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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 June 2025 has been entered.
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.
Amended claims 3-11 and 13-17 are now drawn to a different invention that previously set forth and are withdrawn based on the originally presented claims/inventions, which were subject to a finding of lack of unity. In the previous rejection, elected Group I was found to be obvious over prior art. Therefore, Group I (of which original claim 1 is representative) has no special technical feature. It follows that the group can have no special technical feature in common with newly added invention (group) represented by claims 3-11 and 13-17. Further still, new/amended claim 1 has no special technical feature as addressed by the prior art rejection set forth below.
Overall, claims 3-11, 13-17 and 32 are withdrawn.
Rejoinder will be considered if and when appropriate.
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 refers to the first edge ring having including an annular body and a single ring that includes a radially inner leg, a middle leg, an outer leg and an annular recess without describing the association between the annular body and the single ring and rest of its features. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the annular body is a structural feature of the single ring and has examined accordingly.
Claim 1 also refers to heights of various components of the edge ring system. However, it is not clear whether these heights are meant to read on an overall and individual height of a component or a height relative to a particular reference feature (e.g., a lowest surface of the edge ring system). In order to expedite examination, at least, either of the aforementioned interpretations will be considered acceptable.
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 that however that “a single ring” is not necessarily commensurate with an edge ring explicitly disclosed or claimed as formed of a monolithic annular body 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” have been interpreted as at least inclusive of what be approximated from the figures, where no official heights have been explicitly provided in the original disclosure.
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. Vishwanath et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 5a-9, Sun et al. disclose an edge ring system for a substrate support substantially as claimed and comprising: a top edge ring (Figs. 5A-9, 95) including “an annular body” having an inner diameter and an outer diameter; and a first edge ring (91 and 93) arranged below the top edge ring and including an “annular body” having an inner diameter and an outer diameter; wherein at least a portion of the first edge ring includes a middle leg (formed by 91c and 93b) that extends upwardly from the annular body (91a and 93a), the middle leg is located between a radially inner leg (91b) and an outer leg (93c) of the first edge ring; and wherein the inner diameter of the first 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..
Sun et al. fails to explicitly suggest providing the first edge ring as a single edge ring/annular body or the top edge ring as an annular body.
Taira et al. disclose an edge ring system (25) and teach that an inner edge ring (25b) and other edge rings, are annular members, and may be provided as a single ring or a plurality of rings 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).
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 as a single edge ring/annular body or the top edge ring as an annular body based on optimization and design choice and also in order to provide the edge region of the substrate with improved controllability and desired edge region processing characteristics as taught by Taira et al.
Finally, Sun et al. fails to disclose 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.
Vishwanath et al. disclose an edge ring having an annular recess (see, e.g., Fig. 3A, at surface 310 and connecting upper horizontal surface) on a lower and radially outer surface of a first 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 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. teach first edge rings of various sizes and shapes may be provided (see, e.g. and esp., Figs. 6A-6C and para. 59) and 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).
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.
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 first 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 first 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 first 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 first edge ring to selectively move the top edge ring relative to the first 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 first edge ring may be defined by a height of the annular body of the first edge 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, Schmid 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 at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the edge ring system in 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-, 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.
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.
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