DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 24 March 2025, 26 March 2025, 22 May 2025, 23 September 2025, 06 November 2025, 05 December 2025, 27 May 2026, and 25 June 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
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.
1. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0017812 to Ramesh et al. (“Ramesh”) in view of US 6,503,331 to Yudovsky et al. (“Yudovsky”).
With regard to Claims 1 and 3, Ramesh teaches a processing tool for depositing photoresist on a substrate within a chamber comprising a pedestal 3680 and an opposing showerhead 3700, the showerhead comprising isolated first and second fluidic paths (3712, 3714) arranged along upstream and sidewall surfaces of the showerhead, respectively (see Abstract; FIGs. 6-7; ¶¶ [0055], [0067], [0078]). Ramesh does not expressly teach a shadow ring as claimed. Yudovsky is similarly directed to apparatus for film deposition on pedestal-supported substrates, and teaches a shadow ring (101) around the perimeter of the pedestal which covers the periphery of the substrate to mask the edges and backside thereof from deposition (see Abstract; FIGs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 3; Col. 3, Lns. 44-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated a shadow ring in the apparatus of Ramesh, as taught by Yudovsky, in order to mask the substrate edge and backside from deposition.
With regard to Claim 2, Ramesh teaches channels for inert purge gas (see ¶¶ [0017], [0066]); however the reference does not expressly teach an edge purge flow channel as claimed. Yudovsky teaches an edge purge flow channel 120 for introducing inert gas into the deposition chamber between the shadow ring 101 and substrate pedestal 117 (see FIGs. 1A, 1B; Col. 5, Lns. 13-20; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated purge gas channels in the apparatus of Ramesh, as taught by Yudovsky, in order to introduce purge gas in the deposition chamber with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Tim Meeks can be reached at 571-272-1423. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights