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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0032081 to Chang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0365378 to Kellogg et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0074605 to Nezu et al.
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 6: Chang et al. discloses an edge ring assembly disposed around a processing target substrate substantially as claimed and comprising: a first edge ring (Fig. 3, 380) of an annular shape, which is made of a first material (see, e.g., para. 49) and includes: a first inclined portion (i.e. edge/corner) at a lower portion of an inner peripheral side surface thereof; and a substantially vertical portion extending from the first inclined portion at the inner peripheral side surface; and a second edge ring (390’) of an annular shape, which is made of a second material (see, e.g., para. 58) different from the first material and has a second inclined portion (i.e. edge/corner), the second edge ring having a portion located outward in a radial direction from the second inclined portion, the portion being provided under the first edge ring, wherein an inclined gap (at 386, e.g. less than 0.25mm, see, e.g., paras. 51 and 63) is formed between the first inclined portion of the first edge ring and the second inclined portion of the second edge ring. Additionally, a horizontal distance (i.e., corresponding to the inclined gap) between the first inclined portion and the second inclined portion may be less than 1mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chang et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Chang et al. fails to disclose the first inclined portion having an oblique angle with respect to a bottom surface of the first edge ring.
Kellogg et al. teach providing chamfered/beveled edges on an edge ring assembly for the purpose of reducing the chances of chipping and/or arcing (see, e.g., paras. 5-6, 11, 14, and 42-44).
Thus, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the first inclined portion having an oblique angle with respect to a bottom surface of the first edge ring in order to reduce chances of chipping and/or arcing as taught by Kellogg et al.
Chang et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above including the first material and second material are made of different materials.
However, Chang et al. fail to disclose the second material may be silicon and may have a lower rigidity than the first material which may be silicon carbide.
Nezu et al. teach an edge ring with first edge ring made of a first material and a second edge ring made of a second material, wherein the second material may be silicon and have a lower rigidity than the first material which may be silicon carbide for the purpose of providing the edge ring assembly with the capability to adjust electric discharge and prevent an abnormal discharge around a substrate edge. See, e.g., paras. 45-46, 50-52, 59-62, 67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the first edge ring made of a first material and a second edge ring made of a second material, wherein the second material may be silicon and have a lower rigidity than the first material which may be silicon carbide in order to provide the edge ring assembly with the capability to adjust electric discharge and prevent an abnormal discharge around a substrate edge as taught by Nezu et al.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Chang et al., Chang et al. disclose the second edge ring has a protrusion (385) at an upper portion of an inner peripheral side thereof, and the protrusion is provided with the second inclined portion.
With respect to claim 3, , in modified Chang et al., Chang et al. disclose the protrusion is provided closer, in a radial direction, to the processing target substrate than the inner peripheral side of the first edge ring (when a processing target is associated with the edge ring assembly as part of a substrate processing apparatus). Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
With respect to claim 7, in modified Chang et al., Chang et al. disclose the first edge ring and the second edge ring may be bonded to each other with an adhesive layer therebetween (see, e.g., paras. 17, 24, 51).
Regarding claim 11: Chang et al. disclose a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a processing vessel (Fig. 1, 100); a placing table (Fig. 1, 140 and Fig. 1, 240) provided within the processing vessel to hold a processing target substrate; and an edge ring assembly disposed around the processing target substrate, wherein the edge ring assembly comprises: a first edge ring (Fig. 3, 380) of an annular shape, which is made of a first material (see, e.g., para. 49) and includes a first inclined portion (i.e. edge/corner) at a lower portion of an inner peripheral side surface thereof; and a substantially vertical portion extending from the first inclined portion at the inner peripheral side surface; and a second edge ring (390’) of an annular shape, which is made of a second material (see, e.g., para. 58) different from the first material and has a second inclined portion (i.e. edge/corner), the second edge ring having a portion located outward in a radial direction from the second inclined portion, the portion being provided under the first edge ring, wherein an inclined gap (at 386, e.g. less than 0.25mm, see, e.g., paras. 51 and 63) is formed between the first inclined portion of the first edge ring and the second inclined portion of the second edge ring, the inclined gap being non-zero. Additionally, a horizontal distance (i.e., corresponding to the inclined gap) between the first inclined portion and the second inclined portion may be less than 1mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chang et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Chang et al. fails to disclose the first inclined portion having an oblique angle with respect to a bottom surface of the first edge ring.
Kellogg et al. teach providing chamfered/beveled edges on an edge ring assembly for the purpose of reducing the chances of chipping and/or arcing (see, e.g., paras. 5-6, 11, 14, and 42-44).
Thus, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the first inclined portion having an oblique angle with respect to a bottom surface of the first edge ring in order to reduce chances of chipping and/or arcing as taught by Kellogg et al.
Chang et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above including the first material and second material are made of different materials.
However, Chang et al. fail to disclose the second material may be silicon and may have a lower rigidity than the first material which may be silicon carbide.
Nezu et al. teach an edge ring with first edge ring made of a first material and a second edge ring made of a second material, wherein the second material may be silicon and have a lower rigidity than the first material which may be silicon carbide for the purpose of providing the edge ring assembly with the capability to adjust electric discharge and prevent an abnormal discharge around a substrate edge. See, e.g., paras. 45-46, 50-52, 59-62, 67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the first edge ring made of a first material and a second edge ring made of a second material, wherein the second material may be silicon and have a lower rigidity than the first material which may be silicon carbide in order to provide the edge ring assembly with the capability to adjust electric discharge and prevent an abnormal discharge around a substrate edge as taught by Nezu et al.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Chang et al., Chang et al. disclose wherein, in a vertical direction, (at least portions of) the first inclined portion is disposed lower than a top surface of the second edge ring.
With respect to claim 13, wherein, in modified Chang et al., Chang et al. disclose in a vertical direction, a height of an uppermost portion of the first inclined portion is lower than a height of an uppermost portion of the second inclined portion (i.e. portion oblique to horizontal).
With respect to claim 14, in modified Chang et al., Chang et al. disclose wherein (at least portions of) the protrusion protrudes higher than (portions of) the first inclined portion in a vertical direction.
With respect to claim 16, in modified Chang et al., the second inclined portion is capable of being exposed to plasma as an intended use. Note: the courts have ruled that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
With respect to claims 17 and 19, in modified Chang et al., the inclined gap is oriented such that its upper portion opens diagonally toward a center of the substrate when modified according to Kellogg et al.
With respect to claims 18 and 20, in modified Chang et al., Chang et al. disclose the first edge ring includes another inclined portion (e.g., edge/corer) with respect to the bottom surface of the first edge ring and extends from the substantially vertical portion.
However, Chang et al. fails to disclose the another inclined portion having an oblique angle with respect to a bottom surface of the first edge ring.
Kellogg et al. teach providing chamfered/beveled edges on an edge ring assembly for the purpose of reducing the chances of chipping and/or arcing (see, e.g., paras. 5-6, 11, 14, and 42-44).
Thus, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the another inclined portion having an oblique angle with respect to a bottom surface of the first edge ring in order to reduce chances of chipping and/or arcing as taught by Kellogg et al.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Chang et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 14 and 16-20 in view U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0000547 to Yamaguchi.
Modified Chang et al. disclose the edge ring substantially as claimed and as described above, including that the first edge ring and second edge ring may be bonded together using a thermally conductive elastomer bond.
However, with respect to claims 8-9, modified Chang et al. fail to disclose the first edge ring and the second edge ring are bonded to each other with an adhesive layer therebetween, wherein the adhesive layer contains a silicon-based adhesive and a conductive filler.
Yamaguchi teaches providing a multi-part ring wherein adjacent edge rings are wherein adjacent edge rings are bonded to each other with an adhesive layer therebetween, wherein the adhesive layer contains a silicon-based adhesive and a conductive filler for the purpose of providing the multi-part ring free from contamination with an impurity, high cooling efficiency and free of problems resulting from thermal strains (see, e.g., para. 9, 21 and 45).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was filed to have provided the first edge ring and the second edge ring of modified Chang et al. bonded to each other with an adhesive layer therebetween, wherein the adhesive layer contains a silicon-based adhesive and a conductive filler in order to provide the edge ring free from contamination with an impurity, high cooling efficiency and free of problems resulting from thermal strains as taught by Yamaguchi.
With respect to claim 10, modified Chang et al. fail to explicitly disclose the adhesive layer is provided in a recess formed in a top surface of the second edge ring. However, this is seen as a functional equivalent arrangement for bonding the first and second edge ring, wherein the courts have ruled that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See above modified rejections that take into account Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 6,296,712; U.S. Pat. 2017/0034242; and U.S. Pat. 2019/0362948 disclose edge rings with inclined portions with respect to horizontal and/or vertical and/or a gap between the inclined portions.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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 on (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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716