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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12, and 15 have been amended.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is
eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)
has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to
37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) in view of Yan et al. (US 20190013232).
Regarding Claim 1:
McMillin teaches a ring assembly comprising: an edge ring (conductive ring 400) having an edge ring body, the edge ring body having a ring shape and comprising: a top surface (upper surface 402) and a bottom surface (lower surface 504) [Fig. 2 & 0032]; an edge ring interior diameter (inner edge 408) on the edge ring body; a step formed on the edge ring interior diameter (as evidenced by Fig. 2, inner edge 408 comprises a step), the step configured to support a substrate thereon; and a shadow ring (wafer edge protection ring 300) having a shadow ring body, the shadow ring body having a ring shape and comprising: an upper surface and a lower surface (upper and lower surfaces of wafer edge protection ring 300, respectively) [Fig. 2 & 0031]; a shadow ring inner diameter wherein the shadow ring inner diameter extends over the step on the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 2, wafer edge protection ring 300 has an inner diameter that extends over the step of conductive ring 400); a leg extending from the lower surface along an outer diameter of the shadow ring body (as evidenced by the annotated drawing of Fig. 2 below, the wafer edge protection ring 300 includes a leg extending from the lower surface) [Fig. 2 & 0031-0032].
PNG
media_image1.png
815
1123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McMillin does not specifically disclose pin holes extending through the edge ring body from the top surface to the bottom surface; and sockets formed on the lower surface of the shadow ring, wherein the sockets in the shadow ring body align with the pin holes in the edge ring body. Yan teaches and pin holes (bores 1224) extending through the edge ring body (body of bottom edge coupling ring 1034) from the top surface to the bottom surface; and sockets (groove 1324) formed on the lower surface of the shadow ring (edge coupling ring 1310), wherein the sockets in the shadow ring body align with the pin holes in the edge ring body (groove 1324 are configured to receive the top surface of pillar 1210; there may be one or more pillars 1210 that go through bores 1224) [Fig. 21 & 0083, 0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ring assembly of McMillin to have pins for active ring height control during processing, as in Yan, to provide further control over edge etching profile [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0070, 0084].
Regarding Claim 2:
McMillin teaches wherein the edge ring body further comprises: an edge ring exterior diameter on the edge ring body (outer edge 406); and a shadow ring outer diameter (outer diameter of wafer edge protection ring 300) [Fig. 2 & 0031-0032]; wherein the edge ring exterior diameter is smaller than a shadow ring exterior diameter (as evidenced by Fig. 2, outer edge 406 has a smaller diameter than the diameter of the outer edge of wafer edge protection ring 300) and the edge ring inner diameter is larger than the shadow ring interior diameter (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the diameter of the step of inner edge 408 is larger than the diameter of the inner edge of wafer edge protection ring 300) [Fig. 2 & 0031-0032].
Regarding Claim 3:
McMillin does not specifically disclose wherein the edge ring has three pin holes and the shadow ring has three sockets.
Yan teaches wherein the edge ring has three pin holes and the shadow ring has three sockets (there may be one or more pillars 1210 through bores 1220; groove 1324 accommodates pillars 1210, so it can be reasonably inferred that there would be at least as many grooves 1324 as there are pillars 1210) [Fig. 21 & 0083, 0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ring assembly of McMillin to have pins for active ring height control during processing, as in Yan, to provide further control over edge etching profile [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0070, 0084].
Regarding Claim 4:
McMillin does not specifically disclose wherein the sockets are an indent which does not extend to the upper surface.
Yan teaches wherein the sockets are an indent which does not extend to the upper surface (as evidenced by Fig. 21, groove 1324 is an indent that does not extend to an upper surface of upper edge coupling ring 1310) [Fig. 21 & 0083, 0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ring assembly of McMillin to have pins for active ring height control during processing, as in Yan, to provide further control over edge etching profile [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0070, 0084].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) in view of Yan et al. (US 20190013232), as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Silvetti et al. (US 20050229849).
The limitations of claims 1-4 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified McMillin does not specifically disclose wherein three pin holes are radially spaced apart at 130 degrees or more.
Silvetti teaches wherein the three pin holes are radially spaced apart at 130 degrees or more (the through-holes in heater pedestal 12 for lift pins 42 are not located on the same bolt circle, i.e., they are not displaced radially from the center point of heater pedestal 12 an identical distance) [Fig. 2 & 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ring assembly of Modified McMillin to have asymmetric lift pins, as in Silvetti, to improve transfer robot reliability [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0070, 0084].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) in view of Yan et al. (US 20190013232) and Silvetti et al. (US 20050229849), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 5716534).
The limitations of claim 5 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified McMillin does not specifically disclose wherein the three pin holes are at least 6.9 inches from a center of the edge ring.
While Tsuchiya does not specifically disclose "wherein the three pin holes are at least 6.9 inches from a center of the edge ring," Tsuchiya does disclose that for a ring adjacent to a wafer, outer diameter and size is a result effective variable. Specifically, Tsuchiya discloses that plasma state around a wafer can be adjusted by adjusting the outer diameter of a ring [Fig. 1, 16 & Col. 11 lines 1-5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum sizing for a ring around a substrate in order to achieve a desired plasma profile. 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. As such, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to also adjust the lift pin distance from a center of a ring as well since the lift pins interface with both rings 324 and 320 [Tsuchiya - Fig. 3B & 0050].
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 20180061618) in view of McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) and Yan et al. (US 20190013232).
Regarding Claim 7:
Nichols teaches a plasma processing chamber comprising: a chamber body (chamber body 140) having sidewalls a lid (upper portion of chamber body 140) and a bottom (bottom of chamber body 101) defining an interior volume; and a substrate support assembly (substrate support assembly 118) disposed in the interior volume, the substrate support assembly comprising a chassis (chassis 154); a lift assembly coupled to the chassis; and a ring assembly (edge ring 150) disposed on the support surface, the ring assembly comprising: an edge ring (edge ring 150) having an edge ring body (body of edge ring 150), the edge ring body having a ring shape (edge ring 150 is described as a ring) and comprising: a top surface and a bottom surface (top surface and bottom surface of edge ring 150, respectively); an edge ring interior diameter (interior diameter of edge ring 150) on the edge ring body [Fig. 1A & 0033, 0037, 0040].
Nichols does not specifically disclose a step formed on the edge ring interior diameter, the step configured to support a substrate thereon; and a shadow ring having a shadow ring body, the shadow ring body having a ring shape and comprising: an upper surface and a lower surface;
a shadow ring inner diameter wherein the shadow ring inner diameter extends over the step on the edge ring; a leg extending from the lower surface along an outer diameter of the shadow ring body.
McMillin teaches a step formed on the edge ring interior diameter (as evidenced by Fig. 2, inner edge 408 comprises a step), the step configured to support a substrate thereon; and a shadow ring (wafer edge protection ring 300) having a shadow ring body, the shadow ring body having a ring shape and comprising: an upper surface and a lower surface (upper and lower surfaces of wafer edge protection ring 300, respectively) [Fig. 2 & 0031-0032]; a shadow ring inner diameter wherein the shadow ring inner diameter extends over the step on the edge ring (as evidenced by Fig. 2, wafer edge protection ring 300 has an inner diameter that extends over the step of conductive ring 400); a leg extending from the lower surface along an outer diameter of the shadow ring body (as evidenced by the annotated drawing of Fig. 2 below, the wafer edge protection ring 300 includes a leg extending from the lower surface) [Fig. 2 & 0031-0032].
PNG
media_image1.png
815
1123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Nichols to have a shadow ring and a stepped edge ring, as in McMillin, to improve plasma uniformity [McMillin - 0034-0036].
Modified Nichols does not specifically disclose a controller coupled to the chamber body; an electrostatic chuck having a support surface configured to support a substrate thereon;
a lift assembly coupled to the chassis; pins coupled to the lift assembly and extending through the electrostatic chuck; and pin holes extending through the edge ring body from the top surface to the bottom surface wherein the pins extend into and through the pin holes; and sockets formed on the lower surface, wherein the sockets in the shadow ring body align with the pin holes in the edge ring body.
Yan teaches a controller (controller 560) coupled to the chamber body; an electrostatic chuck (ESC plates 1022, 1024, 1030, and 1032) having a support surface (upper surface of plate 1022) configured to support a substrate thereon; a lift assembly (one or more actuators 1214) coupled to the chassis; pins (one or more pillars 1210) coupled to the lift assembly and extending through the electrostatic chuck (as evidenced by Fig. 21, pillar 1210 extends through plate 1032) [Fig. 21 & 0077, 0083, 0087]; and pin holes (bores 1224) extending through the edge ring body (body of bottom edge coupling ring 1034) from the top surface to the bottom surface wherein the pins extend into and through the pin holes; and sockets (groove 1324) formed on the lower surface, wherein the sockets in the shadow ring body align with the pin holes in the edge ring body (groove 1324 are configured to receive the top surface of pillar 1210; there may be one or more pillars 1210 that go through bores 1224) [Fig. 21 & 0083, 0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Modified Nichols to have pins for active ring height control during processing, as in Yan, to provide further control over edge etching profile [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0070, 0084].
Regarding Claim 8:
Nichols does not specifically disclose wherein the edge ring exterior diameter is smaller than a shadow ring exterior diameter and the edge ring inner diameter is larger than the shadow ring interior diameter.
McMillin teaches wherein the edge ring exterior diameter is smaller than a shadow ring exterior diameter (as evidenced by Fig. 2, outer edge 406 has a smaller diameter than the diameter of the outer edge of wafer edge protection ring 300) and the edge ring inner diameter is larger than the shadow ring interior diameter (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the diameter of the step of inner edge 408 is larger than the diameter of the inner edge of wafer edge protection ring 300) [Fig. 2 & 0031-0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Nichols to have a shadow ring and a stepped edge ring, as in McMillin, to improve plasma uniformity [McMillin - 0034-0036].
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Nichols (Nichols modified by McMillin) does not specifically disclose wherein the edge ring has three pin holes and the shadow ring has three sockets and wherein the sockets are an indent and do not extend to the upper surface.
Yan teaches wherein the edge ring has three pin holes and the shadow ring has three sockets (there may be one or more pillars 1210 through bores 1220; groove 1324 accommodates pillars 1210, so it can be reasonably inferred that there would be at least as many grooves 1324 as there are pillars 1210) [Fig. 21 & 0083, 0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Modified Nichols to have pins for active ring height control during processing, as in Yan, to provide further control over edge etching profile [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0070, 0084].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 20180061618) in view of McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) and Yan et al. (US 20190013232), as applied to claims 7-9 above, and further in view of Silvetti et al. (US 20050229849).
The limitations of claims 7-9 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Nichols does not specifically disclose wherein the three pin holes are radially spaced apart at 130 degrees or more.
Silvetti teaches wherein the three pin holes are radially spaced apart at 130 degrees or more (the through-holes in heater pedestal 12 for lift pins 42 are not located on the same bolt circle, i.e., they are not displaced radially from the center point of heater pedestal 12 an identical distance) [Fig. 2 & 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ring assembly of Modified Nichols to have asymmetric lift pins, as in Silvetti, to improve transfer robot reliability [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0070, 0084].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 20180061618) in view of McMillin et al. (US 20140235063), Yan et al. (US 20190013232), and Silvetti et al. (US 20050229849), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 5716534).
The limitations of claim 10 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Nichols does not specifically disclose wherein the three pin holes are at least 6.9 inches from a center of the edge ring.
While Tsuchiya does not specifically disclose "wherein the three pin holes are at least 6.9 inches from a center of the edge ring," Tsuchiya does disclose that for a ring adjacent to a wafer, outer diameter and size is a result effective variable. Specifically, Tsuchiya discloses that plasma state around a wafer can be adjusted by adjusting the outer diameter of a ring [Fig. 1, 16 & Col. 11 lines 1-5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum sizing for a ring around a substrate in order to achieve a desired plasma profile. 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. As such, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to also adjust the lift pin distance from a center of a ring as well since the lift pins interface with both rings 324 and 320 [Tsuchiya - Fig. 3B & 0050].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 20180061618) in view of McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) and Yan et al. (US 20190013232), as applied to claims 7-9 above, and further in view of Rathnasinghe et al. (US 20200312633).
The limitations of claims 7-9 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Nichols does not specifically disclose wherein the substrate support assembly further comprises: an isolator disposed below the electrostatic chuck wherein the isolator has through holes aligned with the pin holes in the edge ring and the pin extends through the through holes.
Rathnasinghe teaches wherein the substrate support assembly further comprises: an isolator (ESC plates 1030 and 1032) disposed below the electrostatic chuck
wherein the isolator has through holes aligned with the pin holes in the edge ring and the pin extends through the through holes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Modified Nichols to have isolators with a guide, as in Rathnasinghe, to help prevent binding of lift pins [Rathnasinghe - 0051, 0056-0057].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Nichols does not specifically disclose wherein the isolator comprises: an upper isolator; and a lower isolator, wherein the through holes extend through both the upper isolator and the lower isolator.
Rathnasinghe teaches wherein the isolator comprises: an upper isolator (the portions of base plate 308 that surround pin 332); and a lower isolator (the portions of insulator ring 304 that surround pin 332), wherein the through holes extend through both the upper isolator and the lower isolator (pin 332 extends through base plate 308 and insulator ring 304 via channel 328) [Fig. 3B & 0050-0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Modified Nichols to have isolators with a guide, as in Rathnasinghe, to help prevent binding of lift pins [Rathnasinghe - 0051, 0056-0057].
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 20180061618) in view of McMillin et al. (US 20140235063), Yan et al. (US 20190013232), and Rathnasinghe et al. (US 20200312633), as applied to claims 12-13 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20060281310).
The limitations of claims 12-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Nichols teaches a motor (actuator 232) operable to move the pins vertically [Rathnasinghe - Fig. 2B & 0048].
Modified Nichols does not specifically disclose an optical encoder configured to provide feedback to the controller for a precise vertical location of the pins.
Smith teaches optical encoder configured to provide feedback to the controller for a precise vertical location of the pin (an optical sensor can be provided to detect the height of a structure) [Fig. 1 & 0031].
Modified Nichols and Smith are analogous inventions in the field of plasma processing chambers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chamber of Modified Nichols to include an optical encoder, as in Smith, to provide the ability to accurately measure the vertical position of parts in the chamber [Smith - 0031].
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Nichols teaches a plurality of guides (ceramic sleeves 340) disposed in the chassis wherein the pins extend through the guide and the guides prevent wobble in the pin (ceramic sleeves 340 prevent binding of the lift pins 332 during movement) [Rathnasinghe - Fig. 3B & 0051].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 20180061618) in view of McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) and Yan et al. (US 20190013232), as applied to claims 7-9 above, and further in view of Tzu et al. (US 20120003388).
The limitations of claims 7-9 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Nichols does not specifically disclose wherein the shadow ring has three equally spaced tabs extending out and downward from the edge ring exterior diameter.
Tzu teaches wherein the shadow ring has three equally spaced tabs extending out and downward from the edge ring exterior diameter (shadow ring 300 may have a plurality of tabs 302; tabs 302 may be any suitable number) [Fig. 4 & 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shadow ring of Tzu to have outer tabs, as in Tzu, to aid in alignment and centering [Tzu - 0035, 0036, 0039].
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) in view of Yan et al. (US 20190013232).
Regarding Claim 21:
McMillin teaches a ring assembly comprising: an edge ring (conductive ring 400) having an edge ring body, the edge ring body having a ring shape and comprising: a top surface (upper surface 402) and a bottom surface (lower surface 504) [Fig. 2 & 0032]; an edge ring interior diameter (inner edge 408) and an edge ring outer diameter (the outer diameter of conductive ring 400) a step formed on the edge ring interior diameter (the step is shown in the annotated drawings below), the step configured to support a substrate thereon; and a shadow ring (wafer edge protection ring 300) having a shadow ring body, the shadow ring body having a ring shape and comprising: an upper surface and a lower surface; wherein the inner diameter extends over the step on the edge ring (as evidenced by the annotated drawings of Fig. 2 below, the inner diameter of edge protection ring extends over the step of conductive ring 400); an upper surface and a lower surface, the upper surface have an outer top surface coupled to the outer diameter,
an inner top surface coupled to the inner diameter, and an inclined top surface coupling the outer top surface to the inner top surface (the respective surfaces are shown in the annotated drawings below) [Fig. 2 & 0031-0032].
PNG
media_image2.png
566
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McMillin does not specifically disclose wherein the lower surface of the shadow ring further comprises: an inner lower surface coupled to the inner diameter, wherein the socket is formed in the inner lower surface; and an outer lower surface coupled to the outer diameter,
wherein the outer lower surface extends below the inner lower surface.
Yan teaches pin holes (bores 1224) extending through the edge ring body (body of bottom edge coupling ring 1034) from the top surface to the bottom surface; and sockets (groove 1324) formed on the lower surface, and sockets (groove 1324) formed on the lower surface, wherein the sockets in the shadow ring body align with the pin holes in the edge ring body (groove 1324 are configured to receive the top surface of pillar 1210; there may be one or more pillars 1210 that go through bores 1224) [Fig. 21 & 0083, 0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ring assembly of McMillin to have pins for active ring height control during processing, as in Yan, to provide further control over edge etching profile [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0070, 0084].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) in view of Yan et al. (US 20190013232), as applied to claims 21-23 above, and further in view of Rathnasinghe et al. (US 20200312633), with Sarode et al. (US 20190363003) and Luere et al. (US 9947517) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of Claims 21-23 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 24:
Rathnasinghe teaches wherein the bottom surface of the edge ring further comprises: a slot (chamfered edge 860) extending inward from the bottom surface into the edge ring body, wherein the pin holes (guide channels 836) extend through the bottom surface in the slot [Fig. 8A & 0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the edge ring of Modified McMillin to include slots, as in Rathnasinghe, to help facilitate installation [Rathnasinghe - 0082]. Sarode et al. (US 20190363003) and Luere et al. (US 9947517) also disclose that utilizing a slot on a bottom surface of a ring can help with mechanical security and alignment [Sarode - 0077; Luere - Col. 4 lines 64-67, Col. 5 lines 1-3].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 and 21-24 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of references doesn’t specifically disclose “pin holes extending through the edge ring body from the top surface to the bottom surface, and sockets formed on the lower surface, wherein the sockets in the shadow ring body align with the pin holes in the edge ring body,” because Yan et al. (US 20190013232) cannot be used to modify McMillin et al. (US 20140235063) due to McMillin already being moveable with lift pins, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art it would have no reason to include more lift pins going through other components.
In response, the examiner would like to note that Yan discloses multiple equivalent embodiments disclosing lift pins at multiple locations for adjusting an etching profile [Yan – Fig. 16-21 & 0077, 0084]. Furthermore, Yan discloses that there may be any number of additional grooves, pillars, and actuators [Yan – 0052, 0056, 0080]. As such, the reference as a whole discloses that it would be beneficial to include one or more lift pins in a variety of locations (including in locations where the lift pins go through outer structures, as shown in Fig. 21 as relied upon in the current and previous rejections). Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McMillin to include lift pins in addition to the lift pins already present, since Yan as a whole displays multiple embodiments with a plurality of lift pins and itself discloses that a plurality of lift pins in a variety of locations may be utilized to provide further control over edge etching profile [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0052, 0056, 0070, 0077, 0084]. Furthermore, Yan discloses that adjusting one or more portions of a ring can be beneficial to control etch uniformity [Yan - 0054]. It’s also noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing multiple sets of lift pins (as opposed to just one) would provide redundancy which would be beneficial in case of part damage.
It’s further noted that the lift pins of McMillin are directed to raising the wafer edge protection ring 300 during wafer transfer [McMillin - 0038], whereas the lift pins of Yan are directed to active position adjustment during wafer processing [Yan - 0092]. The lift pins of McMillin and Yan are directed to two different operations, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would find a benefit to utilizing the lift pins of Yan in the arrangement disclosed. Furthermore, in Figs. 18-19 of Yan, there is disclosed a lift pin (pillar 1060) for transferring the shadow ring (edge coupling ring 1238) while still including another radially interior lift pin (pillar 1210) for plasma profile control [Yan – 0080-0084]. As such, Yan itself discloses an embodiment comprising a plurality of lift pins (wherein one lift pin is directed for transfer out of a chamber, and another lift pin is for active plasma profile control). Therefore it would not be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to find benefit in utilizing a plasma profile control lift pin in the ring assembly of McMillin in addition to the transfer lift pin already present.
Masuda et al. (US 20160237569) also discloses that utilizing multiple radially arranged lift pins would beneficial to provide additional correction over positional deviation [Masuda - 0032]. Ragunathan et al. (US 20170117166) and Tzu et al. (US 20130247826) also disclose that utilizing a plurality of lifting methods is a well-known technique in the art [Ragunathan – 0052; Tzu – 0030-0038].
Applicant further argues the combination of references does not specifically disclose the aforementioned limitation because Yan discloses a different power supply structure than McMillin. In response, the examiner would like to note that this reasoning would have no bearing on the structures of the rings as claimed because a power supply structure is not directly claimed in the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, the plasma processing apparatus of Yan is a capacitive system comprising lower and upper electrodes [Yan - 0060]; the plasma processing apparatus of McMillin is also a capacitive system comprising lower and upper electrodes [McMillin - 0025]. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees that McMillin and Yan have different power supply structures.
Furthermore, the motivation to utilize the teachings of Yan is to provide further control over edge etching profile; this motivation would be applicable to an uppermost ring regardless of any ring structure below that uppermost ring. It’s also noted that Yan shows the pins (pillars 1210) going through multiple rings, and as such, it would not be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McMillin to include pins going through its respective plurality of ring structures [Yan - 0005, 0019, 0070, 0084]. It's also noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The applicant further argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a leg extending from the lower surface along an outer diameter of the shadow ring body,” to which the examiner respectfully disagrees. In Fig. 5C of the instant application, the “leg” is disclosed as leg 505; the leg seems to merely be a portion of the shadow ring 252 that extends further down [IA – Fig. 5C & 0056]. As shown in the annotated drawings of McMillin below, the shadow ring (wafer edge protection ring 300) does include a portion that extends down below the lower surface at an outer diameter of the shadow ring. As such, the combination of references would disclose the aforementioned limitation. Furthermore, no further structural specificity has been assigned to the “leg” in the claims as they are currently written. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret the leg in such a way that the extending portions of McMillin disclose the limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
815
1123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights