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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (CN 115110042 A).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Fan et al. teach a deposition ring comprising: a ring-shaped body having an upper portion and a lower portion, each of the upper portion and the lower portion independently comprising an inner diameter surface and an outer diameter surface defining an upper portion thickness and a lower portion thickness, and a top surface and a bottom surface defining an upper portion height and a lower portion height, the upper portion height greater than the lower portion height; and a plurality of circumferentially spaced notches formed along an edge of the inner diameter surface of the lower portion, wherein at least a portion of the upper portion defines a convex shape. (Figs. 2A-2C; Machine Translation)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Regarding claim 2, Fan et al. teach wherein the ring-shaped body has an inner diameter in a range of from 10 inches to 12 inches. (See Figs. 2A-2C; Machine Translation - FIG. 2A is a top view of the deposition ring 180 shown in FIG. 1 . The deposition ring 180 includes a body 200 that is annular or ring-shaped. For example, the main body 200 can be regarded as a ring-shaped structure with a circular opening inside. The body 200 includes an inner diameter 210 and an outer diameter 220 . Here, the inner diameter can be regarded as the diameter of the circular opening inside the main body 200, or can be regarded as the inner circumference diameter of the annular structure of the main body 200 . On the other hand, the outer diameter may be the diameter of the outer circumference of the annular structure of the body 200 . In some embodiments, the length of the inner diameter 210 ranges from about 294.10 mm to about 294.20 mm. For example, in some embodiments the diameter 210 has a length of 294.15 mm. In some embodiments, the length of the inner diameter 210 is at least less than about 294.488 mm.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Fan et al. teach wherein the deposition ring consists essentially of aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃). (See Figs. 2A-2C; Machine Translation - In some embodiments, the body 200 may be made of a ceramic material, such as alumina (Al2O3), and formed through a sintering process.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
Regarding claim 6, Fan et al. teach wherein each of the plurality of the circumferentially spaced notches is tapered inwardly. (Figs. 2A, 2B)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
Regarding claim 7, wherein the plurality of circumferentially spaced notches includes three notches. (Figs. 2A)
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0395198 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
Regarding claim 8, Allen et al. teach a processing chamber comprising: a target backing plate in a top portion of the processing chamber; a substrate support in a bottom portion of the processing chamber, the substrate support having a support surface spaced a distance from the target backing plate to form a process cavity; a deposition ring positioned at an outer periphery of the substrate support; and a shield forming an outer bound of the process cavity, wherein the shield has a top shield end in the top portion of the processing chamber and a bottom shield end in the bottom portion of the processing chamber, the top end positioned around a periphery of the target backing plate and the bottom end positioned around a periphery of the substrate support, the bottom end including a contoured surface having a complementary shape to the outer portion of the deposition ring. (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0026-0031)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
Regarding claim 9, wherein the processing chamber is a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber configured to deposit a titanium nitride (TiN) film directly on a semiconductor substrate positioned on the substrate support. (Paragraph 0001, 0017)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, wherein the bottom portion of the processing chamber comprises a bottom gas flow path between the shield and the deposition ring. (See Fig. 1; Paragraph 0022)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (CN 115110042 A) in view of Wu et al. (WO 2018/226683 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the ring-shaped body has an outer diameter in a range of from 13 inches to 15 inches.
Regarding claim 3, Wu et al. teach that the deposition ring should have an outer diameter in a range of from 13 inches to 15 inches. (Paragraph 0049 - [0049] In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an outer diameter of about 12.7 to about 12.9 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an inner diameter of about 1 1 .4 to about 1 1 .6 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has a width of about 0.55 to about 0.65 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an overall height of about 0.20 to about 0.3 inches. In some embodiments, the leg portion 220 of the inner deposition ring 140 has a width of about 0.75 to about 1 .5 inches. In some embodiments, an inner wall of the leg portion 220 has a diameter of about 12.5 to about 12.6 inches. In some embodiments, the lip 223 has a width of about 0.05 to about 0.08 inches.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a sum of the upper portion height and the lower portion height is in a range of from 0.2 inches to 0.3 inches.
Regarding claim 4, Wu et al. teach wherein a sum of the upper portion height, and the lower portion height is in a range of from 0.2 inches to 0.3 inches. (Pargraph 0049 – [0049] In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an outer diameter of about 12.7 to about 12.9 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an inner diameter of about 1 1 .4 to about 1 1 .6 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has a width of about 0.55 to about 0.65 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an overall height of about 0.20 to about 0.3 inches. In some embodiments, the leg portion 220 of the inner deposition ring 140 has a width of about 0.75 to about 1 .5 inches. In some embodiments, an inner wall of the leg portion 220 has a diameter of about 12.5 to about 12.6 inches. In some embodiments, the lip 223 has a width of about 0.05 to about 0.08 inches.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Wu et al. is that it allows for minimizing contamination. (Paragraph 0025)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Fan et al. by utilizing the features of Wu et al. because it allows for minimizing contamination.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (U.S. PPGPUB. 2020/0395198 A1) in view of Li et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2011/0209985 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the top portion of the processing chamber comprises a top gas flow path between a periphery of the target backing plate and the top of the shield.
Regarding claim 10, Li et al. teach wherein the top portion of the processing chamber comprises a top gas flow path between a periphery of the target backing plate and the top of the shield. (See Fig. 1A – gas inlet 112; Paragraphs 0057, 0058)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Li et al. is that it allows for maintaining gas and providing gas to the chamber. (Paragraphs 0057, 0058)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Allen et al. with the features of Li et al. because it allows for maintaining gas and providing gas to the chamber.
Claim(s) 12-14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0395198 A1) in view of Fan et al. (CN 115110042 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the deposition ring comprises a ring-shaped body having an upper portion and a lower portion, each of the upper portion and the lower portion independently comprising an inner diameter surface and an outer diameter surface defining an upper portion thickness and a lower portion thickness, and a top surface and a bottom surface defining an upper portion height and a lower portion height, the upper portion height greater than the lower portion height, and at least a portion of the upper portion defines a convex shape.
Regarding claim 12, Fan et al. teach the deposition ring comprises a ring-shaped body having an upper portion and a lower portion, each of the upper portion and the lower portion independently comprising an inner diameter surface and an outer diameter surface defining an upper portion thickness and a lower portion thickness, and a top surface and a bottom surface defining an upper portion height and a lower portion height, the upper portion height greater than the lower portion height, and at least a portion of the upper portion defines a convex shape. (Figs. 2A-2C; Machine Translation)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the deposition ring comprises a plurality of circumferentially spaced notches formed along an edge of the inner diameter surface of the lower portion.
Regarding claim 13, Fan et al. teach wherein the deposition ring comprises a plurality of circumferentially spaced notches formed along an edge of the inner diameter surface of the lower portion. (Figs. 2A-2C)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the ring-shaped body has an inner diameter in a range of from 10 inches to 12 inches.
Regarding claim 14, Fan et al. teach wherein the ring-shaped body has an inner diameter in a range of from 10 inches to 12 inches. (See Figs. 2A-2C; Machine Translation - FIG. 2A is a top view of the deposition ring 180 shown in FIG. 1 . The deposition ring 180 includes a body 200 that is annular or ring-shaped. For example, the main body 200 can be regarded as a ring-shaped structure with a circular opening inside. The body 200 includes an inner diameter 210 and an outer diameter 220 . Here, the inner diameter can be regarded as the diameter of the circular opening inside the main body 200, or can be regarded as the inner circumference diameter of the annular structure of the main body 200 . On the other hand, the outer diameter may be the diameter of the outer circumference of the annular structure of the body 200 . In some embodiments, the length of the inner diameter 210 ranges from about 294.10 mm to about 294.20 mm. For example, in some embodiments the diameter 210 has a length of 294.15 mm. In some embodiments, the length of the inner diameter 210 is at least less than about 294.488 mm.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the deposition ring consists essentially of aluminum oxide (Al2O₃).
Regard claim 17, Fan et al. teach wherein the deposition ring consists essentially of aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃). (See Figs. 2A-2C; Machine Translation - In some embodiments, the body 200 may be made of a ceramic material, such as alumina (Al2O3), and formed through a sintering process.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Fan et al. is that it allows for capturing excess material. (See Machine Translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Allen et al. by utilizing the features of Fan et al. because it allows for capturing excess material.
Claim(s) 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. in view of Fan et al. as applied to claims 12-14, 17 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (WO 2018/226683 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the ring-shaped body has an outer diameter in a range of from 13 inches to 15 inches.
Regarding claim 15, Wu et al. teach that the deposition ring should have an outer diameter in a range of from 13 inches to 15 inches. (Paragraph 0049 - [0049] In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an outer diameter of about 12.7 to about 12.9 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an inner diameter of about 1 1 .4 to about 1 1 .6 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has a width of about 0.55 to about 0.65 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an overall height of about 0.20 to about 0.3 inches. In some embodiments, the leg portion 220 of the inner deposition ring 140 has a width of about 0.75 to about 1 .5 inches. In some embodiments, an inner wall of the leg portion 220 has a diameter of about 12.5 to about 12.6 inches. In some embodiments, the lip 223 has a width of about 0.05 to about 0.08 inches.)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a sum of the upper portion height and the lower portion height is in a range of from 0.2 inches to 0.3 inches.
Regarding claim 16, Wu et al. teach wherein a sum of the upper portion height, and the lower portion height is in a range of from 0.2 inches to 0.3 inches. (Pargraph 0049 – [0049] In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an outer diameter of about 12.7 to about 12.9 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an inner diameter of about 1 1 .4 to about 1 1 .6 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has a width of about 0.55 to about 0.65 inches. In some embodiments, the inner deposition ring 140 has an overall height of about 0.20 to about 0.3 inches. In some embodiments, the leg portion 220 of the inner deposition ring 140 has a width of about 0.75 to about 1 .5 inches. In some embodiments, an inner wall of the leg portion 220 has a diameter of about 12.5 to about 12.6 inches. In some embodiments, the lip 223 has a width of about 0.05 to about 0.08 inches.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Wu et al. is that it allows for minimizing contamination. (Paragraph 0025)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Wu et al. because it allows for minimizing contamination.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatani et al. (JP 08-127870) in view of Fan et al. (CN 115110042 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Regarding claim 18, Nagatani et al. teach a processing method comprising: exposing a semiconductor substrate in a physical vapor deposition (PVD) processing chamber to a target comprising a titanium-containing material to deposit a titanium nitride (TiN) film directly on the semiconductor substrate. (See Abstract; Machine Translation)
The difference between Nagatani et al. and claim 18 is that the deposition ring is not discussed. (Claim 18)
Regarding claim 18, Fan et al. teach as discussed above the deposition ring. (See Fan et al. discussed above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the target sputters the titanium- containing material to the semiconductor substrate to deposit the titanium nitride (TiN) film.
Regarding claim 19, Nagatani et al. teach wherein the target sputters the titanium- containing material to the semiconductor substrate to deposit the titanium nitride (TiN) film. (See Abstract)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the semiconductor substrate is spaced a distance in a range of from 184 mm to 188 mm from the target.
Regarding claim 20, Nagatani et al. teach wherein the semiconductor substrate is spaced a distance in a range of from 184 mm to 188 mm from the target. (See Machine Translation - Experiments have confirmed that the distance between the substrate and the titanium target should be in the range of about 100 mm to about 300 mm in order to obtain the same film forming rate (36 nm / min))
The motivation for utilizing the features of Fan et al. is that it allows for capturing excess material. (See Machine Translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Nagatani et al. by utilizing the features of Fan et al. because it allows for capturing excess material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
September 11, 2026
