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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 19 June 2026.
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claim 1 is amended.
Drawings
Drawings objections discussed in the final rejection of 05 May 2026 are withdrawn in light of amendments to the Specification filed 19 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, is withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 19 June 2026 and Applicant’s remarks page 6-7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki et al. (US 2003/0089314 A1 hereinafter “Matsuki”) in view of Mehta et al. (US 2008/0276958 A1 hereinafter “Mehta”), Zhou et al. (US 2009/0269512 A1 hereinafter “Zhou”) and Eto et al. (US 2016/0284522 A1 hereinafter “Eto”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Matsuki teaches an upper electrode (comprising showerhead 20a, Fig. 3a, abstract, paragraph [0052], [0058]) for use in a substrate processing system (plasma CVD film-forming device, Fig. 2, paragraph [0049]), the upper electrode comprising:
a substrate-facing lower surface (as can be understood from Fig. 2, paragraph [0010], [0014]) that extends between a center and an outer-radius, wherein the substrate-facing lower surface includes a center region (comprising 24a, Fig. 3a), a concave outer region (see annotated Fig. 3a below), an edge region (see annotated Fig. 3a below), and a plurality of holes (not labeled in Fig. 3a, but is shown) configured to allow process gases to flow through the upper electrode (comprising 20a, Fig. 3a) (Fig. 2 shows the overall apparatus, paragraph [0006],[0010], [0084]);
a mid-radius is centered between the center and the outer-radius and lies within the concave outer region (see annotated Fig. 3a below);
the center region decreases in thickness from the center of the upper electrode radially outward to the thinnest portion of the concave outer region,
the thickness of the upper electrode increases from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge region (see annotated Fig. 3a below);
PNG
media_image1.png
475
817
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
453
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsuki does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the upper electrode is greatest at the center, the thickness of the upper electrode decreases continuously from the center radially out to a thinnest portion of the concave outer region, and the thickness of the upper electrode increases continuously from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge region, wherein the substrate-facing lower surface in the concave outer region is curvilinear, wherein the concave outer region extends to a radius that is less than a radius of 150 mm corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate, and wherein the thickness of the upper electrode in said center region, said concave outer region and said edge region is configured to improve profile tilting on the substrate during said high aspect ratio etching.
Examiner notes "wherein the thickness of the upper electrode in said center region, said concave outer region and said edge region is configured to improve profile tilting on the substrate during said high aspect ratio etching" is interpreted to mean that the thickness of the upper electrode is capable of providing an intended/desired effect on the profile tilting of the substrate.
However, Matsuki teaches various upper electrode profiles having varying thicknesses across a plasma-facing surface (Fig. 3a-3c) wherein changing the surface shape of the electrode affects the electric field distribution and the most suitable profile is selected according to the specifications of the showerhead, the RF power and other processing (i.e. film forming, operating) conditions (paragraph [0050], [0059]). In other words, Matsuki teaches that the surface shape (and thus the thickness defining the shape) of the electrode is a result-effective variable which affects the processing rate of the substrate.
Additionally, Mehta teaches an upper electrode (comprising ceiling electrode140, Fig. 1 and 2) suitable for use in an etching chamber or a CVD chamber (paragraph [0047]) wherein the upper electrode (140, Fig. 1 and 2) has a varying cross-sectional thickness or profile wherein the thickness of the upper electrode is greatest at the center, the thickness of the upper electrode decreases continuously from the center radially out to a thinnest portion of the concave outer region, and the thickness of the upper electrode increases continuously from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge of the upper electrode and the end of the concave outer region, wherein the substrate-facing lower surface in the concave outer region is curvilinear, wherein the profile of the upper electrode (140, Fig. 1 and 2) is experimentally determined based on test results of test substrates that are etched using a conventional flat upper/ceiling electrode and the arcuate profile (146, Fig. 2) of the upper electrode (140, Fig 1 and 2) and is shaped to compensate for the etch profile on the substrate obtained with processing the substrate using the flat electrode, resulting in uniform substrate processing (paragraph [0026]-[0027]). Mehta further teaches wherein the electrode can have a contour with a multi-radius arc (160, Fig. 4)(para. [0028]). Mehta further teaches that varying the profile of the upper electrode (i.e. shape and thickness of the upper electrode) varies/adjusts the plasma density across the surface of the substrate support to enable uniform processing (i.e. etch uniformity) across the substrate (paragraph [0024]-[0027]). In other words, Mehta teaches that the thickness of the substrate facing surface of an upper electrode is a known result-effective variable which affects plasma density and processing rate (i.e. etch rate) in a substrate processing chamber which ultimately affects the uniformity of substrate processing. Though Mehta teaches an example directed toward plasma etching, Mehta further teaches that the teachings/principles of the electrode (i.e. contoured ceiling electrode) could be applied in CVD (i.e. chemical vapor deposition or film deposition) applications, as would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (Mehta: paragraph [0047]).
See annotated Fig. 2 of Mehta below.
PNG
media_image3.png
565
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, Zhou teaches an upper electrode comprising a concave outer region (comprising 373, Fig. 3 and 4) wherein the concave outer region extends to a radius (R3, Fig. 4) that is less than a radius of 150 mm (R3 is 140mm to 145 mm) corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate (comprising substrate 304, Fig. 3 and 4) (para. [0051]-[0052]). Zhou teaches that such a configuration can enable providing a desired plasma intensity profile across the processing volume (comprising 318, Fig. 3) to reduce edge effects at the edge area of the substrate (para. [0048], [0050]). Examiner notes that teachings of Zhou apply to both plasma deposition and etching (para. [0059]).
PNG
media_image4.png
849
1234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Eto teaches that the shape/thickness of the upper electrode has an effect on the electric field lines and ultimately the trajectory/incline of the ions (i.e. profile tilting) and the processing shape of the substrate (para. [0005],[0037], [0046], see Fig. 2 and 4). In other words, Eto teaches that the shape/thickness of the upper electrode is a result-effective variable that also affects ion incline/trajectory which ultimately affects the processing shape of the substrate. Examiner notes that teachings of Eto apply to both plasma deposition and etching (para. [0056]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness and shape (i.e. concavity or convexity) of different plasma-facing/substrate facing surface regions (i.e. center, outer and edge regions) along a radial direction (i.e. from center to mid-radius to outer-radius) of the upper electrode such that the thickness of the upper electrode increases continuously from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge region, wherein the substrate-facing lower surface in the concave outer region is curvilinear, wherein the concave outer region extends to a radius that is less than a radius of 150 mm corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate and to further optimize the thickness to improve profile tilting because Matsuki and Mehta teach that the thickness of the upper electrode is a result-effective variable which ultimately affects plasma processing wherein optimizing or adjusting or controlling the plasma density across a substrate based on experimentally obtained test results enables uniform substrate processing (Mehta: paragraph [0025]-[0027]), because Zhou teaches/suggest providing a concave outer region extending to a radius that is less than a radius of 150 mm corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate is a known suitable alternative configuration of an upper electrode that can enable providing a desired plasma intensity profile across the processing volume to reduce edge effects at the edge area of the substrate, and because Eto teaches that the shape/thickness of the upper electrode also has an effect on the ion trajectory/incline which ultimately affects the processing shape of the substrate (i.e. profile tilt) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to adjust/optimize the thickness and shape of the upper electrode to optimize the trajectory of ions across the substrate. Thus limitations, “the thickness of the upper electrode is greatest at the center, the thickness of the upper electrode decreases continuously from the center radially out to a thinnest portion of the concave outer region, and the thickness of the upper electrode increases continuously from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge region, wherein the substrate-facing lower surface in the concave outer region is curvilinear, wherein the concave outer region extends to a radius that is less than a radius of 150 mm corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate, and wherein the thickness of the upper electrode in said center region, said concave outer region and said edge region is configured to improve profile tilting on the substrate,” would be met through routine experimentation/optimization depending on process chamber operating conditions.
Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.
Further regarding limitation(s) "for use in an etch process for high aspect ratio etching of a substrate in a substrate processing system" and “during said high aspect ratio etching,” since the combination of Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the structural limitations of claim(s) as applied above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the apparatus of the same to obviously be capable of meeting these functional limitation(s).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Matsuki further teaches wherein the center region (comprising 24a, Fig. 3a) tapers from the center of the upper electrode to the concave outer region (as can be understood from annotated Fig. 3a above in claim 1 rejection, see also paragraph [0052]-[0058]). Mehta additionally teaches wherein the center region (comprising convex bulge 150, Fig. 2, paragraph [0027]) tapers from the center of the upper electrode to the concave outer region (as can be understood from annotated Fig. 2 of Mehta above, see also paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as applied above and Matsuki further teaches the center region (comprising 24a, Fig. 3a) has a slope and additionally teaches that an electric field is generated below the upper electrode during operation of the substrate processing system (paragraph [0011],[0014],[0050]). Additionally, Mehta teaches that the center region (comprising convex bulge 150, Fig. 2, paragraph [0027]) has a slope and that an electric field is generated below the upper electrode during operation of the substrate processing system (paragraph [0025]-[0026]). Thus, the combination meets claim 3 limitation “a slope of the center region is defined to corresponds to an electric field generated below the upper electrode during operation of the substrate processing system.”
Regarding claim 4, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Matsuki further teaches wherein the center region (comprising 24a, Fig. 3a) is convex and has a thickness that decreases in a curvilinear fashion from the center of the upper electrode to the concave outer region (as understood from annotated Fig. 3a of Matsuki above in claim 1 rejection). Additionally, Mehta teaches wherein the center region (comprising 150, Fig. 2) is convex and has a thickness that decreases in a curvilinear fashion from the center of the upper electrode to the concave outer region (as understood from annotated Fig. 2 of Mehta in claim 1 rejection above). Thus, the combination meets claim 4 limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Matsuki further teaches a gas distribution device (i.e. shower head) comprising the upper electrode of claim 1 (Fig. 3a, abstract, claim 14 and 17). Thus, the combination meets claim 6 limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as applied above and Matsuki further teaches wherein the gas distribution device corresponds to a showerhead (Matsuki: Fig. 3a, abstract, claim 14 and 17). Thus, the combination meets claim 7 limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including an upper electrode having a varying thickness including a concave outer region and further teaches that the thickness varies in a curvilinear fashion (as understood from Fig. 3a of Matsuki and Fig. 2 of Mehta) but does not clearly teach/show wherein the thickness of the upper electrode decreases in a curvilinear fashion from the center region into the concave outer region and increases in a curvilinear fashion from the concave outer region to the edge region.
However, Matsuki further teaches various examples of varying the thickness in an upper electrode at different radial points (Fig. 3a-3b) wherein changing the surface shape of the electrode affects the electric field distribution and the most suitable profile is selected according to the specifications of the showerhead, the RF power and other processing (i.e. film forming) conditions (paragraph [0050], [0059]). In other words, Matsuki teaches that the surface shape (and thus the thickness defining the shape) of the electrode is a result-effective variable which affects the processing rate of the substrate.
Additionally, Mehta teaches varying the thickness/shape profile of the upper electrode to effect the electric flux across a plasma facing surface (comprising arcuate surface 144, Fig. 1 and 2) of the upper electrode wherein the shape of the surface (comprising 144, Fig. 1 and 2) can have multi-radius curve surface (paragraph [0024]), and the shape of the surface(144, Fig. 1 and 2) and the shape of the surface is experimental obtained selected to control a plasma density or flux formed between the upper electrode and the substrate support (paragraph [0024]-[0026]) to enable uniform substrate processing (paragraph [0027] last sentence; paragraph [0029] last sentence). Further, Mehta appears to teach the thickness of the upper electrode decreases in a curvilinear fashion from the center region into the concave outer region and increases in a curvilinear fashion from the concave outer region to the edge region as understood from annotated Fig. 2 of Mehta in claim 1 rejection above.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness and shape (i.e. concavity or convexity) of different plasma-facing/substrate facing surface regions (i.e. center, outer and edge regions) along a radial direction of the upper electrode because Matsuki and Mehta each teach that the thickness/shape of the upper electrode is a result-effective variable which ultimately affects plasma processing wherein optimizing or adjusting or controlling the plasma density across a substrate based on experimentally obtained test results enables uniform substrate processing (Mehta: paragraph [0025]-[0027]).
Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Matsuki further teaches wherein the edge region is flat (as understood from annotated Fig. 3a of Matsuki above in claim 1 rejection). Thus, the combination meets claim 9 limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Matsuki teaches wherein the upper electrode is substantially continuously curvilinear from the center of the upper electrode to the edge region (as understood from Fig. 3a-3C and para. [0051]). Additionally, Mehta teaches wherein the upper electrode is substantially continuously curvilinear from the center of the upper electrode to the edge region (as understood from Fig. 2 and 4). Thus, the combination meets claim 10 limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied abovebut does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the center region is greater than a width of the edge region.
However, Matsuki teaches various other upper electrode configurations (Fig. 3a-3c; in particular, Fig. 3c shows an example of a center region having a greater width than an edge region.) wherein changing the surface shape of the electrode affects the electric field distribution and the most suitable profile is selected according to the specifications of the showerhead, the RF power and other processing (i.e. film forming) conditions (paragraph [0050], [0059]). In other words, Matsuki teaches that the surface shape of the electrode is a result-effective variable which affects the processing rate of the substrate.
Additionally, Mehta teaches varying the thickness/shape profile of the upper electrode to affect the electric flux across a plasma facing surface (comprising arcuate surface 144, Fig. 1 and 2) of the upper electrode wherein the shape of the surface (comprising 144, Fig. 1 and 2) can have multi-radius curve surface (paragraph [0024]), and the shape of the surface(144, Fig. 1 and 2) and the shape of the surface is experimental obtained selected to control a plasma density or flux formed between the upper electrode and the substrate support (paragraph [0024]-[0026]) to enable uniform substrate processing (paragraph [0027] last sentence; paragraph [0029] last sentence). Furthermore, Mehta teaches an embodiment shown in Fig. 2 wherein the width of the center region is greater than a width of the edge region (as understood from annotated Fig. 2 in claim 1 rejection above).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the shape (i.e. concavity or convexity) and width/dimensions of different plasma-facing/substrate facing surface regions (i.e. center, outer and edge regions) along a radial direction of the upper electrode including the edge of the upper electrode because Matsuki and Mehta each teach that the thickness/shape of the upper electrode is a result-effective variable which ultimately affects plasma processing wherein optimizing or adjusting or controlling the plasma density across a substrate based on experimentally obtained test results enables uniform substrate processing (Mehta: paragraph [0025]-[0027]).
Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki et al. (US 2003/0089314 A1 hereinafter “Matsuki”) in view of Mehta et al. (US 2008/0276958 A1 hereinafter “Mehta”), Zhou et al. (US 2009/0269512 A1 hereinafter “Zhou”) and Eto et al. (US 2016/0284522 A1 hereinafter “Eto”) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-11 above and further in view of Yamazaki (US 2011/0053357 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou, and Eto as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein vertices and corners of the upper electrode are rounded by a radius of 0.5mm -10mm.
However, Yamazaki teaches an upper electrode (electrode 101, Fig. 2 to 6B, 8A to 9B; paragraph [0024]-[0027], abstract) having vertices and corners (comprising edges and corners of projected 141 portions and depressed portions 143, Fig. 2, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6B, 8B; paragraph [0065]-[0067]). Additionally, Yamazaki teaches rounding the edges and corners of the upper electrode to reduce overconcentration of electric field to reduce local arc discharge and particle generation (paragraph [0065]-[0067]). Yamazaki further teaches a curvature radius of 10 mm for the vertices/edge and corner (paragraph [0073]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to round the vertices and corners of the upper electrode by a radius of 10 mm because Yamazaki teaches that such a configuration would reduce overconcentration of electric field to reduce local arc discharge and particle generation (Yamazaki: paragraph [0065]-[0067]). Further, it would be obvious to optimize the radius of curvature of vertices and corners of the upper electrode to enable optimizing reduction of overconcentration of electric field to reduce local arc discharge and particle generation (Yamazaki: paragraph [0065]-[0067]).
Additionally, the courts have held that the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)(See MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as further discussed hereunder.
Applicant argues (remarks page 6-7) regarding 35 U.S.C. 112a rejection, claim 1 amendment "the concave outer region extends to a radius that is less than a radius of 150 mm corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate" has support in at least para. [0025] and the figures.
Examiner responds that 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn in light of amendments to the Specification and Applicant’s remarks page 6-7.
Applicant argues (remarks middle page 8) regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, the recited geometry of the upper electrode is functionally significant and cannot be dismissed as an obvious variation or matter of routine design choice.
Examiner responds that the geometry of the upper electrode is addressed in detail in the claims rejection above. Examiner does not state in the rejections that the upper electrode is an “obvious variation or matter of routine design choice.” As explained in detail in claims rejection above, Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou and Eto wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Matsuki, Mehta, Zhou, and Eto to optimize the thickness and shape (i.e. concavity or convexity) of different plasma-facing/substrate facing surface regions (i.e. center, outer and edge regions) along a radial direction (i.e. from center to mid-radius to outer-radius) of the upper electrode to arrive at the claimed upper electrode because Matsuki and Mehta teach that the thickness of the upper electrode is a result-effective variable which ultimately affects plasma processing wherein optimizing or adjusting or controlling the plasma density across a substrate based on experimentally obtained test results enables uniform substrate processing (Mehta: paragraph [0025]-[0027]), because Zhou teaches/suggest providing a concave outer region extending to a radius that is less than a radius of 150 mm corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate is a known suitable alternative configuration of an upper electrode that can enable providing a desired plasma intensity profile across the processing volume to reduce edge effects at the edge area of the substrate, and because Eto teaches that the shape/thickness of the upper electrode also has an effect on the ion trajectory/incline which ultimately affects the processing shape of the substrate (i.e. profile tilt) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to adjust/optimize the thickness and shape of the upper electrode to optimize the trajectory of ions across the substrate.
Applicant argues (remarks lower page 8-page 9) regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Matsuki does not teach or suggest the claimed curvilinear concave outer region together with the claimed continuous thickness profile and "a thickness of the upper electrode is greatest at the center and the thickness of the upper electrode decreases continuously from the center radially out to a thinnest portion of the concave outer region, and the thickness of the upper electrode increases continuously from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge region" as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds to applicant's arguments against the references (Matsuki) individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou and Eto wherein Matsuki is cited to teach an upper electrode including a center region, concave outer region, and edge region wherein the center region decreases in thickness from the center of the upper electrode radially outward toward the thinnest portion of the concave outer region and the thickness of the upper electrode increase from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge region. Matsuki does not explicitly teach the increase and decrease in thickness is continuous and thus Matsuki does not teach “a thickness of the upper electrode is greatest at the center and the thickness of the upper electrode decreases continuously from the center radially out to a thinnest portion of the concave outer region, and the thickness of the upper electrode increases continuously from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge region.” However, Mehta does teach an upper electrode wherein the thickness of the upper electrode is greatest at the center, the thickness of the upper electrode decreases continuously from the center radially out to a thinnest portion of the concave outer region, and the thickness of the upper electrode increases continuously from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge of the upper electrode and the end of the concave outer region, wherein the substrate-facing lower surface in the concave outer region is curvilinear. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Matsuki, Mehta, Zhou, and Eto to optimize the thickness and shape (i.e. concavity or convexity) of different plasma-facing/substrate facing surface regions (i.e. center, outer and edge regions) along a radial direction (i.e. from center to mid-radius to outer-radius) of the upper electrode and to further optimize the thickness to improve profile tilting to arrive at the claimed upper electrode because Matsuki and Mehta teach that the thickness of the upper electrode is a result-effective variable which ultimately affects plasma processing wherein optimizing or adjusting or controlling the plasma density across a substrate based on experimentally obtained test results enables uniform substrate processing (Mehta: paragraph [0025]-[0027]), because Zhou teaches/suggest providing a concave outer region extending to a radius that is less than a radius of 150 mm corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate is a known suitable alternative configuration of an upper electrode that can enable providing a desired plasma intensity profile across the processing volume to reduce edge effects at the edge area of the substrate, and because Eto teaches that the shape/thickness of the upper electrode also has an effect on the ion trajectory/incline which ultimately affects the processing shape of the substrate (i.e. profile tilt) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to adjust/optimize the thickness and shape of the upper electrode to optimize the trajectory of ions across the substrate, as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 10) regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, Mehta does not teach an edge region and fails to teach or suggest all the claim language for which it is presented.
Examiner responds that Matsuki already teaches an edge region and concave outer region of an upper electrode as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Mehta teaches an upper electrode wherein the thickness of the upper electrode is greatest at the center, the thickness of the upper electrode decreases continuously from the center radially out to a thinnest portion of the concave outer region, and the thickness of the upper electrode increases continuously from the thinnest portion of the concave outer region radially out to the edge of the upper electrode and the end of the concave outer region, wherein the substrate-facing lower surface in the concave outer region is curvilinear, as discussed in detail in claims rejection above.
Applicant argues (remarks bottom page 10-page 11) regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, KSR does not permit reconstruction of the claimed invention using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap(i.e. hindsight). There must be an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning that would have led a skilled artisan to modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed configuration. The Office Action does not explain how or why the combination of Matsuki and Mehta would result in the presently claimed curvilinear concave outer region and continuous thickness profile without using Applicant's disclosure as a template.
Examiner responds that independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Mehta, Zhou and Eto. Applicant does not provide arguments regarding teachings of Zhou and Eto in the remarks filed 19 June 2026. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Matsuki, Mehta, Zhou, and Eto to optimize the thickness and shape (i.e. concavity or convexity) of different plasma-facing/substrate facing surface regions (i.e. center, outer and edge regions) along a radial direction (i.e. from center to mid-radius to outer-radius) of the upper electrode and to further optimize the thickness to improve profile tilting to arrive at the claimed upper electrode because Matsuki and Mehta teach that the thickness of the upper electrode is a result-effective variable which ultimately affects plasma processing wherein optimizing or adjusting or controlling the plasma density across a substrate based on experimentally obtained test results enables uniform substrate processing (Mehta: paragraph [0025]-[0027]), because Zhou teaches/suggest providing a concave outer region extending to a radius that is less than a radius of 150 mm corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate is a known suitable alternative configuration of an upper electrode that can enable providing a desired plasma intensity profile across the processing volume to reduce edge effects at the edge area of the substrate, and because Eto teaches that the shape/thickness of the upper electrode also has an effect on the ion trajectory/incline which ultimately affects the processing shape of the substrate (i.e. profile tilt) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to adjust/optimize the thickness and shape of the upper electrode to optimize the trajectory of ions across the substrate, as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 11-12) the cited references address fundamentally different technical problems, optimize different performance parameters, and provide no common teaching or rationale that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in the manner proposed by the Office. The cited references neither recognize this problem of specific plasma-density distribution and corresponding reduction in profile tilting during high aspect ratio etch nor provide guidance for arriving at the claimed solution.
In response to applicant's argument that the cited references does not recognize the problem of specific plasma-density distribution and corresponding reduction in profile tilting during high aspect ratio etch no provide guidance for arriving at the claimed solution, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Examiner responds that the examiner has already addressed similar arguments to the above in final rejection of 05 May 2026 response to arguments page 18 para. 52, page 21-22 para. 59 and page 32-34 para. 89. Examiner summarizes that prior art of record Matsuki, Mehta, Zhou, and Eto each address plasma processing and adjusting the concavity/convexity/thickness of the upper electrode to affect the plasma during processing for optimal or desired substrate processing (as explained in detail in claims rejections above). Matsuki does provide motivation to change the surface shape of the electrode affects the electric field distribution and the most suitable profile is selected according to the specifications of the showerhead, the RF power and other processing (i.e. film forming, operating) conditions (paragraph [0050], [0059]). Mehta provides the motivation to vary the profile of the upper electrode (i.e. shape and thickness of the upper electrode) to vary/adjust the plasma density across the surface of the substrate support to enable uniform processing (i.e. etch uniformity) across the substrate (paragraph [0024]-[0027]). Additionally, Zhou teaches an upper electrode comprising a concave outer region (comprising 373, Fig. 3 and 4) wherein the concave outer region extends to a radius (R3, Fig. 4) that is less than a radius of 150 mm corresponding to an outer perimeter of the substrate (comprising substrate 304, Fig. 3 and 4) (para. [0051]-[0052]). Zhou teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide such a configuration to enable providing a desired plasma intensity profile across the processing volume (comprising 318, Fig. 3) to reduce edge effects at the edge area of the substrate (para. [0048], [0050]). Further, Eto teaches that the shape/thickness of the upper electrode has an effect on the electric field lines and ultimately the trajectory/incline of the ions (i.e. profile tilting) and the processing shape of the substrate (para. [0005],[0037], [0046], see Fig. 2 and 4). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that adjusting the shape/thickness of the upper electrode would have an effect on the ion incline/trajectory and thus the processing shape of the substrate. In light of the above, the prior art of record provides a reason/motivation to optimize the upper electrode of Matsuki wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the optimized upper electrode of the combination of Matsuki, Mehta, Zhou, and Eto would have the configuration of the claimed upper electrode and thus would obviously meet the functional limitations “configured to improve profile tilting on the substrate during said high aspect ratio etching.
Applicant argues (remarks page 12) the Office should consider the declarations filed 16 Jan 2026 in their entirety and to accord them appropriate evidentiary weight consistent with MPEP 716.01(a) and 2145 and applicable Federal Circuit precedent.
Examiner responds that the declarations filed 16 Jan 2026 have been considered. See non-final action dated 24 Feb 2026 page 17-28 and additionally final action dated 05 May 2026 page 25-28.
Applicant argues (remarks page 12) that the arguments presented in April 8, 2026 demonstrate that the pending claims would not have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art that the cited references do not provide a proper basis for the proposed combination.
Examiner responds that the Examiner has already addressed the arguments presented in Applicant’s remarks filed April 8, 2026. See the Final rejection dated 05 May 2026 response to arguments page 16-46.
In light of the above, independent claim 1 is rejected and dependent claims 2-11 are also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights