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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, in the reply filed on 16 May 2024 was previously acknowledged.
Previously, claims not reading on the elected invention have been cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 3-11, 13-17 and 32 were previously withdrawn based on their being drawn to a non-elected embodiment.
Rejoinder will be considered if and when appropriate.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a lowest surface of the annular body”, “an upper surface of the annular body”, “a height of the annular body”, “a height of the middle ring” must be shown (and labeled) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Also see below for related rejections under 35 USC 112. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 12, 18-21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 1, line 13 recites the limitation "the first edge ring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “the single edge ring” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 1, line 13 recites the limitation "the first edge ring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “the single edge ring” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 1, line 17 recites the limitation "the inner diameter of the single ring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “the inner diameter of the annular body of the single edge ring” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 1, lines 14 and 15 each now include the recitation “the annular body”. However, the edge ring system includes more than one “annular body”. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “the annular body of the single edge ring” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 31 has been amended to recite “a height of the single edge ring is defined by a height of the annular body of the single edge ring and the height of the middle leg”. It is unclear whether the recitation is meant to refer a combination of the two heights (i.e. annular body and middle leg), a differential height between the two features, more than one height associated with the single edge ring, or some other feature. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that at least any of the aforementioned options is acceptable. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim Interpretation
“Single ring” has been interpreted as at least inclusive of the apparatus illustrated and set forth in Fig. 3, as requested argued by Applicant, wherein based on this interpretation, a “single ring” at least encompasses a ring that which when viewed from at least one cross-sectional side view appears to be a single ring (similar to Applicant’s invention). It is noted, however, that according to this interpretation a “a single ring” is not necessarily commensurate with an edge ring explicitly disclosed or claimed as formed of a monolithic annular body (with or without legs) or an edge ring consisting of a single ring or single annular body. It is also noted that an explicit teaching that two rings may be combined into one, as is well-known in the art, is also considered to render “a single ring” obvious and is used in the rejections below.
Similar to the interpretation of “a single ring”, claimed “heights” (e.g., a height of the annular recess measured from the lowest surface of the annular body” and “a height of the middle leg measured from an upper surface of the annular body” have been interpreted as at least inclusive of what appears to be approximated from the figures (e.g., Fig. 3), where no official heights have been explicitly provided in the original disclosure and the claimed measurements appear to be based on what is illustrated in Fig. 3.
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.
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) 1-2, 12, 18-20 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0328105 to Sun et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20210035783 to Taira et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0234928 to Vishwanath et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 5a-9, Sun et al. disclose an edge ring system for a substrate support (e.g., Fig. 1, 26) substantially as claimed and comprising: a top edge ring (Figs. 5A-9, 95) including “an annular body” (95a) having an inner diameter (e.g. corresponding to substantially vertical surface closest to substrate support of 95B) and an outer diameter (e.g., corresponding to substantially surface furthest from substrate support of 95c); and an edge ring (91 and 93) arranged below the top edge ring and including an “annular body” (e.g., corresponding to (91a, 93a and bottom portions of 91b, 91c , 93b, and 93c) having an inner diameter (corresponding to substantially vertical surface of 91b closest to substrate support) and an outer diameter (corresponding to substantially vertical surface of 93c furthest from substrate support), wherein the edge ring includes a radially inner leg (corresponding to upper portion of 91b), a middle leg (corresponding to upper portion of 91c and 93b), an outer leg (corresponding to upper portion of 93c) each extending upwardly from the annular body, wherein the middle leg is located between the radially inner leg and the radially outer leg of the edge ring, and wherein the inner diameter of the annular body of the edge ring is smaller than the inner diameter of the top edge ring. Also see Fig. 1 for perspective when the edge ring system is placed in a substrate processing apparatus according to an intended use thereof.
Examiner notes that in Sun et al. the ring 95 is movable relative to stationary rings 91 and 93, such that there would be no reason to make 95 as a single ring with 91 and 93 (see, e.g., paras. 57). However, Sun et al. fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest providing edge ring portions 91 and 93 as (as a single edge ring including the annular body, wherein the radially inner leg, the middle leg and outer leg each extend upwardly from the annular body. Furthermore, Fig. 9 of Sun et al. discloses and edge ring system having a top edge ring including an annular body and having an inner diameter and an outer diameter; and a single edge ring (see interpretation above, it appears to be a single piece from the illustrated view and there is no specific evidence stating otherwise) arranged below the top ring including an annular body having an inner diameter and an outer diameter, wherein the single edge ring includes a radially inner leg, a middle leg, and an outer leg each extending from the annular body, and wherein the single edge ring further includes an annular recess on a lower and radially outer surface of the annular body, wherein a height of the annular recess measured from the measured from a lowest surface of the annular body is less than a height of the middle leg measured from an upper surface of the annular body, and wherein the inner diameter of the annular body of the single edge ring is smaller than the inner diameter of the top ring.
Taira et al. disclose an edge ring system (25) and teach that stationary portions thereof (i.e. not including part 25a, which is movable relative to stationary portions thereof) to the of an edge ring assembly comprises an annular body in combination with a radially inner leg and a radially outer leg that may be two parts (see, e.g., Fig. 4D) or a single part (see, e.g., Fig. 4F), wherein selection of the configuration as a single ring or a plurality of rings may be configured in various configurations that provide the edge region of the substrate with improved controllability and desired edge region processing characteristics (see, e.g., paras. 5, 35-76 and Figs. 4A-F). Additionally, it is noted that the courts have ruled “that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Additionally, and in a related manner, the courts have ruled 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), wherein the number of pieces of the edge ring can range from 1 to a plurality.
Taira edge ring 25a is considered comparable to claimed invention movable top edge ring (312) and edge ring 95 in Sun et al.
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 stationary portions of the edge ring of Sun et al.’s edge ring system as a single edge ring (see above interpretation) as a known alternative to providing a multiple part edge ring system in order to design an edge ring assembly that provides the edge region of the substrate with improved controllability and desired edge region processing characteristics as taught by Taira et al.
The teachings Taira set forth above provide a motivation for combination as set forth in MPEP 2141 as the teachings of Taira et al. represent “Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”. Additionally, the conclusion of obviousness is supported by the rationale “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” as also set forth in MPEP 2141.
Finally, Sun et al. fails to disclose the (single) edge ring includes an annular recess on a lower and radially outer surface of the annular body, wherein a height of the annular recess measured from a lowest surface of the annular body is less than a height of the middle leg measured from an upper surface of the annular body, and wherein an inner diameter of the annular recess is greater than the outer diameter of the top edge ring.
Vishwanath et al. disclose an edge ring having an annular recess (see, e.g., Figs. 3A and 4C, at surface 310 and connecting upper horizontal surface) on a lower and radially outer surface of the edge ring for the purpose of making it difficult for plasma to enter gaps in the edge ring assembly (also see, e.g., para. 46).
Regarding claim limitation expressing that providing the edge ring system such that an inner diameter of the annular recess is greater than the outer diameter of the top edge ring, Vishwanath et al. does not explicitly teach this limitation, but Vishwanath et al. does teach edge rings of various sizes and shapes may be provided (see, e.g. and esp., Figs. 6A-6C and para. 59). Additionally, the courts have ruled that 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), wherein a relative diameter of the annular recess as a compared to the outer diameter of the top edge ring is represented by a range of less than, equal to or more than the outer diameter of the top edge ring.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to have provided the edge ring system of Sun et al. further having an annular recess on a lower and radially outer surface of the first edge ring and wherein an inner diameter of the annular recess is greater than the outer diameter of the top edge ring in order to make it difficult for plasma to enter gaps in the edge ring and to have optimized the size and shape thereof as taught by Vishwanath et al.
The conclusion of obviousness based on Vishwanath et al. is supported by at least the rationales “Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” and “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” as set forth in MPEP 2141.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Sun et al., Sun et al. disclose a lower surface of the top edge ring mates with an upper surface of the single edge ring. See, e.g., aforementioned figures of Sun et al.
With respect to claim 12, in modified Sun et al., Sun et al. disclose the top edge ring includes a cavity defined by a lower and inner surface of the top edge ring between a radially inner leg and radially outer leg of the top edge ring and the single edge ring; and the lower and inner surface is located vertically higher than a lower surface of the radially outer leg of the top edge ring. See, e.g., aforementioned figures of Sun et al.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Sun et al., Sun et al. disclose the top edge ring is movable relative to the single edge ring (using 40 and 45). See, e.g., aforementioned figures of Sun et al.
With respect to claim 19, in modified Sun et al., Sun et al. disclose the system further comprises a lift pin (45) received in a vertical bore through the single edge ring to selectively move the top edge ring relative to the single edge ring. See, e.g., aforementioned figures of Sun et al.
With respect to claim 20, in modified Sun et al., Sun et al. disclose the system further comprises a second edge ring (25C), wherein the lift pin w further configured to selectively move the top edge ring relative to the second edge ring. See, e.g., aforementioned figures of Sun et al.
With respect to claim 31, in modified Sun et al., Sun et al. disclose a height of the single edge ring may be defined by a height of the annular body of the singleedge ring and the height of the middle leg. See, e.g., aforementioned figures of Sun et al.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sun et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 12, 18-20 and 31 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0211166 to Yan et al.
Modified Sun et al. disclose the edge ring system substantially as closed and as described above. Additionally, Sun et al. disclose an actuator (40) configured to bias the lift pins disclosed therein (see, e.g., para. 48) and a controller (300) to control overall operations of the processing system in which the edge ring system is located.
However, modified Sun et al. fail to explicitly disclose an actuator configured to bias the lift pin; and a controller configured to cause the actuator to adjust a position of the lift pin in response to at least one of an output of a sensor and a predetermined period that the top edge ring is exposed to plasma.
Yan et al. disclose an edge ring system inclusive of an actuator (Fig. 9, 505 and Fig. 12, 804) configured to bias a lift pin (810); and a controller (560) configured to cause the actuator to adjust a position of the lift pin in response to at least one of an output of a sensor (572 for detecting erosion) and a predetermined period that the tope edge ring is exposed to plasma. The position of a top edge ring can be adjusted in response to sensor output using the actuator and lift pin for the purpose of modifying process conditions at a radially outer edge of a substrate. Also see, e.g., paras. 5, 15, 21, 63, 71.
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 edge ring system in modified Sun et al. inclusive of an actuator configured to bias a lift pin; and a controller configured to cause the actuator to adjust a position of the lift pin in response to at least one of an output of a sensor and a predetermined period that the top edge ring is exposed to plasma such that the position of a top edge ring can adjusted in response to the sensor output using the actuator and lift pin fin order to modify process conditions at a radially outer edge of a substrate as taught by Yan et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 12, 18-20 and 31 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.
Examiner acknowledges and understands the portions of MPEP 2163 that support Applicant’s use of the term “single ring”. However, Examiner notes that these portions alone do not set forth ALL the principles for claiming an invention and Applicant must comply with all principles. For example, portions of the MPEP that refer to, inter alia, original disclosure, new matter, use of transitional phrases, negative limitations are also relevant. Examiner is considering all of the relevant findings set forth in the MPEP not just the ones that support Applicant’s arguments. As detailed above, Applicant is relying on one particular view of a portion of the edge ring only to maintain that it is a single ring. This feature is not mentioned as claimed in the original disclosure. In order to expedite examination, a claim interpretation commensurate with the scope of Applicant’s drawings, arguments and original specification is set forth above. Also see paragraph 58 of the specification.
Applicant argues that Examiner is using an interpretation that serves their needs. In as much as determining BRI according to the guidelines set forth in the MPEP, serves an Examiner in determining the bounds of a claim, Examiner agrees. As detailed above, in light of Fig. 3, which illustrates a cross-sectional portion of the ring at issue that seems to be a single ring, Examiner has used this drawing to interpret the claimed invention. Notably, the Examiner has not rejected the claimed invention based on original disclosure or lack of clarity. Applicant has insisted that claim 3 shows a single ring. In light of Applicant’s arguments Examiner has taken the Fig. 3 as originally set forth to establish what single ring means, but has not expanded upon what is shown there. Again, no specifics regarding a single ring (i.e. monolithic ring are illustrated in other figures or mentioned in the spec. or any other specifics). In fact, para. 58 mentions merging or splitting rings as an obvious variant. Additionally, relied upon prior art reference Sun et al. Fig. 9 also illustrates a single edge ring substantially corresponding to Applicant’s single edge ring (i.e. as illustrated it appears to be so and there is no specific evidence that it is not).
If Applicant is arguing that claimed “single ring” is equivalent to a monolithic body and that Applicant’s Fig. 3 either implicitly or explicitly discloses that ring 320 is monolithic or a single piece from other viewpoints, Examiner continues to disagree. Notably, Fig. 3 and the specification have been for all that they originally and fairly disclose. As set forth above, Examiner has done their best to interpret the claim language in light of the original disclosure and BRI. Examiner also notes that no rejections are provided regarding the use of the term single and the rejection is based on obviousness of providing a single ring based on the prior art teachings (*). Also, please see below for prior art references cited but not relied upon that address how related prior art addresses features related to single and monolithic edge rings or edge rings made of pieces.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Tiara. As detailed above, Tiara does in fact teach providing two stationary rings as a single ring. Tiara is not relied upon in particular for the shape thereof, rather providing two stationary portions of an edge ring system as a single edge ring.
Also, Examiner does not intend to express that Larson or Aller exactly match the circumstances as applied to the prior art above. However, as set forth in the modified rejections, it is clear that the issues of making two pieces separable or not (i.e. single) and/or selection the number of pieces (from a range of one or more) is applicable to the claimed invention.
Applicant has also argued that reliance on Vishwanath can only be from hindsight. Examiner disagrees. Vishwanath provides clear reasoning for providing an annular recess on a lower and radially outer surface of the annular body, as does Fig. 9 of Sun et al. Regarding the explicit dimensions of the annular recess not explicitly taught in the relied upon prior art, see above regarding optimization. Also see below cited but not relied upon references that show that this is not well-known and long-known feature of edge rings. Applicant is invited to provide unexpected results for their claimed specific configuration as part of their edge ring system, if applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USP Pubs. 2009/0071938 and 2014/0110057 disclose rings that might appear to be a single ring depending on a view thereof, but in fact comprise a plurality of parts.
USP Pub. 2016/0099162 explicitly discloses a single ring edge ring system.
USP Pub. 2006/0043067 teaches forming rings monolithically or as multiple parts.
USP Pub. 2004/0241995 discloses rings may be added, combined, separated, sized, etc. to obtain various etching characteristics.
USP Pubs. 2005/0061447 and 2018/0251893 disclose providing an annular recess on a lower and radially outward surface of an annular edge ring for positioning the same with respect to other structures of the apparatus.
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
Prosecution Insights