the wafer, the plate having a through hole through which a first processing gas is introduced; a first and second cylindrical member arranged vertically and adjacently; and means communicating with the gap between the first and second cylindrical member for supplying a second processing gas. The wafer is processed while the first processing gas and the second processing gas having different compositions are supplied. — relevant to the plate support and shield/cover limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S M SOHEL IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (408) 918-7566. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM, M-F, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S M SOHEL IMTIAZ/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
08/08/2026
Prosecution Insights