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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined herein on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that claims 1-4, 8-9, 16, and 18-20 are so broad as to read on every ring structure ever disclosed in the prior art, for at least the following reasons:
The preamble “surrounding a wafer in a plasma chamber” does not limit the claims structurally and is regarded as merely an intended use of the claimed ring. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
The word “segments” throughout the claims is construed in light of the disclosure to mean demarcated parts of a unitary edge ring (portions, parts thereof), not discrete/distinct/individual structures (instant PG-Pub par. [0029], [0030]: segments are “zones” of the edge ring; [0034]: “zones and ring segments are used interchangeably in this application to refer to certain sections or portions of the edge ring”).
The above claims do not exclude the possibility of the “first thickness” and the “second thickness” being equal.
The “transition region” of claims 2-4, 16, and 19 do not explicitly or implicitly require any additional structure, thus can be met by arbitrarily demarcated parts of any ring structure.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that claims 11-12 are so broad as to read on every plasma chamber with upper electrode, pedestal, and edge ring ever disclosed in the prior art, for at least the reasons as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narahara (US Pub. 2007/0227441).
Regarding claim 1, Narahara teaches an edge ring surrounding a wafer in a plasma chamber ([0104] and Figs. 13-15, ring-shaped top portion of susceptor #4 surrounding wafer #12), the edge ring comprising: a first pair of edge ring segments (Fig. 15, any two parts of #51 between #53), wherein each one of the first pair of edge ring segments has a first thickness (see Fig. 16); and a second pair of edge ring segments (Fig. 15, any two #53), wherein each one of the second pair of edge ring segments has a second thickness (see Fig. 16), the first pair of edge ring segments oriented opposite to each other and the second pair of edge ring segments oriented opposite to each other (see Fig. 15), wherein each one of the first pair of edge ring segments is oriented adjacent to each one of said second pair of edge ring segments (see Fig. 15), and each one of the second pair of edge ring segments is oriented adjacent to each one of said first pair of edge ring segments (see Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 2, Narahara teaches wherein a transition region is defined at interfaces between said first thickness and said second thickness (Fig. 16, tapered portions between #51 and #53).
Regarding claim 3, Narahara teaches wherein said transition region at an interface extends a transition length between a first transition point and a second transition point, said first transition point is defined at said first thickness and said second transition point is defined at said second thickness (see Fig. 16, upper/lower points of tapered regions).
Regarding claim 6, Narahara teaches wherein said first thickness is greater than said second thickness (Fig. 16, #51 higher than #53).
Regarding claim 7, Narahara teaches wherein each one of said first pair of edge ring segments having a first size, and each one of said second pair of edge ring segments having a second size, wherein said first size is smaller than said second size (Fig. 15, arc length of #51 segments appears smaller than arc length of #53).
Regarding claim 8, Narahara teaches wherein said first pair of edge ring segments is aligned along a horizontal axis, and said second pair of edge ring segments is aligned along a vertical axis (see annotated Fig. 15 below), wherein each one of said first pair of edge ring segments is disposed to cover an area of the edge ring that is at an acute angle about the horizontal axis (see below, acute angle from top/bottom axis to center of #51 segment).
PNG
media_image1.png
635
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Narahara teaches wherein said first pair of edge ring segments define a first zone and a third zone, and said second pair of edge ring segments define a second zone and a fourth zone (see Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 16, Narahara teaches an edge ring for surrounding a wafer in a plasma chamber ([0104] and Figs. 13-15, ring-shaped top portion of susceptor #4 surrounding wafer #12), the edge ring comprising: a first zone having a first thickness (Fig. 15, 12 o’clock portion of #51; Fig. 16 for larger thickness); a second zone having a second thickness (Fig. 15, 1:30 area #53; Fig. 16 for smaller thickness); a third zone defined opposite to the first zone and having the first thickness (Fig. 15, 6 o’clock portion of #51); a fourth zone defined opposite to said second zone and having the second thickness (Fig. 15, 7:30 area #53), each of said second and said fourth zones defined adjacent to and between said first and said third zones (see Fig. 15); and a transition region defined between each consecutive pair of the first, the second, the third and the fourth zones (Fig. 16, tapered portions between #51 and #53).
Regarding claim 17, Narahara teaches wherein said first thickness is greater than said second thickness (see Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 18, Narahara teaches wherein the first and the third zones are aligned along a horizontal axis and said second and said fourth zones are aligned along a vertical axis (see annotated Fig. 15 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
635
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Narahara teaches wherein said transition region extends for a length between a first transition point defined at the first thickness and a second transition point defined at the second thickness (see Fig. 16, upper/lower points of tapered regions).
Regarding claim 20, Narahara teaches wherein each of said first and said third zones having a first size and each of said second and fourth zones having a second size, wherein said first size is less than said second size (Fig. 15, arc length of #51 segments appears smaller than arc length of #53).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varadarajan (US Pub. 2016/0079057).
Regarding claim 11, Varadarajan teaches a plasma chamber ([0032] and Fig. 2, processing chamber #12) for processing a wafer (Fig. 2, substrate #18), comprising: an upper electrode defined in a top portion for providing process gases into the plasma chamber (Fig. 1, gas distribution device #14 with related plasma equipment #46); a pedestal defined in a bottom portion and oriented opposite to said upper electrode (Fig. 2, substrate support #16), the pedestal defining a wafer receiving region thereon (see Fig. 2); an edge ring received adjacent to and surround said wafer receiving region (Fig. 3, edge ring #104 surrounding #18), said edge ring includes, a first pair of edge ring segments, wherein each one of said first pair of edge ring segments has a first thickness; and a second pair of edge ring segments, wherein each one of said second pair of edge ring segments has a second thickness, the first pair of edge ring segments oriented opposite to each other and the second pair of edge ring segments oriented opposite to each other, wherein each one of the first pair of edge ring segments is oriented adjacent to each one of said second pair of edge ring segments, and each one of the second pair of edge ring segments is oriented adjacent to each one of said first pair of edge ring segments (as explained in Claim Interpretation, this part of the claim can be met by any arbitrary subdivision of the edge ring of the prior art).
Regarding claim 12, Varadarajan teaches wherein said edge ring is positioned in the plasma chamber such that said first pair of edge ring segments and said second pair of edge ring segments are in defined orientations (as explained in Claim Interpretation, this part of the claim can be met by any arbitrary subdivision of the edge ring of the prior art).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narahara (US Pub. 2007/0227441) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 16-20 above, further in view of Suzuki (US Patent 6,447,853).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6-9, and 16-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Narahara does not explicitly teach wherein said transition length extends between about 1 mm and about 3 mm.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein edge ring features are sized in the range of 1 mm to 3 mm (Suzuki – C6, L27-38: 1mm width, intervals of 2mm ; C7, L9-15: 3mm width, spaced 2mm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the transition region length of Narahara to the ranges of Suzuki since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narahara (US Pub. 2007/0227441) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 16-20 above, further in view of Huang (US Pub. 2023/0066418).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6-9, and 16-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Narahara does not explicitly teach wherein said transition region includes an inclination of between about 30° and about 40° between said first transition point and said second transition point of said interface (although Fig. 16 is strongly suggestive of such an angle, it is not explicitly disclosed).
However, Huang teaches wherein an inclination of a focus ring is normally less than 50° (Huang – [0056]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the transition region inclination of Narahara to the range of Huang since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narahara (US Pub. 2007/0227441) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 16-20 above, further in view of Landis (US Pub. 2005/0099135).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 6-9, and 16-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Narahara does not teach wherein said first thickness is defined to be between about 6.7 mm and about 7.7 mm, and said second thickness is defined to be between about 6.3 mm and about 7.0 mm.
However, Landis teaches wherein a focus ring can have a thickness from 0.5 to 10 mm (Landis – [0030]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the first and second thicknesses of the edge ring of Narahara to the ranges of Landis since courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.sd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US Pub. 2011/0155058) in view of Narahara (US Pub. 2007/0227441).
Regarding claim 11, Carlson teaches a plasma chamber for processing a wafer ([0014] and Fig. 1B, apparatus #100 with chamber #150), comprising: an upper electrode defined in a top portion for providing process gases into the plasma chamber ([0037] and Fig. 1B, inlet #152 comprises a cathode for CCP); a pedestal defined in a bottom portion and oriented opposite to said upper electrode ([0017] and Fig. 1B, substrate support #110), the pedestal defining a wafer receiving region thereon (Fig. 1B, for substrate #118); an edge ring received adjacent to and surround said wafer receiving region (Fig. 1B, edge ring #114).
Carlson does not teach wherein said edge ring includes, a first pair of edge ring segments, wherein each one of said first pair of edge ring segments has a first thickness; and a second pair of edge ring segments, wherein each one of said second pair of edge ring segments has a second thickness, the first pair of edge ring segments oriented opposite to each other and the second pair of edge ring segments oriented opposite to each other, wherein each one of the first pair of edge ring segments is oriented adjacent to each one of said second pair of edge ring segments, and each one of the second pair of edge ring segments is oriented adjacent to each one of said first pair of edge ring segments.
However, Narahara teaches an edge ring comprising: a first pair of edge ring segments (Fig. 15, any two parts of #51 between #53), wherein each one of the first pair of edge ring segments has a first thickness (see Fig. 16); and a second pair of edge ring segments (Fig. 15, any two #53), wherein each one of the second pair of edge ring segments has a second thickness (see Fig. 16), the first pair of edge ring segments oriented opposite to each other and the second pair of edge ring segments oriented opposite to each other (see Fig. 15), wherein each one of the first pair of edge ring segments is oriented adjacent to each one of said second pair of edge ring segments (see Fig. 15), and each one of the second pair of edge ring segments is oriented adjacent to each one of said first pair of edge ring segments (see Fig. 15).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Carlson apparatus to comprise the edge ring structure of Narahara in order to improve uniformity of film deposition, especially on a wafer edge (Narahara – [0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Carlson does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Narahara teaches wherein said edge ring is positioned in the plasma chamber such that said first pair of edge ring segments and said second pair of edge ring segments are in defined orientations (see Figs. 15-16).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Carlson apparatus to comprise the edge ring structure of Narahara in order to improve uniformity of film deposition, especially on a wafer edge (Narahara – [0011]).
Regarding claim 13, Carlson does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Narahara teaches wherein said first thickness is greater than said second thickness (Fig. 16, #51 higher than #53), wherein each of said first pair of edge ring segments is defined by a first size and each of said second pair of edge ring segments is defined by a second size (see Fig. 15.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Carlson apparatus to comprise the edge ring structure of Narahara in order to improve uniformity of film deposition, especially on a wafer edge (Narahara – [0011]).
Regarding claim 14, Carlson does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Narahara teaches wherein said first size is smaller than said second size (Fig. 15, arc length of #51 segments appears smaller than arc length of #53).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Carlson apparatus to comprise the edge ring structure of Narahara in order to improve uniformity of film deposition, especially on a wafer edge (Narahara – [0011]).
Regarding claim 15, Carlson does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
While Narahara does not explicitly teach wherein said first size is equal to said second size, Narahara does teach wherein the size of the modified regions is a result effective variable. Particularly, that factors such as spot facing depth, pocket width, and thermal capacity (via size) can be adjusted to compensate for various wafer parameters such as crystal orientation and shape to improve layer thickness distribution uniformity (Narahara – [0103]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the first/second size through routine experimentation in order to compensate for various wafer parameters such as crystal orientation and shape to improve layer thickness distribution uniformity (Narahara – [0103]). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sherstinsky (US Patent 6,350,320) teaches an edge ring with regions of varying thickness to accommodate gas flow (Fig. 8). Nezu (US Pub. 2004/0074605) teaches an edge ring with circumferential features for adjusting a plasma sheath (Fig. 2-6). Fodor (US Pub. 2005/0078953) teaches an edge ring with regions of protrusions (Fig. 4A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights